View Poll Results: Should happen in this case?

Voters
98. You may not vote on this poll
  • Mr. Khang should be charged for firing at police officers

    1 1.02%
  • The police should be charged with armed breaking and entering

    75 76.53%
  • No one should be charged

    22 22.45%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: MN - Wrong house raided; shots exchanged

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998

    Post imported post

    I saw this today in the Washington Times.

    MINNESOTA

    Wrong house raided; shots exchanged

    MINNEAPOLIS — Two officers who raided the wrong house during an investigation were shot at and returned fire, but no one was injured, a police spokesman said.

    Family members said the shooter, the father of six, was frightened by the intruders early Sunday and fired through a closed bedroom door after first firing a warning shot.

    The SWAT team's erroneous search was part of an ongoing investigation, the police department said. Police said they had received bad information before executing the search warrant.

    Family members living in the house said they were upstairs when they heard someone bust through their back door. They said Vang Khang grabbed his hunting gun to protect himself, his wife and his six children.

    "He thought they were gang members, and he was scared," said Mr. Khang's brother, Dao Khang. Dao Khang said his brother fired a warning shot, and then two more shots through his closed bedroom door.

    The bullets hit two officers, but they weren't injured. Police said bulletproof vests and helmets saved the officers from harm.

    Several officers returned fire, but no one in the house was injured, the department said. The man suspected of firing the shots was arrested, police said. He was later released, and a decision on whether to charge him was pending.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998

    Post imported post

    Sorry, you can feel free to move or delete this thread. I will take no offense.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Maybe just merge this thread w/ the other one so we can keep the poll.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Thats why I left it up.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    The informant/person who gave LE the wrong info should be charged with armed B/E and attempted murder.

    It would be interesting to see if the bad info was just a TYPO:?.



    edit;
    typo

    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I wonder if 'it was just a typo' would work at CHERNOBYL?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Per the stories in http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/6773.html, the police claim that they announced who they were. Whether they actually did or not, I doubt we'll ever know for sure. On the other hand, if the police did indeed indentify themselves, there's doubt that the gentleman in question would have been able to understand it. I wonder if police had executed the warrant in a more conventional manner, whether or not the gentleman would have resisted in a similar fashion. Regardless, given the facts of the situation we know, I can't see criminal charges either way. I do see a civil suit against the police, at least for compensation for the property damage.

    Though it should be noted that had this incident occurred in Pennsylvania under King Rendell's ideal "laws", this gentleman should be slapped with a few 20-year minimum sentences. See http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/5927.html

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    just a hunch, but it was probably a drug raid. Another almost deadly failure of the war on drugs.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hamburg, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Maybe the police did "announce themselves" and the occupants/homeowners didn’t understand English, or maybe they didn’t announce themselves. Either way, in my opinion, the homeowner should be charged with reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. How many of us would blindly fire our weapons through a door without being fired upon first??? But wait, maybe he didn’t fire through the door until they fired rounds at him. Remember the article does say “he fired a warning shot”. Now that would mean the police were returning fire at the “suspect” who did fire first. Yes the police were in the wrong house and they had absolutely no business being there. But, a mistake is a mistake and we ALL make mistakes. Should they be disciplined? Absolutely!!! I would not want a police officer “busting” down my door and unlawfully entering MY house. And you are damn skippy, I would have a wonderful sight for them as they unjustly entered my home, IF unannounced. Announced or not, I would definitely pursue civil action against the lead officers. But hey, a WARNING SHOT? Why fire a warning shot? I would rather sit at the top of the steps (in the dark) peeping around a corner, and as the “intruders” enter “the fatal funnel” I would order him/them to drop any visible weapons and to hit the deck!!! THAT is when he would have realized they were the police!!! And there would have been NO shot’s fired!!! Back to the “warning shot” where did that round land, in the officer’s vest? OR, in his neighbor’s pillow just beside her head??? Never fire a warning shot, you lose your tactical advantage, the bad guy KNOWS where you’re at now. If I’m going to fire, it’s because I HAVE to. I am all for protecting my loved ones, my property and myself, BUT we need to promote responsible firearm use. NOT firing an indiscriminant warning shot, NOT blindly firing through a door without being fired upon or being IN imminent jeopardy… So, I would “vote” a big fat number 4, both parties should be disciplined. The lead officers should be demoted, and pulled from SWAT, and throw them to desk duty or jailhouse duty for a long, long time!!! And the homeowner, he gets community service at the police firing range!!! Just my two cents!!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    PROUD American wrote:
    Maybe the police did "announce themselves" and the occupants/homeowners didn’t understand English, or maybe they didn’t announce themselves. Either way, in my opinion, the homeowner should be charged with reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. How many of us would blindly fire our weapons through a door without being fired upon first??? But wait, maybe he didn’t fire through the door until they fired rounds at him. Remember the article does say “he fired a warning shot”. Now that would mean the police were returning fire at the “suspect” who did fire first. Yes the police were in the wrong house and they had absolutely no business being there. But, a mistake is a mistake and we ALL make mistakes. Should they be disciplined? Absolutely!!! I would not want a police officer “busting” down my door and unlawfully entering MY house. And you are damn skippy, I would have a wonderful sight for them as they unjustly entered my home, IF unannounced. Announced or not, I would definitely pursue civil action against the lead officers. But hey, a WARNING SHOT? Why fire a warning shot? I would rather sit at the top of the steps (in the dark) peeping around a corner, and as the “intruders” enter “the fatal funnel” I would order him/them to drop any visible weapons and to hit the deck!!! THAT is when he would have realized they were the police!!! And there would have been NO shot’s fired!!! Back to the “warning shot” where did that round land, in the officer’s vest? OR, in his neighbor’s pillow just beside her head??? Never fire a warning shot, you lose your tactical advantage, the bad guy KNOWS where you’re at now. If I’m going to fire, it’s because I HAVE to. I am all for protecting my loved ones, my property and myself, BUT we need to promote responsible firearm use. NOT firing an indiscriminant warning shot, NOT blindly firing through a door without being fired upon or being IN imminent jeopardy… So, I would “vote” a big fat number 4, both parties should be disciplined. The lead officers should be demoted, and pulled from SWAT, and throw them to desk duty or jailhouse duty for a long, long time!!! And the homeowner, he gets community service at the police firing range!!! Just my two cents!!!
    Aren't all "warning shots" just shots that we miss?



    But that's a good point about the warning shots' being negligent.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hamburg, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Hmmm, excellent point...

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    Lets see, when was the last time I attended citizen training school to learn how to handle police breaking into my house in the middle of the night? uh never. The police may have yelled "police" before smashing in the door but it was the smashing that woke the man up. Their intent was surprise and they achieved it. This man had a right to protect his home from invaders. It was the cops who were in the wrong place and therefore responsible for any outcome. It doesn't matter why they were wrong. Wrong is wrong. Once they broke into the wrong house they were the criminals whether intentional or not. You ever try to explain to a cop why you accidentally broke the law? Did you tell them accidents happen? The police have a duty to make sure their information is absolutely correct if they are going to kick down doors in the middle of the night. The police seem to be fond of the term criminal neglect and that term comes to mind here. What if they had killed one of those kids. Ourpolice leadershipneeds to get off of this Rambo kick and start using their heads. So whatever action this man took to protect his family he was within his rights.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    irfner wrote:
    Lets see, when was the last time I attended citizen training school to learn how to handle police breaking into my house in the middle of the night? uh never. The police may have yelled "police" before smashing in the door but it was the smashing that woke the man up. Their intent was surprise and they achieved it. This man had a right to protect his home from invaders. It was the cops who were in the wrong place and therefore responsible for any outcome. It doesn't matter why they were wrong. Wrong is wrong. Once they broke into the wrong house they were the criminals whether intentional or not. You ever try to explain to a cop why you accidentally broke the law? Did you tell them accidents happen? The police have a duty to make sure their information is absolutely correct if they are going to kick down doors in the middle of the night. The police seem to be fond of the term criminal neglect and that term comes to mind here. What if they had killed one of those kids. Ourpolice leadershipneeds to get off of this Rambo kick and start using their heads. So whatever action this man took to protect his family he was within his rights.
    But we're in a WAR! A war on DRUGS, TERRORISM, and other assorted nouns!

    At least that's what they say.

    Good post. It's a shame we no longer have a right to be left alone in this country...

  15. #15
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    To address several posts with 1 reply. I bet LEO did announce themselves, however as pointed out, it was probably done before they entered, while the occupants were most likely asleep. Who knows if they continued to announce that they were the police. (Probably did not want to give up their tactical advantage.) Also, doubt that the residents would have understood the LEOs if they were awake. I agree that warning shots are not a bright idea, but I would also argue that sitting at the top of the stairs issuing commands to those who enter gives away your tactical advantage just as much as a warning shot. Lastly, does anyone know if MINNESOTA
    has Castle Doctrine as a law in the state? I do not advocate shooting through a closed door but then I was not there.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    The problem is, there are home invaders nowadays that will yell "POLICE!" while kicking in your door.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  17. #17
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    The problem is, there are home invaders nowadays that will yell "POLICE!" while kicking in your door.


    EXACTLY.




    The argument that I ALWAYS hear about the hershey bar handgun (the guy who got shot because he had a hershey bar the officer 'said' he thought was a gun) and similar circumstances is... 'the officer has to make a split second decision, he only has the information available to him that HE sees and HE knows.


    Well, it works both ways, someone is kicking in my front door, I have no reason for the police to be at my door kicking it in, so it MUST be a home invasion robbery with the robbers yelling 'police' so noone fights... YES, I WOULD shoot through a door, as most doors are hollow and will slow the bullet down very little, and at center mass, even standing sideways, a guy would be taking up about half the width of the door, so I have a really good chance at hitting something.
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    I am somewhat surprised at the poll results. Obviously the information we have doesn't indicate that the homeowner should be charged. But charge the police?? I seriously doubt they deliberately invaded the wrong house. People make mistakes.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    People make mistakes.

    And the just and honest man accepts the consequences of the mistakes he makes.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kent county, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    322

    Post imported post

    Me wrote:
    I am somewhat surprised at the poll results. Obviously the information we have doesn't indicate that the homeowner should be charged. But charge the police?? I seriously doubt they deliberately invaded the wrong house. People make mistakes.
    "The SWAT team's erroneous search was part of an ongoing investigation, the police department said. Police said they had received bad information before executing the search warrant."

    As part of an "ongoing investigation" this was not spur of the moment, therefore there should of been plenty of time to verify the information. IMO

    as dangerous and intrusive as a no knock, SWAT team approach is, there should always be verification. reliable information in these situations are a must. thank god no one was killed.

    I voted to charge the officers only because the choices were too limited.

    1. charge the person who provided the bad information.

    2. charge the officer(s) that organized the affair without verifying the information.

    3. look into the actual circumstances of the "no knock warrant" and how it was presented to the judge to determine if he needs to be removed from his position. he can only act on the information giving to him, as its presented to him.

    the actual officers involved in the entry (if not included in the above sections) should not be charged as they were acting on a legal search warrant issued by a judge in the manner approved by law. (I don't agre with it but it is in accordance with the present laws)

    these officers should be commended for resolving the incident without killinganyone in the house. It took great restraint on their part not to respond to shots being fired at them (and hitting them) by killing the homeowner.

    just MO, YMMV

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,739

    Post imported post

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317398,00.html


    The cops are 110% at fault. They can't pass the buck. Their job is to get it right, period. It's always the other guys fault. We didn't know the con informant gave us bad info. Cops lie all the time. The magistrate judge wants to believe the cops, because they would never lie. Bull, happens all the time.

    "I don't think it was a mistake on our part, you know, we did everything correctly. We did everything in good faith, we followed the search warrant, we did everything correctly. It turns out some of the information that was given on the front end from the informant, just wasn't right," said Garcia.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    ijusam wrote:
    these officers should be commended for resolving the incident without killinganyone in the house. It took great restraint on their part not to respond to shots being fired at them (and hitting them) by killing the homeowner.

    just MO, YMMV
    They did try to kill the homeowner, they just missed.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    269

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    ijusam wrote:
    these officers should be commended for resolving the incident without killinganyone in the house. It took great restraint on their part not to respond to shots being fired at them (and hitting them) by killing the homeowner.

    just MO, YMMV
    They did try to kill the homeowner, they just missed.
    Got to it before I did.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    nathan wrote:
    ijusam wrote:
    these officers should be commended for resolving the incident without killinganyone in the house. It took great restraint on their part not to respond to shots being fired at them (and hitting them) by killing the homeowner.

    just MO, YMMV
    They did try to kill the homeowner, they just missed.
    From the news article:
    "But police said that they learned later that bad information led them to that house."

    The policewere at the right house and were unaware the information they had been given was bad.

    They were shot at so they shot back.

    So what we have here is two sides each trying to defend themselves. They did not want to kill the home owner... they wanted to stop the shooting and escape with their lives.

    Keeping in mind that it was the homeowner that started the shooting at officers who were making entrylegally. The only thing is that the information was bad and had they know.. this would not have happened.

    They really should have done some type of verification first.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    Keeping in mind that it was the homeowner that started the shooting at officers
    these officers should be commended for resolving the incident without killinganyone in the house.
    In his mind they were invaders.
    Those officers should be grateful he didn't have a more powerful weapon, wasn't a more determined adversary and a better shot.

    Those officer and the City's Officials should be grateful those officer didn't kill anyone in that home.
    The city would most likely be bankrupt from the pending civil suit.

    I'm glad no one was seriously injured or killed.

    The person providing the bad intel should be arrested for numerous crimes to include attempted murder.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •