Police Home Assault Informer Revealed, and Chesapeake PD apparently made deal with bad informer

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

The fact remains that Ryan Frederick shot and killed a man who was outside his door attempting to break it down and who had already made a hole as big as his head in it, all within days of when Frederick's home had already been broken into causing him to fear for his life if they were able to breech the door completely.

There, fixed it for you. :?

Oh Please!!! The person was still outside the door and not in the home.

Ryanshot blindly at someone outside his home on the front steps. He failed to observed any real threat of attack or even a weapon being displayed. He decided to act and he shot someone lawfully permitted to be there.

Just like somewould say a cop was wrong for shooting a guy reaching for his wallet at gun point.

That's a complete red herring because no one here has made that claim, as far as I've ever seen. Anyone who's actually thought seriously about what it would be like to be in a violent confrontation with a potentially armed opponent fully understands that you don't wait until a gun is being aimed at you before you shoot back -- because you'll be shooting too late. I think we all agree with that whether citizen or LEO.

As for Ryan's case -- doesn't someone attempting to break down your door count as a "real threat of attack"? And the heavy tool being used to batter the door down is clearly a deadly weapon, and there may well have been others, like firearms. The only fault I can find with Ryan's decision is that he chose to shoot without knowing what might be beyond his target, and that's not so uncommon in self-defense situations.

Det. Shivers was lawfully permitted to be there, certainly, but Ryan had NO WAY TO KNOW THAT. I feel for Shivers' family, but IMO he largely brought his death upon himself.

 

[DKSuddeth]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Funny how rightscreatedby the government that benefit you aregood but when the police are given certain rights or authority to do thingsby the same government it is not.

excuse me, the government did not 'create' my rights. the police are not 'given' any rights. lets make sure we have the correct information here.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

So you are saying it is OK to take the word of an informant that someone is making a bomb and go kick in the door?

Maybe. All other reasonable investigative measures should be taken first, but if no other information is available, and the informant is considered reliable, and there is no alternative to kicking in the door, then yes. The risk to public safety justifies taking a bit more risk to officer safety.

In the case of growing pot, however, there is no imminent risk to anyone's life -- not until the cops start kicking in doors.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

That's a complete red herring because no one here has made that claim, as far as I've ever seen. Anyone who's actually thought seriously about what it would be like to be in a violent confrontation with a potentially armed opponent fully understands that you don't wait until a gun is being aimed at you before you shoot back -- because you'll be shooting too late. I think we all agree with that whether citizen or LEO.

As for Ryan's case -- doesn't someone attempting to break down your door count as a "real threat of attack"? And the heavy tool being used to batter the door down is clearly a deadly weapon, and there may well have been others, like firearms. The only fault I can find with Ryan's decision is that he chose to shoot without knowing what might be beyond his target, and that's not so uncommon in self-defense situations.

Det. Shivers was lawfully permitted to be there, certainly, but Ryan had NO WAY TO KNOW THAT. I feel for Shivers' family, but IMO he largely brought his death upon himself.

I have been here a few months longer than you. I have seen a great many things said. No red herring.

But we agree.. Ryan failed to warn he had a gun and would fire.

Someone trying to break down your door is NOT an immediate threat. Once they are inside and are actively approaching YOU... then they are a threat.

The police did not even see Ryan.

Ryan had the advantage the entire time and simply shot to keep them outside.

Ryanhad a right to fear someone kicking in his door but that does not give him the right to kill. If I fear a gang member who walks up and gets in my face do I have the right to shoot him too?

It comes down to justification to use lethal force and that requires a threat to target you and show they mean you harm. Ryan had no idea if he was going to be harmed or not.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

But on the other hand doors don't get broken down violently in the middle of the night just because someone has the munchies.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

So you are saying it is OK to take the word of an informant that someone is making a bomb and go kick in the door?

Maybe. All other reasonable investigative measures should be taken first, but if no other information is available, and the informant is considered reliable, and there is no alternative to kicking in the door, then yes. The risk to public safety justifies taking a bit more risk to officer safety.

In the case of growing pot, however, there is no imminent risk to anyone's life -- not until the cops start kicking in doors.

No back peddling here please!!!

I am talking about taking an informant's word alone. A guy you trust.

No investigation and even if you did one there would be nothing to find.

So do you go request a warrant based on yourtrusted source??

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Funny how rightscreatedby the government that benefit you aregood but when the police are given certain rights or authority to do thingsby the same government it is not.

excuse me, the government did not 'create' my rights. the police are not 'given' any rights. lets make sure we have the correct information here.

Is that all you have to say?

You understand my meaning so what say you about that?

 

[67GT390FB]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

The fact remains that Ryan Frederick shot and killed a man who was outside his door attempting to break it down and who had already made a hole as big as his head in it, all within days of when Frederick's home had already been broken into causing him to fear for his life if they were able to breech the door completely.

There, fixed it for you. :?

Oh Please!!! The person was still outside the door and not in the home.we've heard differing accounts of this from the posted news articles. interesting that you always point out this one and not the other. do you have info that supports your belief in one account over the other?

Ryanshot blindly at someone outside his home on the front steps. He failed to observed any real threat of attack or even a weapon being displayed. He decided to act and he shot someone lawfully permitted to be there.

LEOI understand your problem and your perspective being a cop but have you even bothered to stand back and think what if i wasn't a cop and this was me and my family.

From what we have been told from the above article and some of the previous. the homeowner was home asleep(yes it was around 8:00 pm but it was full dark at 8:00 when this occurred and plenty of people have crashed early before) He had recently received a threat from the guy who turns out to be the informant, and somebody starts kicking in your front door one night.

what do we expect as reasonable people for a non police non military non trained citizen to do in this situation. is it reasonable to not fear for your life when some unknown individual or group is bashing in your door after you have received a threat ? even w/o the prior threat is it reasonable to believe that your life is in danger when someone is kicking in your door at night?

or do you believe that door breaching is the newest sales technique employed by overzealous girlscouts trying to set a new cookie sales record.:lol:

Just like somewould say a cop was wrong for shooting a guy reaching for his wallet at gun point.

Funny how that works out, huh? The police should wait for a gun to be pointed in their face but a citizen can shoot of they are "scared."
The difference is obvious cops are supposed to be highly trained individuals citizens are citizens only. your smiley indicates a joke so maybe you are being sarcastic but thats the reason. cops are only human but their level of training is supposed to seperate them from the untrained citizen when it comes to fear for your life. yes its a double standard but you seem to like those when it comes to NFA stuff or are allyou go fast and quietgoodies fully transferable?:lol::lol::lol:either way is fine by me i want to look into a mfg lic and leo demo letter so that i can afford to play too.
Go figure!! :lol:

 

[BobCav]

imported post

This filthy stinking rat Steven orchestrated the entire thing. Everyone else is a victim here. Shivers AND Ryan both.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

BobCav wrote:

But on the other hand doors don't get broken down violently in the middle of the night just because someone has the munchies.

"The officer was shot around 8:40 p.m."

Um, Bob... 8 PM is not the middle of the night. It is still early evening.

Generally you can still knock and visit peopleup till 9 PM.

Saying it was middle of the morning is a straw man argument. :?

 

[67GT390FB]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

So you are saying it is OK to take the word of an informant that someone is making a bomb and go kick in the door?

Maybe. All other reasonable investigative measures should be taken first, but if no other information is available, and the informant is considered reliable, and there is no alternative to kicking in the door, then yes. The risk to public safety justifies taking a bit more risk to officer safety.

In the case of growing pot, however, there is no imminent risk to anyone's life -- not until the cops start kicking in doors.

No back peddling here please!!!

I am talking about taking an informant's word alone. A guy you trust.

No investigation and even if you did one there would be nothing to find.

So do you go request a warrant based on yourtrusted source??

i don't think anyone is back pedaling just qualifying. a no knock warrant on the word of a single informant might be warranted in the case of an Al-Quaeda cell or a child porn ring where a kid is being held, or even in a drug case involving a meth lab ina residential neighborhood(chems can easily go boom).

 

[67GT390FB]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

BobCav wrote:

But on the other hand doors don't get broken down violently in the middle of the night just because someone has the munchies.

"The officer was shot around 8:40 p.m."

Um, Bob... 8 PM is not the middle of the night. It is still eearly evening.

Generally you can still knock and visit peopleup till 9 PM.

Saying it was middle of the morning is a straw man argument. :?

when this incident occurred in late Jan. the sun had been down for over three hours, thats pitch dark, middle of the night no, fully dark yes. i hunt so i have my sunrise sunset table handy. are you telling me you've never crashed at 8 or 9 before.

 

[doctork]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

BobCav wrote:

But on the other hand doors don't get broken down violently in the middle of the night just because someone has the munchies.

"The officer was shot around 8:40 p.m."

Um, Bob... 8 PM is not the middle of the night. It is still early evening.

Generally you can still knock and visit peopleup till 9 PM.

Saying it was middle of the morning is a straw man argument. :?

I rechon it could depend on what hours you work. I used to work 11pm to 7am. I called 8pm the middle of the night. One man/woman's night is anothers day or evening.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

67GT390FB wrote:

i don't think anyone is back pedaling just qualifying. a no knock warrant on the word of a single informant might be warranted in the case of an Al-Quaeda cell or a child porn ring where a kid is being held, or even in a drug case involving a meth lab ina residential neighborhood(chems can easily go boom).

But who are you to decide what qualifies? :lol:

I know of members herethat think a great many things the police do should not be allowed. But it is allowed and is legal.

So what you think qualifies really does not matter. The officer only needs to apply for the search warrant and if he has enough to justify obtaining it then it will be issued.

Why do you need to search for more proof when you may have enough to get it.

Now it would be better to to do a full investigation but what if the guy never does a thing to prove what the informant is telling you he has seen first hand?

You have wasted time and evidence could have disappeared.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

67GT390FB wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

BobCav wrote:

But on the other hand doors don't get broken down violently in the middle of the night just because someone has the munchies.

"The officer was shot around 8:40 p.m."

Um, Bob... 8 PM is not the middle of the night. It is still early evening.

Generally you can still knock and visit peopleup till 9 PM.

Saying it was middle of the morning is a straw man argument. :?

when this incident occurred in late Jan. the sun had been down for over three hours, thats pitch dark, middle of the night no, fully dark yes. i hunt so i have my sunrise sunset table handy. are you telling me you've never crashed at 8 or 9 before.

So now you are trying to justify 8 PM as middle of the night?

Middle of the night is going to be sometime between Late Evening and Early Morning.

But it really does not matter... the search warrant was being served during the Early Evening.

 

[Jim675]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Oh Please!!! The person was still outside the door and not in the home.

Ryanshot blindly at someone outside his home on the front steps. He failed to observed any real threat of attack or even a weapon being displayed. He decided to act and he shot someone lawfully permitted to be there.

Just like somewould say a cop was wrong for shooting a guy reaching for his wallet at gun point.

Funny how that works out, huh? The police should wait for a gun to be pointed in their face but a citizen can shoot of they are "scared."

Go figure!!

So LEO, you're saying that shooting is NOT justified if you "believe" a threat is present but can't see a weapon, right?

Aren't you the one that said the officers in some previous threads WERE justified in firing when they could see no weapon? That we should not expect them to wait for the BG to get his gun and draw before firing (through dark-tinted windws, for instance)?

"San Diego LEO shoots woman and son in Oceanside" (closed) and the thread about the New York guy and friends where 50 rounds left 1 dead and 2 wounded.

How is a darkly-tinted glass and a door different exactly?

As for the arguments here about wether 8PM is middle of the night or not - at exactly what hours of the day is it OK for unknown people to batter my door? How does time factor into this at all?

Again, I'm truly not anti-cop. I'm also not anti-LEO 229. I'm fascinated by your opinions on this board. You have an extremely high degree of loyalty to your chosen carreer. You obviously have a wealth of knowledge and experience.

It does seem to me at times that you (unconsciously) use your knowledge to the benefit of an officer when you would not bend your reading in the same manner for a badge-less citizen.

I hope you stay on this forum for years. I'd love to see if your resistance ever falters!

May you have a long life and no arthritis in your hands!

 

[67GT390FB]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

67GT390FB wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

BobCav wrote:

But on the other hand doors don't get broken down violently in the middle of the night just because someone has the munchies.

"The officer was shot around 8:40 p.m."

Um, Bob... 8 PM is not the middle of the night. It is still eearly evening.

Generally you can still knock and visit peopleup till 9 PM.

Saying it was middle of the morning is a straw man argument. :?

when this incident occurred in late Jan. the sun had been down for over three hours, thats pitch dark, middle of the night no, fully dark yes. i hunt so i have my sunrise sunset table handy. are you telling me you've never crashed at 8 or 9 before.

So now you are trying to justify 8 PM as middle of the night?

if you read and are able to comprehend the words i wrote i clearly state that8pm is not the middle of the night but it is fully dark.

i think you can find several answers in full darkness though. one it explains the question of why someone was asleep at 8:00pm circadean rhythms influence tiredness. darkness also helps to cover the invaders both legal or illegal, if there was no tactical advantage to the invader and disadvantage to the defender(using the terms with no prejudice to the current situation just as identifiers) then there would be no reason to invade at night. invasion under the cover of darkness puts the defender at a disadvantage as they can not determine the number and direction of attack of invaders. people are more disoriented in darkness, your depth perception and peripheral vision is decreased. why do you think our military spends so much on night vision equipment and training in darkness.

I also think you need to step back a minute. i haven't said that the cops did anything wrong. They did their jobs as they were trained. I also think that we should have some kind of agreement that a citizen in fear of his life in his own home should be able to defend himself.

If the cops were justified going in the homeowner was equallyjustified in defending himself from a home invasion from unknown assailants. The point here is that if these weren't cops but bangers kicking in the door unannounced this would not be going to trial. Since it is going to trial it will be up to the 12 folks in the jury box to decide whether the home owner was justified.

 

[67GT390FB]

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Oh Please!!! The person was still outside the door and not in the home.

Ryanshot blindly at someone outside his home on the front steps. He failed to observed any real threat of attack or even a weapon being displayed. He decided to act and he shot someone lawfully permitted to be there.

Just like somewould say a cop was wrong for shooting a guy reaching for his wallet at gun point.

Funny how that works out, huh? The police should wait for a gun to be pointed in their face but a citizen can shoot of they are "scared."

Go figure!!

So LEO, you're saying that shooting is NOT justified if you "believe" a threat is present but can't see a weapon, right?

Aren't you the one that said the officers in some previous threads WERE justified in firing when they could see no weapon? That we should not expect them to wait for the BG to get his gun and draw before firing (through dark-tinted windws, for instance)?

"San Diego LEO shoots woman and son in Oceanside" (closed) and the thread about the New York guy and friends where 50 rounds left 1 dead and 2 wounded.

How is a darkly-tinted glass and a door different exactly?

As for the arguments here about wether 8PM is middle of the night or not - at exactly what hours of the day is it OK for unknown people to batter my door? How does time factor into this at all?it contributes to the sense of disorientation experienced by the homeowner also explains how homeowner could be asleep. in college for example if i had a lecture where they left the lights on i was ok if they turned out the lights bam i was gone.

Again, I'm truly not anti-cop. I'm also not anti-LEO 229. I'm fascinated by your opinions on this board. You have an extremely high degree of loyalty to your chosen carreer. You obviously have a wealth of knowledge and experience.

It does seem to me at times that you (unconsciously) use your knowledge to the benefit of an officer when you would not bend your reading in the same manner for a badge-less citizen.

I hope you stay on this forum for years. I'd love to see if your resistance ever falters!

May you have a long life and no arthritis in your hands!

 

[Jim675]

imported post

67GT390FB wrote:

Jim675 wrote:

As for the arguments here about wether 8PM is middle of the night or not - at exactly what hours of the day is it OK for unknown people to batter my door? How does time factor into this at all?

it contributes to the sense of disorientation experienced by the homeowner also explains how homeowner could be asleep. in college for example if i had a lecture where they left the lights on i was ok if they turned out the lights bam i was gone.

Sure, but I mean from the lawful home defense angle. It is NEVER OK for people to batter down my front door and rush into my house as far as I'm concerned.

Yes the home owner may be more likely to make a mistake if half-asleep. But I'm not sure this one made a mistake. It's simply irrelevant.

What about people who work shifts? Should they be no-knocked at different times?
What about the weekend after a late night?

The problem is the whole concept of the no-knock warrant. Its a massively out of proportion solution that's used for inappropriate situations.

Isn't the current count about 42 dead (innocent citizen + police) and hundreds wounded?

Maybe one officer in a stake out vehicle who waits for the "perp" to go to the store would be safer and more efficient than a SWAT team.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Why do you need to search for more proof when you may have enough to get it.

Now it would be better to to do a full investigation but what if the guy never does a thing to prove what the informant is telling you he has seen first hand?

You have wasted time and evidence could have disappeared.

The last sentence is the bright line that decides whether or not a single -- apparently reliable -- informant is enough: If the WORST that is likely to happen is that evidence disappears, then you MUST take the time and do the investigation. In cases where there is real danger, there MAY be justification for aggressive entry.

Either that, or find a non-aggressive way to apprehend the suspect. Like waiting until he goes to work in the morning (just how hard is that, anyway?).

Bottom line: Possible disappearance of evidence does not justify the risk of injury or death to officers or suspect that is created by kicking down doors.