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

[LEO 229]

imported post

I can predict the outrage that will soon follow here.....

Keep in mind that ranting here will do nothing to free him. A grand jury consisting of6 citizens will hear the details and decide if they willissue a true bill or not.

So now it is in the hands of 6 average, every day citizens to decide ifRyan's actions werejustifiable or if he his case should go to trial.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

I fully expect it to go to trial and have from the beginning. I'm not outraged if he is bound over for trial, I am already outraged that he was arrested in the first place and denied bail. However the legal system will wind it's way through and there is nothing we can do about it so being outraged at this point, as you correctly pointed out, LEO229, is pointless.

 

[Nelson_Muntz]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I can predict the outrage that will soon follow here.....

Keep in mind that ranting here will do nothing to free him. A grand jury consisting of6 citizens will hear the details and decide if they willissue a true bill or not.

So now it is in the hands of 6 average, every day citizens to decide ifRyan's actions werejustifiable or if he his case should go to trial.

Yes outrage. Yes it will have to be fully heard for justice to be finally done.

But don't think it is automatically going to be a conviction based on the fact that a grand jury has initially heard the specifics as described to them.Grand Jury duty is nothing like regular jury duty most of us eventually go through. A grand jury member sits for one week a month for a YEAR. They can hear cases for prosecution 5 or more times per month (at a minimum) during that time. Should an extremely complicatedcase be presented just before a particular group on the GJ is finished with its year long rotation, the prosecutor may have the GJ members extended for another 6 months. This is due to the vetting and training on what to look for during GJ duty to ensure the process goes more smoothly. You know, speedy trial. Prevents having to hold up proceedings until a new group becomes trained and familiar enough with procedures to evaluate new, complex cases.

Grand Jurors, like everyone else, are subject to fatigue. And make mistakes. And not really care anymore. The case can and will go forward, but that doesn't mean the fat lady has sung.

 

[OBXMIKE]

imported post

If you read the linked article and the comments that follow, it seems as if the location of the hearing was changed at the last minute......as was the arraignment hearing.

Hmmmmmmm...........

Something smells funky.

Props to Dr. Tabor and Mr. Caldwell for bringing this point up.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I can predict the outrage that will soon follow here.....

Keep in mind that ranting here will do nothing to free him. A grand jury consisting of6 citizens will hear the details and decide if they willissue a true bill or not.

So now it is in the hands of 6 average, every day citizens to decide ifRyan's actions werejustifiable or if he his case should go to trial.

Yes outrage. Yes it will have to be fully heard for justice to be finally done.

But don't think it is automatically going to be a conviction based on the fact that a grand jury has initially heard the specifics as described to them.Grand Jury duty is nothing like regular jury duty most of us eventually go through. A grand jury member sits for one week a month for a YEAR. They can hear cases for prosecution 5 or more times per month (at a minimum) during that time. Should an extremely complicatedcase be presented just before a particular group on the GJ is finished with its year long rotation, the prosecutor may have the GJ members extended for another 6 months. This is due to the vetting and training on what to look for during GJ duty to ensure the process goes more smoothly. You know, speedy trial. Prevents having to hold up proceedings until a new group becomes trained and familiar enough with procedures to evaluate new, complex cases.

Grand Jurors, like everyone else, are subject to fatigue. And make mistakes. And not really care anymore. The case can and will go forward, but that doesn't mean the fat lady has sung.

One additional note is that ALL the evidence from both sides will be displayed in great detail to the 12 person jury. They will ultimately decide the fate of the defendant.

 

[peter nap]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

doctork wrote: I was clearly pointing out the obvious from the LEO side... You see it as "defending".

At least 229's honest about it. He is telling it as a LEO sees it. Different worlds, different points of view, different priorities and the two worlds will never meet.

He's levelheaded enough to admit he sees it from the clouds oops, Ivory Tower

......It's better than listening to Nitrovic go on in a near hysterical rant about how the police can do no wrong!

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

peter nap wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

doctork wrote: I was clearly pointing out the obvious from the LEO side... You see it as "defending".

At least 229's honest about it. He is telling it as a LEO sees it. Different worlds, different points of view, different priorities and the two worlds will never meet.

He's levelheaded enough to admit he sees it from the clouds oops, Ivory Tower

......It's better than listening to Nitrovic go on in a near hysterical rant about how the police can do no wrong!

Happy SOMEONE here can understand what is going on!! :lol:

 

[mobeewan]

imported post

Now that we have seen how not to conduct an investigation and raid on an alleged drug growing operation, here is how the Hampton police does it the right way.



Felon faces drug, weapons charges

Police say the Hampton man had 72 marijuana plants, as well as a gun, in his home.

By DAVID MACAULAY | 247-7838

May 30, 2008



HAMPTON - — A Hampton man was jailed after police said they found 72 marijuana plants growing in his house.

Robert Carnes, 43, was charged May 22 after police went into his house on Somerville Drive in the Andrews Boulevard area.

Police spokeswoman Allison Good said Carnes had one pound of marijuana, 72 marijuana plants, a gun and $1,800 in cash in his home. The house was equipped with a lighting system for growing marijuana indoors, Good said, and an empty bag of fertilizer was found in the home.

Carnes has been charged with manufacturing marijuana and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He is being held in the Hampton City Jail.


Hampton police were tipped off by the Newport News Police Department about a possible cannabis-growing operation at the house, according to court documents.

An affidavit for a search warrant filed at Hampton Circuit Court revealed how police arrested Carnes after they picked up what appeared to be loose marijuana and marijuana stems in his trash.

On May 22, Hampton police made arrangements for the trash container in front of 1916 Somerville Drive to be picked up and examined.

After material recovered from the trash tested positive for marijuana, police arrested Carnes.




http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/hampton/dp-local_cannabis_0530may30,0,5300629.story



Looks like the idiots in theChesapeake PDneeds to take lessons from Hampton PD on how to conduct a proper investigation obtaining intel to make sure a growing operation is going on beforeconducting a raid that might get an officer killed andanotherman behind bars who thought he was defending himself.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

mobeewan wrote:

Now that we have seen how not to conduct an investigation and raid on an alleged drug growing operation, here is how the Hampton police does it the right way.

Felon faces drug, weapons charges

Police say the Hampton man had 72 marijuana plants, as well as a gun, in his home.

By DAVID MACAULAY | 247-7838

May 30, 2008

HAMPTON - — A Hampton man was jailed after police said they found 72 marijuana plants growing in his house.

Robert Carnes, 43, was charged May 22 after police went into his house on Somerville Drive in the Andrews Boulevard area.

Police spokeswoman Allison Good said Carnes had one pound of marijuana, 72 marijuana plants, a gun and $1,800 in cash in his home. The house was equipped with a lighting system for growing marijuana indoors, Good said, and an empty bag of fertilizer was found in the home.

Carnes has been charged with manufacturing marijuana and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He is being held in the Hampton City Jail.


Hampton police were tipped off by the Newport News Police Department about a possible cannabis-growing operation at the house, according to court documents.

An affidavit for a search warrant filed at Hampton Circuit Court revealed how police arrested Carnes after they picked up what appeared to be loose marijuana and marijuana stems in his trash.

On May 22, Hampton police made arrangements for the trash container in front of 1916 Somerville Drive to be picked up and examined.

After material recovered from the trash tested positive for marijuana, police arrested Carnes.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/hampton/dp-local_cannabis_0530may30,0,5300629.story

Looks like the idiots in theChesapeake PDneeds to take lessons from Hampton PD on how to conduct a proper investigation obtaining intel to make sure a growing operation is going on beforeconducting a raid that might get an officer killed andanotherman behind bars who thought he was defending himself.

An important difference is this.....

"Hampton police were tipped off by the Newport News Police Department about a possible cannabis-growing operation at the house"


There was NO WITNESS and one police department was informing another that it was "POSSIBLE" the guy was growing pot. There was nobody to say that actually saw it in the home.

So the policecould NEVER get a search warrant based on it being "possible". They need to get the evidence from the trash so they can prove there is pot in the home and based on the tip it is probable that a growing operation does exits..

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

So the policecould NEVER get a search warrant based on it being "possible". They need to get the evidence from the trash so they can prove there is pot in the home and based on the tip it is probable that a growing operation does exits..

Note To Self: Put the "special" trash in the neighbor's trash can........

Edit: Forgot the , just to make sure that everyone knows that I am not now, nor have I ever been (in the last 30 years) a hemp huffin hippie. Edit #2: Well let's at least say 26 years.....

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

And I understand.... pot possession is s victimless/non-violent crime. But so are a great many other crimes. It does not matter... you want the police to enforce the laws on the books.... that means ALL OF THEM!

Well, it'd be nice if they'd exercise a little common sense about what sort of tactics are appropriate.

How long before we start seeing SWAT called out on shoplifters?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

And I understand.... pot possession is s victimless/non-violent crime. But so are a great many other crimes. It does not matter... you want the police to enforce the laws on the books.... that means ALL OF THEM!

Well, it'd be nice if they'd exercise a little common sense about what sort of tactics are appropriate.

How long before we start seeing SWAT called out on shoplifters?

Depends on when criminals start shooting cops and citizenson a regular basis when they get caught stealing. :?

The police do not want to deploy SWAT to handle what should be a low threat event. But when the people (criminals) decide that they want to kill to escape during minor crimes.... the police are going to have all the justification they need.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

mobeewan wrote:

snip

An important difference is this.....

So the policecould NEVER get a search warrant based on it being "possible". They need to get the evidence from the trash so they can prove there is pot in the home and based on the tip it is probable that a growing operation does exits..

Excellent point and I totally agree. Police should have actual EVIDENCE before they are given a search warrant to go break down citizen's doors at night and then arrest the home owner for 1st degree murder when he just defends his home. We are finally in total agreement.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

And I understand.... pot possession is s victimless/non-violent crime. But so are a great many other crimes. It does not matter... you want the police to enforce the laws on the books.... that means ALL OF THEM!

Well, it'd be nice if they'd exercise a little common sense about what sort of tactics are appropriate.

How long before we start seeing SWAT called out on shoplifters?

Depends on when criminals start shooting cops and citizenson a regular basis when they get caught stealing. :?

The police do not want to deploy SWAT to handle what should be a low threat event. But when the people (criminals) decide that they want to kill to escape during minor crimes.... the police are going to have all the justification they need.

Bad choice of example on my part.

The point is that minor, non-violent crimes don't justify a violent response by police. On the other hand, someone waking you by violently kicking in your door DOES justify a violent response.

Anyway, at this point I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Excellent point and I totally agree. Police should have actual EVIDENCE before they are given a search warrant to go break down citizen's doors at night and then arrest the home owner for 1st degree murder when he just defends his home. We are finally in total agreement.

I get your meaning... :lol:

So I ask you.... how do you get evidence if none is out where you can have it legally?

And I said...

"There was NO WITNESS and one police department was informing another that it was "POSSIBLE" the guy was growing pot. There was nobody to say that actually saw it in the home.

So the policecould NEVER get a search warrant based on it being "possible". They need to get the evidence from the trash so they can prove there is pot in the home and based on the tip it is probable that a growing operation does exits.."

So no witness means you will need to get some evidence in another way.

Like it or not.... you do not need "evidence" to get a warrant... you need to be able to articulateprobable causea crime is being committed and the statements of a credible witness will suffice.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

And I understand.... pot possession is s victimless/non-violent crime. But so are a great many other crimes. It does not matter... you want the police to enforce the laws on the books.... that means ALL OF THEM!

Well, it'd be nice if they'd exercise a little common sense about what sort of tactics are appropriate.

How long before we start seeing SWAT called out on shoplifters?

Depends on when criminals start shooting cops and citizenson a regular basis when they get caught stealing. :?

The police do not want to deploy SWAT to handle what should be a low threat event. But when the people (criminals) decide that they want to kill to escape during minor crimes.... the police are going to have all the justification they need.

Ask Dr Culosi how well that justification worked for him.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Like it or not.... you do not need "evidence" to get a warrant... you need to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed

Huh? That's not what I learned in 5th grade civics class. I thought you had to have "probable cause" to get a warrant. I agree that credible eyewitness testimony is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Yes, I'm quibbling over terminology, but this terminology is pretty well-defined and I'm surprised that a LEO would get it wrong.

Anyway, where we differ is that I think it's criminally irresponsible to break down a citizen's door without evidence of a risk to public safety. Honestly, the longer I discuss this the more I think that police who get shot in aggressive entries are getting what they deserve.

Frederick needs to be acquitted, then sue for millions in compensation for the way the police have screwed up his life.

Unfortunately, he's probably going to get a jury of hoplophobes who figure he became guilty of murder the day he bought the gun, and the police will take his conviction as support for the notion that Shivers acted appropriately and was heroically gunned down by a vicious criminal.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Like it or not.... you do not need "evidence" to get a warrant... you need to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed

Huh? That's not what I learned in 5th grade civics class. I thought you had to have "probable cause" to get a warrant. I agree that credible eyewitness testimony is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Yes, I'm quibbling over terminology, but this terminology is pretty well-defined and I'm surprised that a LEO would get it wrong.

Anyway, where we differ is that I think it's criminally irresponsible to break down a citizen's door without evidence of a risk to public safety. Honestly, the longer I discuss this the more I think that police who get shot in aggressive entries are getting what they deserve.

Frederick needs to be acquitted, then sue for millions in compensation for the way the police have screwed up his life.

Unfortunately, he's probably going to get a jury of hoplophobes who figure he became guilty of murder the day he bought the gun, and the police will take his conviction as support for the notion that Shivers acted appropriately and was heroically gunned down by a vicious criminal.

My apology. I did in fact use the wrong term. I have edited my original post.

 

[possumboy]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Like it or not.... you do not need "evidence" to get a warrant... you need to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion a crime is being committed

Huh? That's not what I learned in 5th grade civics class. I thought you had to have "probable cause" to get a warrant. I agree that credible eyewitness testimony is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause. Yes, I'm quibbling over terminology, but this terminology is pretty well-defined and I'm surprised that a LEO would get it wrong.

Anyway, where we differ is that I think it's criminally irresponsible to break down a citizen's door without evidence of a risk to public safety. Honestly, the longer I discuss this the more I think that police who get shot in aggressive entries are getting what they deserve.

Frederick needs to be acquitted, then sue for millions in compensation for the way the police have screwed up his life.

Unfortunately, he's probably going to get a jury of hoplophobes who figure he became guilty of murder the day he bought the gun, and the police will take his conviction as support for the notion that Shivers acted appropriately and was heroically gunned down by a vicious criminal.

No matter howthe No Knock Warrant is justified; a LEO is dead. A little bit of investigation would have saved the officer's life.

I believe someone said this person was "trusted". This is what happens with when departments trust CRIMINALS without any type of investigations.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

My apology. I did in fact use the wrong term. I have edited my original post.

That's good, but your post is still wrong. You do need evidence, evidence is what establishes probable cause. In this case, the evidence was the criminal's testimony. It's not very good evidence, but it is evidence.

At one point in this thread I was arguing that it wasn't good enough evidence to justify breaking down Mr. Frederick's door, but I've changed my mind. It doesn't matter how good the evidence was or was not. What matters is that the police used excessive force and incited a violent response.

A bedrock principle of justice is that he who initiates violence is culpable for the result. It's completely correct for police to respond to violence, or the threat of violence, with violence of their own. In many aggressive entries, including this one, there is no risk of violence until the police smash open the door and run in pointing guns at everyone. That means that the police are at fault for any undesirable outcome.

Unfortunately, it's typically not the police that pay the price. Detective Shivers paid the ultimate price for his error, but there's a very good chance that the system is going to come down on Frederick with both feet even though his error (if any!) was much smaller.