Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House Share 3466 More Sharing ServicesShare Share on emailEmail 60 Comments Print Text Size - / + By Vicki Brown L E B A N O N, Tenn. A 61-year-old man was shot to death by police while his wife was handcuffed in another room during a drug raid on the wrong house. Police admitted their mistake, saying faulty information from a drug informant contributed to the death of John Adams Wednesday night. They intended to raid the home next door. The two officers, 25-year-old Kyle Shedran and 24-year-old Greg Day, were placed on administrative leave with pay. “They need to get rid of those men, boys with toys,” said Adams’ 70-year-old widow, Loraine. John Adams was watching television when his wife heard pounding on the door. Police claim they identified themselves and wore police jackets. Loraine Adams said she had no indication the men were police. “I thought it was a home invasion. I said ‘Baby, get your gun!,” she said, sitting amid friends and relatives gathered at her home to cook and prepare for Sunday’s funeral. Resident Fired First Police say her husband fired first with a sawed-off shotgun and they responded. He was shot at least three times and died later at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville. Loraine Adams said she was handcuffed and thrown to her knees in another room when the shooting began. “I said, ‘Y’all have got the wrong person, you’ve got the wrong place. What are you looking for?“‘ “We did the best surveillance we could do, and a mistake was made,” Lebanon Police Chief Billy Weeks said. “It’s a very severe mistake, a costly mistake. It makes us look at our own policies and procedures to make sure this never occurs again.” He said, however, the two policemen were not at fault. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating. NAACP officials said they are monitoring the case. Adams was black. The two policemen are white. Family members did not consider race a factor and Weeks agreed, but said the shooting will be “a major setback” for police relations with the black community. “We know that, we hope to do everything we can to heal it,” Weeks said. Johnny Crudup, a local NAACP official, said the organization wanted to make sure and would investigate on its own. Weeks said he has turned the search warrant and all other evidence over to the bureau of investigation and District Attorney General Tommy Thompson. A command officer must now review all search warrants. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1#.UXbWGjfLBbx
My take on topic is the majority of law enforcement just do their jobs and some are abusive due to the innate power of the position of the office. That said the law they use is often horrible the whole you find ONE marijuana plant we can take everything you have, you have $500 cash on you we can take it as evidence of a crime and keep it and so forth but that is not the officers fault. But Boston did concern me a de facto city lockdown in force and "pressuring" everybody to stay off the streets for one man and lots of police around and it seemed national guard seemed over the top in a big way.
Funny how the police could get away with such a thing in those states, In Texas there would be a gunfight and the police would lose, if they would even be willing to try such a thing. They are trying to ok checkpoints here again but it will probably fail, since it is illegal. Thank GOD I live in Texas, we may have a faults but the alternative is simply to crazy too stupid to tolerate. I have lived in Cal and left the second my contract ended and my father is from Boston, ok place to vist, would not live there.
I like government that has authority but the proper amount of it. WTF is "big government"? (Define it, please.)
I have heard that there are border patrol checkpoints within a 100 miles of the border in Texas. Is that not true? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_Interior_Checkpoints - - - Updated - - - What is the objective definition of "proper amount"? Big government, to me, is any government which initiates aggression against peaceful people and which maintains a monopoly on the legal use of force.
Where do you think the Government's authority goes too far? It's an arguable concept, but it is something we've always struggled to reach consensus upon. Why would such aggression be initiated? (That makes a difference.) Who else is going to 'enforce' laws, if not the government? For example... when a bank is ready to actually evict a person from their home (for whatever legal reason), are you saying the government should not come with force as part of a contingent?
There is the possibility of prior private arbitration agreements and other contingencies. All-powerful centralized authoritarianism doesn't have to be the only game in town.
Any system set up to do as you say (private or otherwise), is going to require funding and resources. And no matter who/what has invested in such a system, the outcomes are going to be expected to be 'enforced' (otherwise we've gotten nowhere with all those efforts).
When it initiates aggression against a peaceful person. Ie. when it criminalizes some action (or non-action) that does not have an identifiable victim. Why? If, say, you don't want people smoking pot, or engaging in sodomy with a person of the same sex, or selling vehicles, or employing people or not employing certain people. Or importing the wrong size fish heads from Peru, or crossing the border with too much cash, or crossing the border without proper paperwork, even. None of those involves aggression by one person against the other, but all of those have been, or are now, actions by which the government will treat the actor as a criminal. We can also go into taxation, by which the government takes, under the threat of violence, from people whether based on labor, or sales, or consumption or some other reason. Good question. In your example, the bank maintains that it owns the property and therefore those remaining on the property are no longer in "their" home, they are on the bank's property and aggressing against the bank by trespassing. It would, according to small government principles, be the role of government to protect the bank against force or fraud, which includes the trespass. It would also work the other way, where someone about to be evicted from their home through fraudulent means. In your example, there is a crime and there is a victim, and therefore government is not initiating aggression but responding to it.
If you get a situation where misconduct is known or discovered or proven and the authorities do nothing about it and in fact endorse it and continue to permit, even encourage that behaviour, then you've got a problem. Individual misconduct will always happen. Individuals involved and probably their colleagues will try and cover it up. They try and cover it up because if it becomes known then they're in trouble. If they don't bother to cover it up because they know that they won't get in trouble, then you've got a problem. The question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is usually only asked in a liberal democracy. How it's answered is important. In much of Europe, particularly France, it's done by restricting the authority of police and also instituting immediate non-police supervision, such as having an examining magistrate run serious crime investigations and granting warrants. In countries with the English common law tradition (the US being one of them) supervision of police is not direct, the courts exercise authority over police by refusing to admit evidence unlawfully obtained for example. Misbehaviour by police can also end up in the courts. It's absolutely necessary to watch what police and other authorities are up to in any liberal democratic society. The individual examples of improper behaviour that appear on YouTube or sites dedicated to exposing police misbehaviour are useful but only as far as bringing attention to an incident which then should be investigated impartially and fairly to all parties. What's more important is to watch the creeping changes, the little moves that gradually encroach on civil rights, particularly in the wake of outrages such as 9/11. Watch out for suspension of habeas corpus because certain offences require it; be careful of removal of the Miranda warning because certain offences require it; be mindful of criminal offenders being labelled as "enemy combatants" because it gets around their rights. And watch out for the creation of special courts with their own special rules of evidence and procedure. That's where the greatest danger lies.
I've been an American all of my 50+ years. I've seen justice and injustice. I've been a victim of crimes and a member of the jury in a criminal case. I know that the system is not perfect and needs work; but lately the trend has been SO anti-government, that people almost talk themselves out of learning how and being effective in affecting/changing things. One of the misconceptions I see often these days, is that people WANT THEIR ANSWERS to apply rather directly and immediately; I see that attitude expressed here in this forum A LOT. And I begin to wonder if people realize that we didn't just LAND on where we are 8, 12 or 20 years ago. There were a series of incremental changes (some we initiated, others by natural circumstance) that came about; but little was an overnight thing. Now, there are times where a certain solution that one or many come up with changes things for the better VERY quickly, but we know from LIFE (not merely our current politics) that worthwhile solutions take good amounts of effort and time to figure out and apply. Even in our own lives... the 'instant' solutions are few and far in-between; it takes attention, courage, work, faith and persistence. Of course, everything we need to fix or even get done for the first time... will NOT be 'easy' or 'quick'. I wish more Americans would soon realize what I'm saying here. My (Black) parents remember praying for EQUAL rights and being socially and politically active to incrementally make changes to "America". We know that this society is not what is was in 1950 (when my parents were young), but ask them, and they can tell you about the STEPS, STRUGGLES and FRUSTRATIONS of trying to see things changed/bettered. People in this forum make some really good points (even those I don't agree with), but I sense they are 'impatient'; I understand, but the nice thing about living in America is watching ALL of the ideas, concerns and complaints work toward a better society (eventually). Really, not everything has gone wrong... we've gotten many things right and we can again, if we decide to work to together (even as we disagree). The division that some politicians are after, is NOISE, FRICTION, HEAT... we have to beware and PUSH for proper consensus nevertheless. Two things: 1. We're all human and WILL have differences. 2. We need to work together to reach the BEST outcomes.
There nothing that I disagree with here. There may seem like urgency in some discussions, and I think that's the nature of language and communication. If you look at human evolution, almost all modes of speech are urgent, to some degree: what is to be done now or by the next harvest. The languages have words like "now" and "urgent" or even "priority". There aren't many good words for "far off" or "someday in the future." My goal is to suss out a more moral political system. I realize that it takes time. It took thousands of years to get where we are today, and there was much backsliding. The one disagreement is your implication that there is a problem in being anti-government. Ending the power of the state necessarily means that each individual must become better, and take ownership of, learning and being effective in affecting and changing things (as you put it.) If one cannot rely on a political machine to "solve" problems, then one must rely on others who will only offer their help voluntarily. That requires reciprocal cooperation. Do you think the world would be better off if each individual was seeking ways they could give to others before asking something in return? There are, of course, some who can do nothing for themselves or others, but there really aren't that many of them.
I don't see a need to be anti-government, in a society that should essentially be (as Ben Franklin and others referred to it) a "Representative Republic". WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. So why should we (somehow) mount up against ourselves? Now, I can see dealing with certain corruptions such money being used to purchase candidates and/or elections... but certainly not the borderline-sedition which too many on the fringes seem to find so enticing of late. Still, I want 'individuals' to consider what you say within the larger context of society. I think plenty of individuals manage to find a comfortable place within themselves, but certainly struggle as it relates to finding their proper place within society. But by no means am I saying that ALL of the focus should/must be upon society; there is an affective and effective balance. And that (per individual) is not easily determined; it can be especially 'proprietary' for many. I see what you mean. And no, I'm not talking about any standing back and doing nothing to help themselves or contribute to their community... I'm definitely encouraging that proper 'balance' I referred to above. After all, are we ALL not defined to some degree by the society, community or nation in which we live/operate? If we were as individuals isolated, none would be able or capable of relying upon others at all. But as things actually are, we sometimes need the HELP of others, especially to achieve those things that none could achieve as "individuals". Yes, that is true. I don't think it is the intention of most human beings to make a life of relying upon others; most people I've ever known, given real opportunity... make something significant of themselves. I grew up in a Black community that instilled those type of values, and the opportunities were certainly there, if one looked for them. Perhaps. But there are also those who due to being enabled/gifted 'uniquely' from others, may need a certain type of help which fewer of us are capable recognizing; that is, some people need more of a lift or hand-up in certain ways. Determining that can be difficult, because we are dealing with HUMAN beings, not machines or computers.
OUTRAGE: Cops Shoot at UNARMED couple 137 times http://youtu.be/7p37gceSgv8 Police shoot unarmed man eleven times. If a CCW shoots someone eleven times, they go to jail. http://youtu.be/bPQLTrttjwo Police murder civilian (shooting him 46 times) http://youtu.be/fcnPW_xDmVA 4409 -- LAPD chase man EXECUTE him Claim Self Defense http://youtu.be/159PM7ZKcv0 4409 -- SWAT FAIL Johnson County Sheriff (The Gestapo kicks down doors on vegetable growers) http://youtu.be/XHmJKAZ3ebs 4409 -- Utah Trooper (BUSTED) making false DUI arrests.. http://youtu.be/VljQVEQ123E POLICE BRUTALITY - San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man with Disabilities http://youtu.be/tgV8L7oghK0 http://youtu.be/VljQVEQ123E
I've heard this rhetoric many times. Heck,it's pretty much the dominant theme of government schools. However, like a religious statement, I see no proof of the assertion. I have no part, nor interest in being a part of, the prosecution of people who have committed no crimes, nor do I have a part nor an interesting in taking part in the invasion of foreign countries just because some bureaucrats don't like the leaders or can enrich themselves from war somehow. I am sovereign over myself and claim no sovereignty over others, whether as an individual or as part of a collective. Call that seditious, if you will, but I would ask, who owns you? I see no reason why each individual should not be free to follow his or her own conscience and to determine his place in "society". Society, is, of course, just a label for an aggregate of individuals, so it is really about finding one's place among others. It's part of my business to help others do that, as I was helped. It doesn't require the police powers of the state to get people to help each other. It never has.
You like having a powerful central government that can boss Americans around whenever it wants. Government that is relatively large in size, as compared to our government before the progressive era or even the civil war. You want "big" government compared to what the Constitution calls for, and the increasing militarization of our domestic police forces is a direct consequence of that.
We're not "anti-government". Most, if not all, libertarians and anarchists subscribe to a form of "government". It just differs radically from yours.
I have the simplest idea to muck up the authorities if enough people would do it, just burn and stop using all forms of government ID if a civilian no DLor State ID or Passports or SSN's. Say 50,000,000 people just opted out or more with luck that would be amusing and non-violent. And without using your government stamped ID tied to your number it would make you annoying as a group.
Police execute home owner http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95...e#.UXhGNzfLBby Police Shoot & Kill Man Wielding a Golf Club During a Drug House Raid http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=719_1359546908#K2QIxkCgmiWJZzUM.99
When certain "Americans" commit crimes and/or wantonly violate the rights of others... you're darned right, I want an OFFICER of the law representing the GOVERNMENT to step in and make a difference. Sometimes, solving an issue between individuals or groups takes an unaffected and legally authorized acting party. We COULD just shoot the hell out of one another like the Hatfield's and the McCoy's... but I think law enforcement officers properly equipped to take control, is the better way to go. That's something that this society is going to have to continue to work out over time.
