# Police shoot 7 year old girl during raid



## Bruno@MT (May 18, 2010)

http://www.detnews.com/article/2010.../Detroit-police-fatally-shoot-7-year-old-girl

This sucks. This was literally a pointless death.

From what I've read so far, I don't understand why this happened like it did. They knew there were kids on the premises, and they knew that their target may not have been at home (they raided both parts of a duplex). So why bust in with flashbangs and a 20 man SWAT crew AND a reality show camera crew?

Personally, I am bothered by the presence of the camera crew. Why are they even present if the situation is indeed so risky as to warrant such overkill? I read in my local newspaper today that the police went for overkill because of the cameras. The producers probably wanted something sensational. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## tellner (May 18, 2010)

Don't worry. The police will be exonerated. A couple guys will be passed over for promotion. The city's insurance policy will take a hit. There will be a call for more money for training. Old timers will complain about the useless PC classes that get in the way of real policing. 

But the important thing is that the officers and the department will be defended. Nobody will go to jail. Odds are nobody will even be indicted. And all the tired old claptrap about the "Thin Blue Line" and "Call a hippie next time you're robbed" will get trotted out on cue. We will be reminded that police officers live terribly dangerous lives (less dangerous than construction laborers or cab drivers, but that doesn't matter). Unless we're cops we can't judge them. And of course, they're held to a higher standard.


----------



## Archangel M (May 18, 2010)

Sounds like someones finger was inside the trigger guard when he wasn't ready to shoot.

If the warrant was valid on it's face and the cop did indeed have a negligent discharge (assuming that there isn't MORE to this story) what would you like? Public beheading? Who would you like to see flogged? The cop who shot? The Chief who agreed to allowing cameras? The judge who authorized the no-knock? I'd be pretty confident that the city will be paying out hefty civil claims. What would assuage your need to tar and feather the whole police profession? A teary eyed apology by the shooter on CNN? Perhaps the officer have his child taken from him as payback?

Nothing like going off and broadbrushing the entire profession instead of addressing the specific incident...it's as cliche as all the yapping posted above.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 18, 2010)

You will notice that I specifically did not blame the cop or ask for a public beheading. Honestly, I think it sucks to be the cop who fired. He'll feel guilty for the rest of his life. I know I would.

In my unqualified opinion, tv crews should never be part of a raid. Because as soon as that happens, there are additional considerations that are not beneficial to the proceedings at hand. Cops start worrying about looking good, everyone is nervous because they know everything they do will be looked at on tv, police chiefs are worrying about what the viewers will think so they decide to go all out...  and the list goes on.

All these considerations are conflicting with what should be the primary goal: do things by the book, in a way that assures the highest chances of a successful and uneventful raid. since the presence of reality show tv crews work against that goal, they should not be part of the equation.


----------



## punisher73 (May 18, 2010)

Anytime an innocent person is killed it sucks.  Hopefully, since it was supposed to be filmed (which I don't understand why you'd have a tv crew though) it is on film of the person trying to take the weapon.

Just food for thought.  How many of you have trained to go through a door?  How many of you have gone through a door?  Know anyone personally who has gone through a door?

I have trained to do it and have fellow friends that are on the "swat team"  (ours is called Emergency Response Team).  But, I have not been a member since our dept. does not field it's own team.

I have had one friend shot in the face attempting to kick in a door (luckily he lived and is still serving).  Many other times they talk about how the houses they go into have barricaded doors.  One they got lucky on because the door to the house led into a staircase to get into the main part of the house upstairs and at the top of the stairs was a large machine gun mounted (yes, highly illegal) and pointed at the front door.

MANY of the houses that they have had to go in on, have a crib with babies in it RIGHT at the front door.  The purpose of this is so law enforcement has trouble entering the house and they can escape, mount an assault and/or flush the drugs.  What kind of person puts their baby in harms way like that?

So, while it is a tragedy, those situations are highly dynamic and until the FACTS are out on the case, I'm going to withhold judgement of those officers actions and not try to armchair quarterback them.


----------



## crushing (May 18, 2010)

The camera crew may help keep Internal Affairs and further investigations of the incident honest.  Already, there has been changes to the story to bring it more in line with what the cameras caught.


----------



## CoryKS (May 18, 2010)

Some interesting points made here after video of a drug raid in MO went public:  More Militarized Than the Military

I'm a civilian and I don't pretend any knowledge of police tactics, and I know that the LEOs get a lot of goofy suggestions like "why don't you shoot the gun from his hand?".  But what I don't understand is the absolute need to get in the house RIGHT NOW.  If the police believe a suspect is in a location, is it impossible to restrict access in or out until he comes out?  

The police have a difficult but important job and I appreciate that they are doing it.  But look at the scenario - a man kills a 17-year-old, and this crime is so dire that the police had to use a tactic which killed a 7-year-old?  And then they offer condolences.   I dunno, if killing someone can be eased by condolences then it kinda makes me wonder why the first killing was so terrible that it required storming a residence.

_"We might be the target of anger," [Detroit Police Assistant Chief] Godbee said. "All we can do is stand ready to offer our condolences to the family, and any help we can give them."_ 

Would they have accepted that as an answer from the guy who killed the teenager?


----------



## jks9199 (May 18, 2010)

First -- I am not a SWAT operator.  I do work with them frequently, and the unit I am a part of does low to medium risk entries.  I've been in various positions on entry teams in more than 100 search warrants.  In other words -- I do have some idea of what it's like to go into a house, over the strenuous objections of its residents.

Second -- I am not automatically assuming that everything was done right or perfectly.  I don't know why they banged a house with young kids in it, for example.  Most SWAT units won't do that, without a very good reason.  

Third -- I've been way too close to being in a position much like that.  We recently did an entry where we ended up compromised, meaning that they saw us approaching, and made a more dynamic entry than we usually do.  As we cleared the house, one of my partners and I entered a room.  As we cleared our areas, he came across a closet, and I suddenly heard him giving orders to someone.  I turned to support him, and the person in the closet finally came out...  It was a young girl, and yes, we were both pointing guns at her.  Not a good feeling.

OK...  All that out of the way, this is absolutely a tragedy, and the cops involved are, I'm sure, tearing themselves up about what they could have done differently.  I don't want to speculate on what could have happened; there are several possibilities, and it seems a good chance that there will be a pretty solid explanation after the investigation.

It was asked why are SWAT entries done in that fashion, especially in a case where you know where the guy is.  The whole goal of any SWAT operation to use the least force to take control of the situation necessary, keeping everyone -- especially the cops and innocent public! -- safe.  But the rule of any entry is *Speed, Surprise, and Violence of execution.*  In short... shock and awe.  If everyone inside is caught literally or figuratively with their pants down, there is much less chance of encountering resistance that could get someone hurt or killed.  On top of that, they rely on intelligence gathered about the target.  In a perfect operation, they know exactly how many people are in the house and where they are, the layout of the house, and more.  They go in with a carefully devised plan (ready to improvise when it falls apart!), and everything is over quickly.

Why not wait the guy out?  Depends on the circumstances of the case, and where it is.  The ATF was, in my opinion, rightly criticized for their choice of tactics at Waco; everything there seems to have lent itself to snagging Koresh up as he left.  I don't know the details of the case in Detroit, or the community where it happened.  There are places where we won't even think about waiting for someone to exit, because there is nowhere safe in the community to set up for them; I'm quite confident that Detroit has quite a few places like that!  Also, nobody wants a hostage situation, and that may have been a concern of the police in this case.

It's certain that there will be an investigation, and I hope it's fair and impartial -- not a witch hunt to blame the cops, nor some attempt to cover up any mistakes or failures on the part of the cops.


----------



## tellner (May 18, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You will notice that I specifically did not blame the cop or ask for a public beheading. Honestly, I think it sucks to be the cop who fired. He'll feel guilty for the rest of his life. I know I would.
> 
> In my unqualified opinion, tv crews should never be part of a raid.



I really don't care how he feel. If someone else were under investigation for a homicide the police and Courts wouldn't care how they felt except as part of the sentencing process. I just care that cops see justice like anyone else. 

And no matter how "good" the police try to look for the cameras the TV crews didn't kill a seven year old girl and lie about it. You're just trying to deflect the blame from the putative criminal to someone else.


----------



## zDom (May 18, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Sounds like someones finger was inside the trigger guard when he wasn't ready to shoot.



Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 18, 2010)

tellner said:


> I really don't care how he feel. If someone else were under investigation for a homicide the police and Courts wouldn't care how they felt except as part of the sentencing process. I just care that cops see justice like anyone else.
> 
> And no matter how "good" the police try to look for the cameras the TV crews didn't kill a seven year old girl and lie about it. *You're just trying to deflect the blame from the putative criminal to someone else*.



Wow. Where did this come from?
I am not deflecting blame. Blame will have to be decided by the investigation.
I am merely saying that I don't automatically blame the cop. None of us here can say whether the discharge was his fault or not. If there was a fight for control of his weapon an accidental discharge is not necessarily his fault. I don't know any more details than you.

However, you do agree that a raid is a high tension event, where the only consideration should be the results, right?
And in that case, it makes sense that there is NO good reason for a reality tv camera crew to be part of the raid, right? Because the mere presence of a camera crew WILL have an influence on everyone involved that detracts from that 1 major consideration.

EDIT: I don't know if you've ever watched those national geographic documentaries about disasters, you'll notice that it is very rarely that blame for a catastrophe can be pinned to 1 particular person or event. Usually they are the result of a cascade of issues that reinforced each other. In this case, there is no doubt about whose gun the bullet came out of. But there is a myriad of circumstances that set the scene. The involvement of the tv crew had an effect on everyone involved, from the decision makers to the people going in, just because of the mere fact that everything would by viewed, judged, and reflect itself in the opinion of the population of the mayor, the police, and the individual cops. The presence of the tv crew will always have this effect, so it should not be there.


----------



## Nomad (May 18, 2010)

An update with some interesting allegations made by the lawyer suing for the family.

I don't want to second guess what happened, other than that something obviously went very wrong.  Very sad regardless of the outcome of the investigation.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 18, 2010)

Interesting. From the article:



> Fieger said videotape of the incident shows that the shooting was not accidental. In an interview Monday, he told CNN affiliate WDIV that a crew was *filming the raid for the A&E network's show, "The First 48." The program documents police investigations in the first 48 hours after a homicide*



Maybe this has contributed to the decision not to wait.


----------



## Archangel M (May 18, 2010)

I was a SWAT team member. I don't know if we would have done a dynamic entry in this situation. We had/have (I have been out of the tactical loop for a bit) a "call out matrix" that takes various factors into account before we would deploy. If enough factors were not met we wouldn't even respond. The detectives/patrol officers would have to deal with the situation using "routine" tactics/equipment. When it come to room entry...unless there was a MAJOR load of dope in the house that we were afraid of loosing or someone in the house was in immediate risk of death we wouldn't do a dynamic entry.

What the planning cycle here was I do not know.


----------



## Archangel M (May 18, 2010)

Just a pointless tangent:



> Fieger said officers tossed *a smoke bomb* -- described by police as a *"flash bang device"* to distract occupants --



A "smoke bomb"?? The technical accuracy of our media is pathetic.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> A "smoke bomb"?? The technical accuracy of our media is pathetic.


 
QFT!  This is why I take pretty much anything I read by the media, with a grain of salt.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> http://www.detnews.com/article/2010.../Detroit-police-fatally-shoot-7-year-old-girl
> 
> This sucks. This was literally a pointless death.
> 
> ...


 
I'm going to guess that the camera crew showed up after the fact.  I highly doubt they were there, filming the incident as it went down.  

I may be missing it, but where does it say that they weren't sure if the suspect was home?  Given the nature of the person they were looking for, this sounds like the normal response.  The flashbangs and the other assorted devices they use, are for the element of surprise.  Gives the bad guys something else to think about.  

Given the nature of the situation, I'd say its prefectly natural to go in with guns drawn.  Did someone in fact try to take the weapon from the cop?  I will say that this is a shame.  The kid can't control how her family is, and in this case, it sounds like they were less than decent citizens.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 19, 2010)

MJS said:


> I'm going to guess that the camera crew showed up after the fact.  I highly doubt they were there, filming the incident as it went down.




From this:
http://www.detnews.com/article/2010.../Detroit-police-fatally-shoot-7-year-old-girl



> Fieger said videotape of the incident shows that the shooting was not accidental. In an interview Monday, he told CNN affiliate WDIV that a crew was filming the raid for the A&E network's show, "The First 48." The program documents police investigations in the first 48 hours after a homicide



To me that makes it look as if they were actually part of the raid.


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> From this:
> http://www.detnews.com/article/2010.../Detroit-police-fatally-shoot-7-year-old-girl
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ahh...ok, I realize now that this was in one of the sidebar links.  According to this link, the crew was supposedly not inside.




> The camera crew of "The First 48" was not inside the home on Lillibridge Street when Detroit police detectives, using a no-knock warrant, threw a flash grenade into the home and burst through the door, police said. Moments after the grenade was launched, a police gun discharged, and a bullet struck Aiyana in the neck, according to preliminary accounts.


 
Now, if the crew was not inside and the girl was supposedly sleeping on the living room couch, I'm not sure how this could've been caught on tape.

And from the article:




> "When you're about to enter a house armed, you should be thinking of one thing: protecting the safety of everyone involved in the process. I don't know that adding a cameraman and a sound man improves things."


 
My thoughts exactly!  Now, speaking only about the PD that I dispatch for...but when I go on a ride-along, with an officer, I stay in the car, if any of the calls we go on, are a potential high risk.  High risk being defined as a domestic, active fights, gun shots, etc.  I know that if it weren't for the camera crews, COPS probably wouldn't exist, but IMHO, a) those people are not officers, they're civilians, and b) anyone not directly involved in Law Enforcement, is a potential hazard to the officers that're trying to do their job.

TV show or not, something like that, is a high risk.  If you want to film, film from a safe distance, and then, and only then, when the scene is safe and secure, they can get closer.
​


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37209647/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

And if there was a criminal in the house or criminal activity in the house, then these people are no different than terrorists who run thru areas packed with civilians, in hopes that the military won't drop a bomb or shoot, so as to avoid civilian deaths.


----------



## Twin Fist (May 19, 2010)

an accidental shooting during the execution of a legal warrant does NOT a criminal make.

All the ignorant bloviating aside, it just isnt true.

cops who shoot ACIDENTALLY are not criminals and if you started pressing charges every time, guess what happens?

police will never fire their weapons again, and lives WILL BE LOST because of it.


----------



## Archangel M (May 19, 2010)

A criminal act requires a mens rea...AKA "intent". This means that you intentionally performed what you knew to be a criminal act. Another aspect of criminal behavior is known as "criminal negligence". This means that you were acting SO recklessly and SO outside the normal course of behavior that the activity rises to criminal even without "intent". Most true "accidents" of this sort (if it was indeed an accidental discharge or some sort) rarely rise to recklessness.


----------



## tellner (May 20, 2010)

Negligence and carelessness can be sufficient grounds for a criminal charge. The phrase "showing a callous disregard for human life" should ring some bells. So should "knew or should have known that these actions had the potential to cause death or serious bodily injury to innocents". 

And if there's even a whiff of a hint of compromising good procedure in order to look good for the cameras a lot of the standard boiler-plate excuses go right out the window.


----------



## MJS (May 24, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37293722/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

I knew it wouldn't be long, before the 'mouth' of the people, made a statement.  Of course, I have to laugh when I hear these calls to the people to stop the violence, because those speeches happen in my state as well, and as usual, the violence never ends.  I get the impression that the pubic always looks towards the police, for some magical solution, yet the public rarely, well, maybe I shouldn't say rarely, because there are times when they do give tips, but if the solution of the police, was the form a special group of officers to patrol problem areas, bring in state police to help, which BTW, they have done here in CT, hire officers on OT, etc., people ***** and cry about the money being spent.  Well, ya know what...ya can't have your cake and eat it too!!!!!

Then again, you have a murderer on the run, possibly hiding out in a house, in which a small child resides in....hmmm...seems like there's no concern on his part for her. *shrug*


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 26, 2010)

Not only that but if they would do that, people would complain about becoming a police state


----------

