Request to Chesapeake Council for Citizen Review

Tonight, I brought the Tidewater Libertarian Party’s request for a citizen review board on the police procedures revealed by the Ryan Frederick case to the Chesapeake City Council. I must have run a bit long, as when I was wrapping up, Mayor Krasnoff asked me to wrap it up. It was hard to read their reaction, I guess we will have to wait and see.

As expected, the Chesapeake Police had someone present to give a rebuttal.

Det John Landfair began by accusing me of disparaging the police which I certainly did not do. (The session will be replayed on Cox Channel 48 on Saturday evening, judge for yourself.) Then he pointed out what a safe city we live in, which is true enough. The then followed with some amazing statistics.Since 2003 South Hampton Roads has suffered eleven line-of-duty police deaths. Southside ranks 3rd in line of duty deaths, following only only NYPD and California Highway Patrol. More than Chicago which has 13,000 officers, Southside has less than 2000.

Yet he is certain that I am wrong to question Chesapeake’s procedures on search warrants.

Think about that.

If we had the third most dangerous bus line in the country, or the third highest occurrence of hospital infections in the country, higher than much larger cities, would we not be demanding an investigation into what our bus drivers and doctors were doing wrong?

He also told us that one third of the people who killed police officers here had no previous criminal record. Again, if police are being killed by people who are not inherently criminal, what is being done that causes those people to kill?

Det. Landfair did make one point with which I heartily agree. It is the Chesapeake City Council’s primary responsibility to oversee the procedures and policies of the police, and had they done so, and been open to the public about it, there would be no need for a citizen review.

But a year has gone by with no action, and for them to do so now would be seen as a rubber stamp, a means to avoid a citizen review.  That opportunity has passed.

Councilman Dwight M. Parker asked the city manager to take board of review under advisement and determine if the city had the authority to form one.

One thing is certain. A review board will only be formed if the people, andthe press, demand one.


18 Responses to Request to Chesapeake Council for Citizen Review

  1. KBCraig says:

    Good luck on your fight.

    Have you contacted LEAP ( to see if they have a speaker available in your area?

    • Don Tabor says:

      No, I have not contacted LEAP. I really don’t want to make this issue about legalizing drugs. There are plenty of others working on that and if simple logic was going to win that fight, it would have done so already. I want to keep our effort here focused on the procedures for obtaining and serving search warrants and the unnecessarily confrontational methods being used, which place both citizens and police in needless peril.

  2. Ernie Nilsen says:

    Thank you Dr. Tabor for bringing this to the council. It should be obvious that a civilian review board is necessary to review the actions of the police. Obviously something is very wrong with police tactics and/or training since the area is 3rd in the nation in officer deaths. Two more policemen shot today will only lead to even more military style home invasion type warrant serving. Are we secure in our homes?

  3. CEH says:

    “Obviously something is very wrong with police tactics and/or training since the area is 3rd in the nation in officer deaths.” Isn’t that a bit of a leap? Do you know the circumstances of the deaths of these officers? I’m not aware of any in the last decade, other than Det. Shivers, that involved the service of a search warrant. I know there are more dangerous jobs out there. But man vs. the ocean (crabbers), man vs. trees (loggers), man vs. construction (building, repairing, etc. anything), is not the same as being in a profession where confrontation with other human beings is a daily occurrence. And yes, it is confrontation. No matter how professional, polite, courteous, well trained, well disciplined, well meaning, etc. an officer is, there will always be people who will not cooperate and who will resist and who despise the police and who will resort to deadly force to avoid being held accountable for their actions. And yes, there are mentally ill and violent people that the police confront frequently, such as tonight’s Portsmouth incident. Please don’t paint every police tragedy with such a broad brush.

    • Don Tabor says:


      It was Det. Landfair who made the claim that Southside is such a dangerous place to be a police officer. Considering that this is not a particularly crime ridden area, why should that be unless there is a problem with how things are done here?

      And why refuse to allow anyone outside the department to examine the issues?

      Consider how accidents are handled in aviation. The recent fatal crash at Xe(formerly Blackwater) was immediately reported to the FAA and NTSB, which will conduct independent investigations. The results will be published and both Xe and others in aviation will learn form the mistakes in order to prevent repeats of that tragedy. I am a (non-current) private pilot and receive the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s AOPA Pilot monthly. Every issue has accident investigations and a monthly article titled Never Again in which pilots confess mistakes made that could have led to accidents in order for others to learn and not make the same mistakes. The AOPA Pilot is available to non-pilots in most libraries, and in my waiting room, for anyone to read.

      Now, imagine a commuter airline that flew only to relatively un-congested airports in regions of stable weather but none-the-less had accident rates higher than the major airlines. Imagine also that they refused to let anyone other than their own staffs investigate the accidents and kept all results secret. Aside from losing their operators license, they would be universally condemned and other pilots would be first in line to condemn them. When word got out of their practices, the public would refuse to fly with them, but with the police, we can’t take our business elsewhere.

      Aviation is no less specialized than police work. If aviation can stand the light of public scrutiny, in order to earn the public trust, why not the police?

  4. CEH says:

    Doc, I appreciate what you are saying. Please don’t muddy the water by comparing the NTSB and FAA (both government entities) with a civilian review board. There are issues in numerous criminal justice texts, both positive and negative, dealing with them. There are entities outside of a police department that review the actions of the police, including the magistrate, court system, commonwealth’s attorneys, and citizens themselves through civil litigation. Virginia is not a sunshine state, maybe it should be. Privacy protections exist for officers involved in incidents. Right or wrong, that is the way it is. In this Commonwealth, a PD can’t violate the law because of public outcry. Now I don’t know if that is playing a role in the perceived lack of information from the CPD, but maybe it is.

    Take a moment and look at Landfair’s statements from a cops perspective. The statisitcs show that there is a danger inherent to police work in the Hampton Roads area. Perhaps even greater than other areas. Tactics, training, procedures, etc. evolve because of it and don’t necessarily cause it. That is what I think the poster I responded to was implying and what you seem to be saying above. That is a stretch in my opinion and easily illustrates why the police are hesitant to welcome review by a group of citizens. You need understanding to provide a fair review of an issue. Investigators for the NTSB and FAA have that where aircraft accidents are concerned. Does a group of lay citizens have it where law enforcement is concerned? Being familiar with the Constitution itself, although very helpful – don’t get me wrong, is not sufficient. As I’ve mentioned before, there are volumes upon volumes of case law, both Federal and State, that impact why and how police officers can act. Trust from the citizenry is vital for a PD. But it works both ways. Police officers in this area are prosecuted, fired, demoted, suspended, and quit before they can be fired. It happens. The system that you so distrust is responsible for it and it works. But, again, we are not a sunshine state. Unless there has been a criminal charge filed, the public will not be informed. Of course Libertarians will not agree with that. Get the law changed, but don’t make the police out to be something they are not because they have to abide by the law.

  5. Britt Howard says:

    CEH, Tactics would have dictated a different means with which to serve the warrant. The tactics used did not match the situation.

    If training was followed in the RF case, I don’t think the situation ever would have escalated. If they made the wrong decision and did breach, training still should have prevented what happend. There was an obvious lack of coordination and poor execution. If you call an “eight ball” it had better appear practiced, professionally executed (not necessarily perfect), and better be with overwhelming force! If you do, RF would be overwhelmed and wouldn’t have had the chance to mistakenly “defend himself”. A true criminal shouldn’t be provided the opportunity to willfully respond. If you don’t as has clearly happened people die. Usually the civillian but, in this case an officer paid with his life.

    Procedures? I question the use of criminals breaking and entering to form justification for search warrants. It would be TOO easy to go around the Constitution and only obtain a warrant AFTER a break in search and seizure.

    Procedures? Which ones were they following? How many mistakes had to be made just to allow what happend?

    I agree with you CEH that other tragedies should not be compared to this one. It would serve to cheapen and insult the officers involved in other incidents. The RF matter just goes beyond the pale.

    I also agree obviously that tactics, training, and procedure did not cause this. The ignoring of tactics, training, and procedure did!

    I also agree that any review board should be an informed and objective one. You surely saw previous discussions where I recommended a non-voting expert panel that provides that.

    “Review” that you cite from magistrates, the court, and attorneys is true, however they have a relationship with the PD and interests co-mingle and can easily influence someone to just do the ‘lazy’ thing and not look into it too much. At times there’s a symbiotic thing going on.

    “Why should I look out for some “pot head” and lose cooperation from this guy later. He has helped me in crucial cases, I don’t even know this Frederick guy. He’s probably guilty anyway”

    As to litigation, there are only so many people that can afford a lawyer or time to press charges unless the level of damage is substantial as is the case here. One can speculate that there might be future litigation out of this. If one uses the litigation ability as proof against abuse…..good luck on that one!The elite will be ok, the less priviledged will always be oppressed if that is the case.

    All PDs get their powers FROM the people. Granted that the PD is not elected and thereby inderictly reports to the people. We elect council which hires a manager. A review board brings the People into a closer relationship with a PD.

    Lastly, I don’t buy the idea that the lack of responsiveness results from privacy dictates. This is stonewalling in response to fear and spite. Otherwise they would have cited privacy from the start and found a way to respectfully withold requested transparency.

    I do consider this an aberration. I would hope this fiasco is not commonplace. When the the CPD claims not to have made adjustments other than armor, I believe that the least of all. Losing a brother and being given a public “black eye” is NOT what any PD would ever want to experience again. Maybe pride is invovled and not wanting to admit guilt due to legal advice but, you’re damn right they made changes already!!!

  6. CEH says:


    The outcome in the RF case was tragic and now it is easy to say the tactics were wrong because someone got killed. Do you agree that no amount of training, equipment, procedures can prevent “Murphy” from rearing his ugly head and turning what was once considered tactically sound into a tragedy? Det. Shivers was killed after the round hit his unprotected shoulder (hence the published desire to change body armor) travelling into his torso along a fatal path. That shot was a fluke, money shot, 1 in a million, “Murphy”. Had this been a search warrant for a meth lab, from a purely tactical standpoint, would there have been a difference in your mind – again, purely tactically? Let’s not confuse tactics with policy. They are different. If it is the policy of the CPD to use criminals for their information and routinely do no other investigation, that is a problem. That is not tactics. Is that illegal or unconstitutional? No, it is not. It is up to a judicial authority to determine if it is probable cause. If it is the policy of the CPD to be prepared to force entry on all drug search warrants when no one comes to the door, is that a problem? I don’t think so. If they are there and have a warrant I think there is an expectation they will do their jobs.

    Now, we can say they should have waited for him to go to work, traffic stop, at work, search when he wasn’t there, etc. The goal is to get the suspect with the contraband. Ideally, that is at the house, so no traffic stops (any 4th Amendment scholars out there that can shine some light on this grey area? What if they stop him, but don’t find any contraband at the house? Weren’t his rights just violated?). The goal is also to put the suspect at a tactical disadvantage. That means operating on the CPD’s timetable, not the suspect’s. What were there, 13 cops there? What if they wait for him to go to work, ready to pounce when he goes to his driveway…but he calls in sick that day, decides to go in late, gets his days off changed? There are too many variables that make “waiting” for the bad guy in this manner very ineffective and inefficient. There would not be a whole lot of drug investigations being done in Chesapeake if those kinds of resources were expended on every case (unlike this case, I imagine many residential drug dealing complaints come from neighbors. Imagine the outcry if the CPD can only investigate a few a month because they dump huge amounts of resources in an inefficient manner into every complaint). Again, I’m not a quantity guy (I prefer quality police work) but there are pressures on LE to be efficient as well as effective. How is that balanced? There’s never an issue when things go right, but we know what happens when they don’t. As far as training, again, do you not think training played a role in RF’s eventual and peaceful arrest? If those guys were not well trained, that front door would have looked liked Swiss cheese and RF probably wouldn’t be alive today. I’m glad they were well trained and disciplined.

    Had the breach been successful on the first hit, regarding your 8-ball comment, and the door flew open (instead of a panel being knocked out) do you think things would have been different? Would RF have immediately seen the Police helmets and vests? Would he have been quick enough to drop or lower his gun? Again, that panel getting busted out is “Murphy” starting a tragic chain of events. It doesn’t mean poor tactics.

    You also allude to the informant breaking into the home as a procedure the CPD employed. I don’t think they did that. The CPD was made to look like fools. They should not have even conducted the warrant once their reliable CI told them about the burglary he “had nothing to do with”. But, surely you agree RF was growing pot. The evidence was there. Except for denying committing the burglary, Wright told the truth. Their desire to go forward was a mistake in my opinion. Was it illegal? No, I don’t think so.

    The CPD has obviously learned. I hope they do get wearable video devices for their people. I hope they are worn on every search warrant. Would things have been different if they could have shown a video of the officers banging on the front door and yelling “Police, Search Warrant!” at the trial? I think so.

    Poor decisions were made at the onset. Those decisions were not, in my opinion, illegal or evidence of misconduct. They were mistakes that only came to light after the incident. Had the plants been there, things would have appeared differently. The tactics at the front door were probably used by these guys on numerous occasions and uneventfully. That night, “Murphy” wasn’t having it.

    Put a fork in me, I’m done.

    • Don Tabor says:


      Your reasoned replies are always appreciated.

      I know that oversight of aviation by Federal agencies is not the same as a citizen review board, but what I am pointing out is the cultural difference between aviation and police. As soon as things went bad at Xe, the oversight agencies were called in. Further, pilots, among ourselves and in our publications, expect each other to own up to our mistakes and when someone doesn’t, his fellow pilots are the first to demand accountability. Contrast that with the ‘thin blue line” response.

      And yes, had Murphy not intervened and their plan gone as they hoped, things would have worked out peachy. But anyone who plans an operation involving airplanes or firearms who does not, from the outset, assume Murphy will take every opportunity to kill you has failed before he starts.

      The police had hours, even days, to plan for every possibility. They gave Frederick only seconds.

      To now refuse to learn from the mistakes and maintain they did everything right, and will continue to do the same, is to taunt Murphy.

  7. CEH says:


    Unfortunately, we just don’t know if the CPD is refusing to learn from mistakes. I think they have learned, they just haven’t publicized it. Why? I don’t know. If they’ve changed tactics, well letting the good citizens know also lets the bad guys know. If they’ve changed policy, well I think they should let us know.

    Sir, you hit the nail on the head when you talk about culture. Within the LE culture there is a prevalence of disdain and contempt for Internal Affairs personnel. It is obvious why. They are ones that investigate and ensure cops are held accountable for misconduct and corruption. It doesn’t matter that they also exonerate cops falsely accused of misconduct as well. To most cops, being in IA is not desirable. Now I know there is a public perception of cops not thoroughly investigating incidents on their own or looking the other way, etc. That perception does not match the reality that cops do not want to be investigated by IA, because they know the consequences of getting caught. I think several local jurisdictions, Chesapeake included, have had some cases the last few years of misconduct discovered and dealt with by the police (theft from the CPD Academy last year, Portsmouth Lt. involved in drug trade, VBPD cheating scandal, etc.). The IA system does work in my experience.

    I agree with you, transparency that does not compromise safety should be a no-brainer. The police should not be afraid to explain themselves after something goes wrong. However, I think our litigious society and the limited financial resources of local governments makes admitting mistakes almost impossible.

  8. CEH,

    There may have been misconduct that hasn’t been sufficiently explored, due to the procedural rules in court. For example, Broccoletti was prohibited from asking any questions about the warrant during the trial. The warrant wasn’t even permitted into evidence.

    Read the affidavit for the warrant. Det. Roberts completed the affidavit on 15 January. He wrote that the CI (Steven Wright) had been inside the residence within the previous 72 hours and had seen the plants growing. He doesn’t mention a burglary.

    In his testimony at trial, Roberts says that Wright informed him that a burglary had taken place the day before (14 January) at the house, but that he was not a participant in the burglary.

    The problem here is obvious. There is simply no way to place Wright inside the house at any time in January without him being of the burglars. This is a fourth amendment violation that should have disqualified the warrant, making the raid itself illegal. But the judge denied the motion to have a hearing on the warrant. Without that hearing, the defense was not allowed to discuss the warrant in court unless the prosecution brought it up.

    These are the kinds of questions that only a citizen review can resolve. There a large number of other problems like this one, too numerous to list in a comment. It would take an actual blog post, perhaps a series of them. And I have no doubt that some of these questions have reasonable explanations. But some could point to methods of investigation and enforcement that the local populace may not want to have deployed in their names. The citizens deserve to have the information, and to exercise the right to tell their employees not to impose these tactics.

    You may regard the wishes of those citizens to be inexpert, but this is a public agency that acts in the names of those citizens.

  9. CEH says:


    Do you have a link to where the warrant affadavit was publicized in the media?

  10. CEH says:


    I found it. You are right, only because we know now Wright was the burglar. The affadavit on that date with the information it contains does not in and of itself indicate Wright was the burglar or Roberts should have known he was the burglar. What do you base your assertion that “there is simply no way to place Wright inside the house at anytime in January without him being one of the burglars”? I don’t see how that logic is so apparent on Jan. 15, 2008. Maybe testimony at the trial, a year later, or reports in the news, months later, makes that likely. But what was known on Jan. 15, 2008? Again, and here is the problem we both agree on, Roberts took Wright at his word. I don’t know what Wright told Roberts, other than what they both testifed to. Should Roberts have known or suspected Wright was the burglar? Maybe. Is it possible he honestly did not? Yeah, I think so. Wright says the police didn’t know. Roberts says he didn’t know. And knowinging, after it happened, is not the same as ordering it to happen. True, the warrant should not have been executed, in my opinion, if they knew the PC for the search was gained through a burglary. But again, therein lies the rub with criminal informants, they are criminals! They either participate in or associate with others who participate in criminal behavior. Ordering a burglary for PC is one thing. Finding out about the burglary after the fact, although suspect, is not the same thing.

    What could a citizen review board do to get to the bottom of this that the court system and internal affairs cannot (or did not)? And please, if you have the time, I’d be interested in hearing what other examples of misconduct you are referring to in this case. Maybe I can provide a LEO perspective explanation. Or not.

  11. CEH says:

    One other thought. The local populace does not have a unified voice on very many topics at all. So to say a select few citizens that may comprise a review board are the voice of the populace is not accurate. How are these citizens selected? Who do they represent? What is their agenda? Is there a set demographic ratio? How about religions? Education level? Pro-marijuana supporters on the board? How do these folks, what 5, 7, 9 (or more) of them, adequately decide or mandate police policy for an entire City’s population?

    Police accountability to the public is paramount, I just don’t know that a citizen review board is the best way.

  12. First, to the point that he might not have known that Wright was the burglar. Even taking Wright’s and Roberts’ testimony at face vaule, the evidence that Wright was one of the burglars was far far stronger, even on 15 January, than the evidence that even one plant was growing in the garage on Redstart. Yet, he acted on the weaker assertion. That’s bad on it’s face, and needs an independent review to learn what was really said in that interview. Was their an audio recording of this conversation that was not permitted from court? I don’t know. The weakness of calling the court case a de facto review is that some pertinent evidence is excluded, due to procedural rules.

    The notion of Internal Affairs being an effective tool to provide accountability is laughable. It’s a tool for insulation from accountability. I know a police officer who is a member of leap, who has worked for a department where the IA department was a desk in the middle of the same office with the cops they were supposed to be overseeing. They were all friends.

    Thursday night I participated in an online chat with Berwyn Heights, MD Mayor Cheye Calvo. If you don’t know, he was the victim of a raid performed by a SWAT team from the Prince George’s County Sheriff’s Department. If you don’t know about this story, you might want to google his name. The head of the PGSD’s IA department is the father of the leader of the raid on Calvo’s house, and has not recused himself from the investigation. What do you think they will find?

  13. @CEH,

    The local populace does not have a unified voice on very many topics at all. So to say a select few citizens that may comprise a review board are the voice of the populace is not accurate.

    The same thing could be said for the existing marijuana laws. Or any other law. The city council is used to make laws that are imposed on the local populace, usually by a select few citizens that want that law imposed. If laws written by city council provide justification for paramilitary style raids on the homes of citizens, then using city council to impose the rules of engagement so that such tactics are not used arbitrarily is equally justified.

    Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, brother.

  14. I don’t see how that logic is so apparent on Jan. 15, 2008.

    Robert’s testified that he asked Wright if he was one of the burglars “at least 15 times”. Have you ever, in your life, asked a person the same question more than three times if you were confident in the veracity of the answer? Asking the question then rinsing and repeating 14 times tell me one of the following:

    * Roberts wasn’t that confident in the information, but wrote in the affidavit that he was, anyway, so that he could go on a fishing expedition.

    * Roberts kept asking until Wright answered with the magic words that would get him the warrant.

    * The absurd notion that he would ask this question 15 times was a lie.

    * Roberts, a detective was actually stupid enough to not make that connection.

    The prosecutors had a clear preference for stupid. Which of those answers inspires confidence in the future performance of this same detective?

  15. Britt Howard says:

    CEH, to answer some questions you replied with to my post:

    Had the search warrant been for a Meth lab would I have felt differently about the tactics? Yes, and no.

    Yes, because the scale of crime would have been more appropriate. Having three pot plants would constitute manufacture I suppose but, not farming with intent to sell. Do you breach if you think there is one joint? It is still drugs. If all drug searches are run the same……. The method here with executing the warrant did not match the crime or intelligence on the person of interest. The fact is, there is risk with every breach, as you said, the “Murphy” is there. That is reason enough to work smarter not “tougher”. “Murphy” is reason NOT to breach in this case unless it can be confirmed that RF knows that you are there, and still refuses to come out.

    Before you argue about protecting evidence, let me remind you of Tabor’s point that you can’t easily flush a pot plant. Go to his door, knock. Call his phone etc. Again, a personal user of pot is being treated like a crack cocaine distributor.

    Further, we were not there and can only speculate based on testimony, what we’ve read in the paper, personal knowledge, and common sense. How many officers were there? If you read the papers from day one on this, there was a point where it appeared only few officers were there initially. The neighbors give accounts that differ sharply from the CPD regarding number present, whether they announced first etc. That bothers me quite a bit. For the sake of argument, I will accept your premise that there were enough officers present and that a policy correct 8 ball was called.

    The Pilot pointed to poor coordination at the various doors of Frederick’s home. That tactically speaking is a concern. The policy of what tactics to use might be ok when a breach is called for but, the execution seems lacking. IF you call an 8 ball it should be all out devastating projection of force. That is the best hope to get a violent person to back down, get prone, and start praying the PD sees that you’re not resisting. Where were the flash bangs? Multiple entry points? I sure hope the CPD steps it up a notch or two if they were up against multiple armed drug lords in one setting. Simply busting in the front door if things are bad enough to call an 8 ball seems amateurish. If you call an 8 ball that should mean something.

    Let’s face it. Flash bangs and even tear gas would at least offer RF a clue that the PD was busting in and not a robber. I do not believe the CPD did enough to notify RF that the CPD was there and why they were there. Use the damn phone! This is RF which was determined not to be a threat at the time the warrant was approved, not a house of armed goons with a viloent past. If you have to knock more, then knock more. Use a bull horn. One man with a gun can not take down the CPD. Giving him prior information doesn’t risk the operation it insures its success! The goons you catch by surprise. Petty herb growers that will get slapped on the wrist for possession, you let them know so they have opportunity to submit. Tactics! Avoid the “Murphy” when possible. With RF, it WAS possible.

    When was RF taken into custody? Wasn’t it after more back up arrived, police presence was announced, and his surrender demanded? What does that tell you about what happend prior to that? To me, that screams failure that cost a life. What? Did RF think he could take the CPD and changed his mind when offered surrender options?

    Why did Mutual Assurred Destruction ward off Soviet aggression? There was perception of American might. If your person of interest knows it is the police rather than another robber/thug, a small time pot grower will stand down. Tactics!

    RF was a pot head. You expect low keyed laziness from these guys. Adrenaline must have really been pumping to overcome his bong hits. He must have been scared out of his skull. Know your enemy. Tactics.

    You state that if the PD uses criminal informants and no other investigation that is a problem but, not tactics. I respectfully disagree. Gathering intelligence and using it is tactical. Intelligence on the opposition often determines who wins.

    I do not think a traffic stop had to be used but, let me answer you question there. If you get a warrant to search his house and his person, a detainment would likely be legal. I’m not a lawyer, just reasoning here.

    I agree that the time should be at the discretion of the PD and not the person/s of interest. However, the time should not be chosen based on when the officers “feel” like it. The time should be chosen for tactical advantage. For goons, catch them sleeping. I even would be ok with a “no-knock” in that case.

    But RF? You don’t have to make an appointment with the guy but, get him coming out for the paper or the trash wearing his boxers. Work smarter not harder.

    You speak of efficiency vs. quality. I work in Quality Assurance. Production of bad quality equals negative production, which is even WORSE than working too slowly. How many more drug raids could have been successfully executed if little RF got cuffed bringing in his trash can? The difference in paperwork alone….

    I give the team credit for RF still being alive. Especially after Shivers being shot. One usually expects that RF would be unrecognizable after killing an officer. I even will give some credit to “Murphy” even though IF Shivers reached in, that shot would be more likely. What I don’t give the team credit for, is a “Murphy” at the door. The CI didn’t provide info on locks on RF’s door? Previous robberry might lead to thinking the door might have extra locks now?

    How do you give credit on the door if you could have just asked RF to come out? How can I accept the CPD version that they announced and gave him time to answer if when told to surrender later, he did? Again, did RF think he could take on the CPD and just changed his mind and finally surrendered? This is a pot smoker, not a PCP junkie or a violent killer.

    I blame the superiors more than the initial team. The results contradict that discipline, coordination, and procedure are routine. I even wonder if the inital team was completely briefed on what a threat RF really wasn’t, and that this should be an easy warrant execution.

    CEH, I disagree with you on some points but, I do respect your posts and appreciate your experience being brought to this discussion. I echo Doc Tabor’s thoughts on that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: