US Marshal's Service...big 'oopsie'

Dan0311 said:
Mods, I apologize. I'm pretty new here and should have ducked out of this discussion a long time ago. People want to believe what they want to believe, but I was hoping that almost 33 years of recent experience in this topic would show them another, logical side - a few didn't get that. A few think they somehow know better and, who knows, maybe they're right.
Click to expand...

You may have 33 years in law enforcement in a major metropolitan area. I would not pretend to know more than you do about law enforcement.

U.S. Marshals or tenured law enforcement folks may have a sixth sense when it comes to dealing with threats. An ordinary home owner may not. Probably not. As such, I don't think it is too much to ask of law enforcement to at least have an outward appearance of a "good guy". Police have uniforms for a reason. The military has uniforms for a reason. Part of that reason is to distinguish friend from foe.

When it comes to the motivations of people carrying firearms, that is sometimes difficult to discern. Warrants and probable cause aside, a homeowner who suddenly sees a bunch of dudes NOT in uniform (and no, the purple toboggan doesn't scream "police" to me) has a very short window to try to figure out if the dudes outside with rifles are bad guys or good guys.

You can cite all the legal justifications you want to after the fact. But if law enforcement, with all their training, sometimes have a tough time making that quick life or death call as to who is friend of foe, certainly the same is true for us ordinary people who are simply trying to protect home and hearth.

Part of what you believe makes you an expert is the very thing that is also making it difficult for you to step back and see a different point of view. The "garb" as one put it, is not just one simple data point. I contend that it was THE data point that makes the most difference in this scenario.

As someone else mentioned above, blue on blue shooting deaths have happened. Therefore, you really can't have it both ways. We can't be ignorant rubes that lack all the requisite training but then be expected to make a snap judgment that seasoned law enforcement sometimes fail to do correctly.

Those Marshals should have been in some kind of uniform. I assume they don't roll around kitted up like that, so I suspect there was an opportunity to at least put on a hat or something that identified them as LEOs.

Dan0311 said:
I just moved here from the Town of Oyster Bay, Long Island (like in that Billy Joel song - but not too near him!).
Click to expand...

So you just moved to Western North Carolina? Welcome.

I suppose you might have moved down here for the weather. Or maybe it's because the tax burden is less. Maybe it's just better down here in many different ways.

I've got a dear friend of mine that I love like a brother. Like he was my own family, despite the fact that I've only known him a few years. He's from the big city, so to speak. It might not be a bad idea to reach out to @Edg890 for some friendly advice if he's open to it.

If you're in certain parts of Western North Carolina (and I don't mean Asheville or Boone) you'll find some truly wonderful people. But keep in mind that they're from the land of white pines and moonshine. Where men are still men. If your goal is to make friends, I would humbly suggest a different approach than the one you've taken here in the virtual world. This is not a normal internet forum per se. This forum was founded by people that already know one another. Have traded together. Been to the range and matches together. It's a little different than most forums.

The South is not what the mainstream media says it is. You'll figure it out. But if you really want to make the most of it, you might want to leave some of the big city thinking at the door. Think about it. If a country boy went up there, he'd need to change a little bit too.
 
Last edited:
Glocker said:
First -maybe try a Food Lion or Harris Teeter..well lit parking lots and parking spaces close enough for a quick sprint to the closest door.

Second- I’ve never seen a person walking around a parking lot with a flashlight and thought “they have a good reason”…
Click to expand...
A) I can't run anymore on my knee surgeon's orders. I mean, I can... but i'm already more than half way through the time he said it would take before i need a knee replacement...
B) I had to look under my car 2 nights ago coming out of work. I was parked directly under the parking lot light, so it was all shadow down there.
I wouldn't hate more cops coming around thinking i look suspicious in my khakis and button down shirts. We'rehaving to upgrade our one unarmed guard to 2 armed guards... fayettenam! Alas, plenty of the police are getting to know us for all the calls we have to put in for ambulances and security threats.
 
Dan0311 said:
Sorry, it's a bit difficult to keep up. What question?

I'm not too sure what the 'civilian situation' is. Cops often go into back yards with their guns out. Sometimes looking for a bad guy who ran, or a fugitive on a tip. It's common. It's normal, everyday policework. If armed men where in MY Backyard dressed the way they were, I'd be ready for a fight. But their reason for being there is commonplace - and expected by the community they serve.
Click to expand...
To see a man slipping through my backyard with a gun is not commonplace and I don’t think anyone in my community would expect it either
 
Dan0311 said:
Lol, where I come from only snowflakes use the old "jack-booted thug" line. It's cute.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Where you come from? Which part of "NY/WNC" are you referring to, the "NY" part or the "WNC" part?

I'm pretty sure people from WNC call it like it is without caring what other people think about it.


EDIT:

I made this post not realizing @Dan0311 had left the thread. For clarification, this was unintentional and not meant to be a "cheap shot" at someone who has chosen to bow out. Apologies.
 
Last edited:
Assume that it's legal for LEO to creep your house wearing thug life clothes and shouldering an AR15 and sweeping the windows with the muzzle.

Assume that it's also( much more ) reasonable that the owner of the home is concerned about someone creeping their house with an AR15 and grabs their own.

How is this likely to end?

Which of the two parties is best positioned to have avoided this situation?
 
Last edited:
Some of the members here in this thread conducted themselves in a manner that, while within the confines of the forum rules, is disappointing.

The problem is that the presence of the officers, the fact that they were armed, and the lack of uniforms combine to give an ordinary person cause for alarm. We can parse out those various things and debate them individually if we want, but I don't see the point. If I had a loved one murdered, I'd want LEOs to follow up on all leads. So I don't have an issue with them simply being there. I do have an issue with the way that they did it, rifles at the ready, and without an appearance that would indicate they are the "good guys".

We shouldn't judge all law enforcement based on a few bad actors. I have law enforcement officers that are dear friends of mine. They know they are welcome in my home any time they please. I'll pour them some coffee if they are on duty and some bourbon if they are not.

Debate is healthy, if done with respect. Let's try to have a little bit more of that. On both sides.

Consider how the media has been treating law enforcement. Consider how elected officials are treating law enforcement. They might feel a bit attacked, and personally I can't blame them. It's a hell of a tough job and they have my respect. I sure hope I have theirs.
 
Studentofthegun said:
Some of the members here are conducted themselves in a manner that, while within the confines of the forum rules, is disappointing.

The problem is that the presence of the officers, the fact that they were armed, and the lack of uniforms combine to give an ordinary person cause for alarm. We can parse out those various things and debate them individually if we want, but I don't see the point. If I had a loved one murdered, I'd want LEOs to follow up on all leads. So I don't have an issue with them simply being there. I do have an issue with the way that they did it, rifles at the ready, and without an appearance that would indicate they are the "good guys".

We shouldn't judge all law enforcement based on a few bad actors. I have law enforcement officers that are dear friends of mine. They know they are welcome in my home any time they please. I'll pour them some coffee if they are on duty and some bourbon if they are not.

Debate is healthy, if done with respect. Let's try to have a little bit more of that. On both sides.

Consider how the media has been treating law enforcement. Consider how elected officials are treating law enforcement. They might feel a bit attacked, and personally I can't blame them. It's a hell of a tough job and they have my respect. I sure hope I have theirs.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you've said, but from what I've seen from most of the law enforcement, former law enforcement, and those that are close to law enforcement responses in this thread they can't separate themselves from this situation to see the problems. Like someone else said, how would a LEO feel if they were sitting in their cruiser and one of these guys approached them? I'm sure that they wouldn't get the warm and fuzzy feelings. Due to some of the responses in this thread I can see why my opinion of law enforcement has been going down over the past few years. It isn't the media that has done it, but rather the response of LEOs when asked about issues. I think a lot of us are tired of LEO'S acting above reproach and the defensive response of "next time call a crackhead." I used to have friends that were LEOs, but the three of them turned into some of the most arrogant and defensive guys I've ever known.
 
JohnFreeman said:
Assume that it's legal for LEO to creep your house wearing thug life clothes and shouldering an AR15 and sweeping the windows with the muzzle.

Assume that it's also( much more ) reasonable that the owner of the home is concerned about someone creeping their house with an AR15 and grabs their own.

How is this likely to end?

Which of the two parties is best positioned to have avoided this situation?
Click to expand...
This, exactly. These guys look like wannabe operators in those clothes, easily avoided by wearing something a little more identifying. Easy solution.
 
ChickenHawk said:
Due to some of the responses in this thread I can see why my opinion of law enforcement has been going down over the past few years. It isn't the media that has done it, but rather the response of LEOs when asked about issues. I think a lot of us are tired of LEO'S acting above reproach and the defensive response of "next time call a crackhead." I used to have friends that were LEOs, but the three of them turned into some of the most arrogant and defensive guys I've ever known.
Click to expand...

A lot of that is coming from:

1. The lame stream media that is pitting us against LEOs.
2. Federal level LEO that see freedom-minded individuals as domestic terrorists. Which is completely off base and unwarranted. Make no mistake, this is politically driven.
3. The educational system (especially universities) pushing the "LEOs are inherently racist" theory.
4. Lots of local governments who are politically motivated to defund the police and pander to a left wing police-hating constituency. They don't back up their officers when the bullets fly and the officers are justified. On the other end of the spectrum, some local governments refuse to investigate police wrongdoing.

All of this culminates in an "us versus them" mentality. I can't lay most of the blame on cops for their defensiveness. There is no wonder they feel as if the only people they can trust and rely on are other cops. That just makes the problem worse, but it is what it is.
 
Man there is so much wrong in this scenario and in this thread.

If we wish to address this situation legally, logically and without emotion then those two Marshall’s are lucky they didn’t get shot.

We have a castle doctrine in NC and the wording of that document includes your land. You have no duty to retreat and you can assume that someone there without permission is there to cause you bodily harm.

Usually applies to inside the home and popping someone for simple trespass will probably see you in jail. But this was not simple trespass.

What we have here are two individuals dresses like a Russian wetwork team, approaching a home without any identification, blocking off a camera to further hide what a homeowner would assume would be their preparation to assault.

Shouting I’m a cop at that point shouldn’t hold any weight. You have not behaved at all like an officer of the law up to that point nor have you worn any clothing to identify yourself as such.

Not saying open fire through the door but I’d be in a defensible position and ready to fire if they breached.

This was just stupid on so many levels.

There is no reason for officers to dress like a mafia hit squad.

Plain clothes with a shield on your belt? Sure I can buy that. Masked up and covering your video tracks? Nope you’re an idiot.

As to what I’d want the police to do if they were going after someone who murders a family member? Their job. Which doesn’t include violation of rights or acting like a hit squad.
 
Last edited:
While not as dangerous I’ve had a situation recently that was in the same vein. I noticed a car parked behind an old barn on my farm. I started driving toward it to figure out what was going on and almost into a van parked deeper in my fields. It had dark tinted windows and I couldn’t see who was inside. I swept out in the field and tried to see inside. I made out somebody sitting there and walked closer. I ended up scaring a undercover deputy who never saw me coming even though I parked my large white truck right behind him. It made me mad and I got to thinking about what might have happened had I been hunting and had a shotgun in my hands instead of a pistol under my jacket.


They were doing surveillance on a house across the highway and I’ve since made contact with another deputy and they have my number if they come back out. I just think it was dumb on their part to not try to notify or ask to be there.
 
To be fair, a lot of this is also coming from law enforcement organizations themselves, not just the media, politicians, etc.

For example, there is such a thing as "militarizing" the police, and it's been going on for quite a while. Given that sometimes SWAT teams and tactics are called for, there has been a growing trend for many law enforcement agencies to expand those tactics and equipment into common police use.

"SWAT" stands for "Special Weapons and Tactics". SWAT teams/organizations were special units, equipped and trained to be called into play under certain circumstances. They were not intended to be brought into play to serve papers, serve warrants, or any situation in which there was no imminent need, or even reasonable belief that they would be needed. It's expanded so much in some agencies that they seem to fall under the old adage "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I had a cousin, a Vietnam veteran, who related the story of a sheriff's department who had called him in the early 80s asking him for training on some weapons that they had purchased. When he asked what kind of weapons they were talking about, he was aghast at what he was told. He asked them if they had any idea what kind of power some of these weapons, up to and including .50 caliber weapons, some of which were automatic, had. In the end, he told them "no", as it was his view that they had no legitimate business with the kind of firepower that would laugh at engine blocks and he wanted no part in it.

And while I get it that police officers may have a need for "plain clothes" and whatnot, including various other law enforcement agencies, dress is important. Undercover work, job descriptions that don't involve certain police functions, etc. may indeed have more lax dress requirements.

But when you're going to put forth a police presence, then part of that police presence is actually LOOKING LIKE THE POLICE. Heck, there are law enforcement officers that have shot or arrested OTHER law enforcement officers because they didn't LOOK like law enforcement officers. If a bunch of people who don't look like law enforcement officers are approaching a house, then what are people SUPPOSED to think? Should their default thoughts always be "Oh, they're armed, they must be with the police." That's right there is a scary thought, because it implies that the only people allowed to have guns in the first place are those that work for the government.

Looking at the video for this thread, it's obvious these people approached in broad daylight. It's just as obvious that the ONE PERSON who had a shield marked as law enforcement ACTIVELY BLOCKED THE CAMERA VIEW which would have revealed this if an occupant had looked. This wasn't some night operation where dark/blackened/night camouflage was called for. And apparently they were pretty much just paying a visit to the house to see if someone they were looking for was there...no evident intent to enter, or they would have done so. Given that they may feel the need to be armed, perhaps even at a higher level of alertness, WHY, then, were their tactics not conducive to readily identifying themselves as the law enforcement professions they are?

Uniformed or not, they can't use the excuse "we thought we might alert the bad guy", because they were crawling around the house openly carrying weapons and even sweeping the house with at least one weapon.

This is not a case of the media making law enforcement look bad. It's a case of law enforcement exercising, at best, shoddy professional behavior. At worse, it's deliberately manipulative behavior.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
To be fair, a lot of this is also coming from law enforcement organizations themselves, not just the media, politicians, etc.

For example, there is such a thing as "militarizing" the police, and it's been going on for quite a while. Given that sometimes SWAT teams and tactics are called for, there has been a growing trend for many law enforcement agencies to expand those tactics and equipment into common police use.

"SWAT" stands for "Special Weapons and Tactics". SWAT teams/organizations were special units, equipped and trained to be called into play under certain circumstances. They were not intended to be brought into play to serve papers, serve warrants, or any situation in which there was no imminent need, or even reasonable belief that they would be needed. It's expanded so much in some agencies that they seem to fall under the old adage "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I had a cousin, a Vietnam veteran, who related the story of a sheriff's department who had called him in the early 80s asking him for training on some weapons that they had purchased. When he asked what kind of weapons they were talking about, he was aghast at what he was told. He asked them if they had any idea what kind of power some of these weapons, up to and including .50 caliber weapons, some of which were automatic, had. In the end, he told them "no", as it was his view that they had no legitimate business with the kind of firepower that would laugh at engine blocks and he wanted no part in it.

And while I get it that police officers may have a need for "plain clothes" and whatnot, including various other law enforcement agencies, dress is important. Undercover work, job descriptions that don't involve certain police functions, etc. may indeed have more lax dress requirements.

But when you're going to put forth a police presence, then part of that police presence is actually LOOKING LIKE THE POLICE. Heck, there are law enforcement officers that have shot or arrested OTHER law enforcement officers because they didn't LOOK like law enforcement officers. If a bunch of people who don't look like law enforcement officers are approaching a house, then what are people SUPPOSED to think? Should their default thoughts always be "Oh, they're armed, they must be with the police." That's right there is a scary thought, because it implies that the only people allowed to have guns in the first place are those that work for the government.

Looking at the video for this thread, it's obvious these people approached in broad daylight. It's just as obvious that the ONE PERSON who had a shield marked as law enforcement ACTIVELY BLOCKED THE CAMERA VIEW which would have revealed this if an occupant had looked. This wasn't some night operation where dark/blackened/night camouflage was called for. And apparently they were pretty much just paying a visit to the house to see if someone they were looking for was there...no evident intent to enter, or they would have done so. Given that they may feel the need to be armed, perhaps even at a higher level of alertness, WHY, then, were their tactics not conducive to readily identifying themselves as the law enforcement professions they are?

Uniformed or not, they can't use the excuse "we thought we might alert the bad guy", because they were crawling around the house openly carrying weapons and even sweeping the house with at least one weapon.

This is not a case of the media making law enforcement look bad. It's a case of law enforcement exercising, at best, shoddy professional behavior. At worse, it's deliberately manipulative behavior.
Click to expand...


I guess taking some local beat/patrol cops with them would have been way to easy and identifiable plus a unwanted help of the streets and residents knowledge
 
Last edited:
Studentofthegun said:
A lot of that is coming from:

1. The lame stream media that is pitting us against LEOs.
2. Federal level LEO that see freedom-minded individuals as domestic terrorists. Which is completely off base and unwarranted. Make no mistake, this is politically driven.
3. The educational system (especially universities) pushing the "LEOs are inherently racist" theory.
4. Lots of local governments who are politically motivated to defund the police and pander to a left wing police-hating constituency. They don't back up their officers when the bullets fly and the officers are justified. On the other end of the spectrum, some local governments refuse to investigate police wrongdoing.

All of this culminates in an "us versus them" mentality. I can't lay most of the blame on cops for their defensiveness. There is no wonder they feel as if the only people they can trust and rely on are other cops. That just makes the problem worse, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
@RetiredUSNChief pretty much summed up my response to this. I have been losing trust due to personal interactions and people defending stupid tactics like in this thread. I get it. People want to back up those they see as their group. If something looks like a stupid situation maybe stay silent instead of doubling down on making the general populace mad instead of defending punks.
 
Mack270 said:
While not as dangerous I’ve had a situation recently that was in the same vein. I noticed a car parked behind an old barn on my farm. I started driving toward it to figure out what was going on and almost into a van parked deeper in my fields. It had dark tinted windows and I couldn’t see who was inside. I swept out in the field and tried to see inside. I made out somebody sitting there and walked closer. I ended up scaring a undercover deputy who never saw me coming even though I parked my large white truck right behind him. It made me mad and I got to thinking about what might have happened had I been hunting and had a shotgun in my hands instead of a pistol under my jacket.


They were doing surveillance on a house across the highway and I’ve since made contact with another deputy and they have my number if they come back out. I just think it was dumb on their part to not try to notify or ask to be there.
Click to expand...
At my old childhood home, we had a row of hedges in the drieway and a truck that blocked the view from both angles. That little neighborhood road was a hot spot for speeders and was used as a short-cut from one busy road to another busy road during rush hour traffic
We were more than willing to let the cops sit there and catch speeders endangering the neighborhood kids... but it was just good manners for them to come ask if they could sit in our driveway. They didn't always have good manners.
...
...
In other news, work had to call the cops again this morning. As predicted, i didn't have the warm fuzzies about that, and wasn't real pleased about having the guy there. The only reason i wanted them called was to document an official incident and issue a trespass warning.
 
+/- 18 years ago, my wife and I came home to the house we rented at the time after a long vacation. We had been traveling all day and were beat. We both collapsed on the bed and were procrastinating unloading our crap. I saw, from the corner of my eye, someone walking around behind the house. I scooped up the first gun handy, a 6" .357 magnum and proceeded to move thru the house, peeking out windows to see who TF was there. The front door had only a small window in it, up high. As I moved towards it, I heard footsteps on the stairs in front of it. I had the hammer back and the gun in front of me as I raised my head and peeked thru. That is when I saw the Highway Patrol flat hat. I put the gun down, answered the door and had a pleasant conversation about how someone had run over our mailbox. He just needed our info to fill out his paperwork. Why he parked his marked car halfway down the drive I do not know.

I have to wonder, had I saw someone looking like those marshals thru that window, what may have happened.
What if the door had more glass and he saw me with a leveled .357? I like breathing, if the rifle had started to come up.... one of us would have probably stopped breathing that day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom