Dallas PD No Knock the wrong home.

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:01 am

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/DPD-targ ... 29092.html

DALLAS â€” The search for suspects who raped an SMU student last weekend led police to a southeast Dallas neighborhood off Jim Miller Road and Red Bud Drive.

Ruben Moontiel also saw SWAT officers near his home on Red Bud Saturday afternoon while he landscaped his front yard.

No sooner had he gone inside to tell his wife police were suiting up outside when SWAT kicked in his front door.

"I felt humiliated," Moontiel said.

His wife, Agueda, said Dallas SWAT officers rushing into her home trampled over her foot and fractured it.

DPD detained the entire family for four hours, keeping them outside.

Finally, detectives had Agueda Moontiel's black 2001 Chevy Tahoe impounded. That was particularly inconvenient for the family because their SUV has a special seat in it to transport their three-year-old disabled son, Ruben Jr.

But police say they were acting in good faith while investigating the SMU student's rape.

The three men who raped the 20-year-old woman miles away left the scene driving a dark SUV. Plus, DPD traced the rape victim's cell phone to Moontiel's street, where there are a half dozen similar vehicles.

But detectives zeroed in on his home because his family's 2001 Chevy was previously owned by a sex offender.

Detectives contacted SWAT with promising evidence, but police concede that detectives were wrong.

"It's one of those fine lines," explained police spokesman Lt. Andy Harvey. "We're trying to get bad people off the street, so -- unfortunately -- sometimes mistakes are made. But our intention is always in the right place."

DPD's SWAT doctor examined Agueda Moontiel's foot at the scene, but she refused treatment, Lt. Harvey said.

The family provided records that show Methodist Hospital later found fractures in her foot costing the Moontiels $600.

Their house now needs repairs, too, from SWAT kicking in the front door.

Late Tuesday evening, Dallas Police had the Moontiel's black SUV towed back to their house after discovering it had a flat tire while in DPD's custody at the impound lot.

Lt. Harvey said Ruben Moontiel, 33 -- who cleans office buildings for a living and has no criminal record -- is not a suspect in this crime. Police readily admit that this was a case of mistaken identity.

As it always does, SWAT provided paperwork for the Moontiels to file a claim against the city. But since police were on the job looking for violent criminals, Dallas isn't obligated to pay the family a dime.

millo2115 · Post by **millo2115** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:07 am

This happens more often than you hear about. They will get paid.

tomahawk84 · Post by **tomahawk84** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:23 am

I hope they get covered.

David Hineline · Post by **David Hineline** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:24 am

We are from the government we are here to help.

[/img]

Ben B. · Post by **Ben B.** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:30 am

Give me the fuckin' kid!

soohwa · Post by **soohwa** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:02 am

What....

Why use a swat team on a suspected rapist?

L1A1Rocker · Post by **L1A1Rocker** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:05 am

soohwa wrote:What....

Why use a swat team on a suspected rapist?

To justify haveing the SWAT team. If you never use it then why keep paying for it?

Twinsen · Post by **Twinsen** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:44 am

No knocks are the best things in life. I mean if they didn't exist, we might start to feel safe.

continuity · Post by **continuity** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:54 am

soohwa wrote:What....

Why use a swat team on a suspected rapist?

Because if (some) teams actually went up against some determined criminals, there would be openings on that team after it was all said and done ...............

aquajon · Post by **aquajon** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:06 am

So if you buy a used car from someone with a criminal record that's now probable cause for a no knock search warrant?

cyclone72 · Post by **cyclone72** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:47 am

L1A1Rocker wrote:
soohwa wrote:What....

Why use a swat team on a suspected rapist?
To justify haveing the SWAT team. If you never use it then why keep paying for it?

THIS!

TROOPER · Post by **TROOPER** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:42 am

Why use SWAT if the guy is outside landscaping? Why a no-knock on a suspected rapist anyway? I could kind of see it if the rapist used a pillow-case full of guns, but what lead police to believe that a no-knock was better in this particular instance?

Hush · Post by **Hush** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:26 am

aquajon wrote:So if you buy a used car from someone with a criminal record that's now probable cause for a no knock search warrant?

+1 Gotta stay away from used cars.

At least they didn't have any dogs for swat to shoot.

L1A1Rocker · Post by **L1A1Rocker** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:44 pm

Hush wrote:
aquajon wrote:So if you buy a used car from someone with a criminal record that's now probable cause for a no knock search warrant?
+1 Gotta stay away from used cars.

At least they didn't have any dogs for swat to shoot.

Guys, this does touch on something that CAN actually be a problem. I'm talking about what you get that you do not know about with a used car.

Back around 83 (I was in my early teens) my dad bought a used 77 corvette (it was advertised in the local paper). The next day he procedes to do something I thought was just nuts. He pulled the entire interior out and scrubbed the inside down with soap and water. During his pull down he found no less than two single edged razor blades and three short straws. He also broke out the Kerby and washed the carpets there on the driveway.

Buyer Beware.

YugoRPK · Post by **YugoRPK** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:46 pm

L1A1Rocker wrote:
Hush wrote:
aquajon wrote:So if you buy a used car from someone with a criminal record that's now probable cause for a no knock search warrant?
+1 Gotta stay away from used cars.

At least they didn't have any dogs for swat to shoot.
Guys, this does touch on something that CAN actually be a problem. I'm talking about what you get that you do not know about with a used car.

Back around 83 (I was in my early teens) my dad bought a used 77 corvette (it was advertised in the local paper). The next day he procedes to do something I thought was just nuts. He pulled the entire interior out and scrubbed the inside down with soap and water. During his pull down he found no less than two single edged razor blades and three short straws. He also broke out the Kerby and washed the carpets there on the driveway.

Buyer Beware.

Oh, My God... a 1977 Corvette with coke straws and razors . I thought they came with those as standard equipment.

continuity · Post by **continuity** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:57 pm

YugoRPK wrote:...straws and razors . I thought they came with those as standard equipment.

Repair kit items for fixing winter time air line freezing.

seacoastnh · Post by **seacoastnh** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:19 pm

ArevaloSOCOM wrote:http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/DPD-targ ... 29092.html

"We're trying to get bad people off the street, so -- unfortunately -- sometimes mistakes are made. But our intention is always in the right place."

I wonder if he would so magnanimous about the mistake if a couple of his door kickers were taking a dirt nap because the innocent home owner with his â€œintention in the right placeâ€

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:37 pm

seacoastnh wrote:
ArevaloSOCOM wrote:http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/DPD-targ ... 29092.html

"We're trying to get bad people off the street, so -- unfortunately -- sometimes mistakes are made. But our intention is always in the right place."

I wonder if he would so magnanimous about the mistake if a couple of his door kickers were taking a dirt nap because the innocent home owner with his â€œintention in the right placeâ€

TROOPER · Post by **TROOPER** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:56 pm

On an irrelevant side-note, the title is mis-leading. The cops got the address they were aiming for, it was just the home of the wrong guy.

chingon · Post by **chingon** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:09 pm

Why didn't they take him outside?

kwin201 · Post by **kwin201** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:12 pm

chingon wrote:Why didn't they take him outside?

was just about to post this, they prolly have to clear the house for safety concerns anyway

MicroGuy · Post by **MicroGuy** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:27 pm

They didn't even fix the flat tire while they had it?? Man, what cheap bastards!! Must be because of having that expensive SWAT equipment and all. What's it cost to fix a flat? $6?? $10 tops?

Just so many things wrong with this.

I kinda got to thinking about this a little. We're always thinking something along the lines of "Thank God it wasn't one of our homes because we're armed etc....."

If they do this, and do start getting shot at, that will only give them more ammo to outlaw guns, for their safety. I mean, how can they safely bust into our homes when they have to worry about being shot at right?? Got to go!

Ben B. · Post by **Ben B.** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:14 pm

Here in OR, the law is written such that no citizen may resist a police officer, regardless of whether the officer is acting within the law.

ORS 161.260 Use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited. A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a peace officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. [1971 c.743 Â§32]

Of course an unlawful arrest may not involve force either. I bet this one doesn't get much use:

161.245 (2) A peace officer who is making an arrest is justified in using the physical force prescribed in ORS 161.235 and 161.239 unless the arrest is unlawful and is known by the officer to be unlawful. [1971 c.743 Â§29]

smcharchan · Post by **smcharchan** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:06 am

The actions of the DPD in this case may be sanctioned by "law", but I'll bet that the citizenry that has empowered them with the tools and authority used to commit these acts views them as:

crimÂ·iÂ·nal (krm-nl) adj. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.

This group has clearly forgotten that they are responsible for serving and protecting the people, not serving and protecting the "law".

seacoastnh · Post by **seacoastnh** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:46 pm

MicroGuy wrote: I kinda got to thinking about this a little. We're always thinking something along the lines of "Thank God it wasn't one of our homes because we're armed etc....."

If they do this, and do start getting shot at, that will only give them more ammo to outlaw guns, for their safety. I mean, how can they safely bust into our homes when they have to worry about being shot at right?? Got to go!

Remember June of 2008 when mexicans dressed in tactical clothing invaded a home in Arizona. That got me thinking there are no real good options.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372202,00.html

There was speculation that they were mexican military at the time. I don't think it was proven that they were active mexican military.

If someone kicks down your door wearing tactical gear are you going to have time to verify that they are real police officers or someone wearing tactical gear that says "swat" or "police."

If you are armed but don't fire first, Barney Fife is likely to kill you even if he has the wrong house. While you try to authenticate Barney he is going to get the drop on you.

Of course if you assume it is the Police and it is just an honest mistake and it turns out to be a mexican gang dressed in tactical gear that got the wrong house, maybe they will leave quietly.

Dallas PD No Knock the wrong home.

Dallas PD No Knock the wrong home.

Re: Dallas PD No Knock the wrong home.

Re: Dallas PD No Knock the wrong home.