Self-defense for FBI agent killer?

[law dawg]

Not that lady. Now, someone is dead and she is facing charges because the law kicked in her door without proper identification.

Not according to them, they didn't. They said they knocked and announced. Do you know something we don't? Is there a link?

 

[FunYun]

I'll say it again - BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SEARCH THE HOUSE.

You can't search a house without going inside it. Where did people come up with this was an arrest warrant? It wasn't - it was a raid of a premises, looking for contraband. They had no warrant to arrest the man, per se, from what I read. Regardless, the evidence seized would not have been had they not searched the house.

Allegheny County Police, however, said the team that went to the home to arrest Korbe's husband knocked on the door around 6 a.m. and shouted "police!" several times. The officers then saw Robert Korbe run through the house, according to the criminal complaint.

It's not like its hidden or anything.

Robert Korbe, 39, was one of 35 people charged Wednesday in the 27-count indictment that accuses the defendants of conspiring to traffic cocaine and crack from October 2007 through September. Christina Korbe was not named in the indictment.

Its pretty obvious that they had witnessed him dealing at other points in time. Instead of arresting him then, red handed, they waited till he was home with his innocent family, great idea that was.

Out of curiosity, how do you have 35 arrest, but only 27 indictments?

 

[Martlet]

Not according to them, they didn't. They said they knocked and announced. Do you know something we don't? Is there a link?

Obviously they didn't announce to her. She shot one, then called 911 and announced a robbery.

 

[Ma$$hole]

She fired one shot.

Well she still landed a shot now didn't she?

The lack of a castle doctrine should not be construed to mean it is illegal to defend yourself, thats just stupid. The law describes what we cannot do, not what we can.

She wouldn't have landed that shot if she knew the law and knew where she was suppose to be

Thats it, jump from a second story floor with your kids, ARE YOU f***ING SUICIDAL?

There are things called fire escapes.. there could have been a different set of stairs leading to the BACK ENTRANCE of the house which the husband found. If she sat tight in a locked room maybe she would have heard them yell "Police!"

Please god no, you'll still get someone killed.

Looks like I thought this through a hell of a lot better than you did there champ. So maybe I'd make a hell of an agent if it came down to it.

He was not alone, just the first one in, he was also hit in the calor area.

The first one in shouldn't have been lightly armored and that was a hell of an unlucky shot. It's also spelt collar.

Overall things were mishandled on both ends and it appears I'm not the only one who uses multicolors in their quotes God this is a pain in the ass...

 

[FunYun]

Not according to them, they didn't. They said they knocked and announced. Do you know something we don't? Is there a link?

Sans a bullhorn, its hard to believe anyone would announce loud enough for it to be audible to everyone in the house. What good is an announcement that cannot be heard by those it is intended for?

 

[terraformer]

Sans a bullhorn, its hard to believe anyone would announce loud enough for it to be audible to everyone in the house. What good is an announcement that cannot be heard by those it is intended for?

Exactly. Someone could scream outside my house at the top of their lungs and I wouldn't hear it in the bedroom.

 

[law dawg]

It's not like its hidden or anything.



Its pretty obvious that they had witnessed him dealing at other points in time. Instead of arresting him then, red handed, they waited till he was home with his innocent family, great idea that was.

Out of curiosity, how do you have 35 arrest, but only 27 indictments?

Whoops. Skimmed that paragraph. My bad.

<Nothing to see here folks! Move along!>

 

[law dawg]

Sans a bullhorn, its hard to believe anyone would announce loud enough for it to be audible to everyone in the house. What good is an announcement that cannot be heard by those it is intended for?

So what's the solution then? If you're directing a raid tomorrow of a home, how do you go about it?

 

[Raoul Duke]

It's also spelt collar.

Not for nothing but "Spelt [sic] isn't a word. You meant to say Spelled? I wouldn't beat you up over a technicality most of the time, but since you are correcting someone else it's hard to resist.


Oh and to the pussy who gave me the unsigned negative rep point...be a man (or woman) and own up to it as I do. Otherwise, you're just a run of the mill looser sitting at home stroking it to S.W.A.T magazine and waiting to have their life to be legitimized by a badge. Seriously, put the tactical stroke book away, man up and own it. Oh, and just because you're a pussy, I'll say it again.

NO BIG LOSS!

 

[FunYun]

The first one in shouldn't have been lightly armored and that was a hell of an unlucky shot. It's also spelt collar.

Overall things were mishandled on both ends and it appears I'm not the only one who uses multicolors in their quotes God this is a pain in the ass...

Armor only helps when the bullets hit the armor. This is also another reason why these raids suck. Its turkey shoot for the guys going in.

I don't see what the mother did wrong, she though she was being attacked and defended herself. What would you do if you though you were being attacked?

 

[law dawg]

Armor only helps when the bullets hit the armor. This is also another reason why these raids suck. Its turkey shoot for the guys going in.

Not if done right. Now people will be shot. Things happen in gunfights, but if you hit the house right then it's certainly not a turkey shoot.

I don't see what the mother did wrong, she though she was being attacked and defended herself. What would you do if you though you were being attacked?

That's what she says. I'm disinclined to trust her word, personally.

 

[Martlet]

It's not just her word, it's also her actions immediately after.

 

[terraformer]

I think it is tough to grasp this concept for some.

There are bad guys in this world.

First, you point out, as you regularly do, that we don't know everything and can't assume the story is accurate, but since all we have is the press reports we should work off of those, with the very prudent caveat something could be different.

So no, it is not tough for us to grasp the concept. The point everyone is trying to make is if LE wanted access to the house, then why is it LE didn't wait for the house to become empty or at least wait for, or choose a time with a probability of a lower occupancy rate? The problem everyone (who has one) has with these para-military style raids is they are confrontational by their very nature. The best way to avoid any bloodshed, warranted or not, is to avoid the confrontation. Yes, they wanted access to the house, but because they knew the hubby was dealing coke. If they had a warrant, they already had a good deal to implicate him in the dealing part. They could have waited for him to leave, nabbed him and knocked mid day and served the warrant. Or they could have waited until she was out to work, etc. Maybe she knew all about the coke dealing, but maybe she didn't I don't know, but absent any record on her, they probably had little to think she would go down in a blaze of glory sans hubby.
Instead, they pick a time of day that everyone was virtually guaranteed to be home at. That is not avoiding confrontation, it is inviting it.

 

[Ma$$hole]

Run into my bedroom... Put on all the damn lights and sit there w/ my 12 gauge... Call 911... if they can confirm it's the police I come out if they yell "POLICE!" then i figure it's the Police... Sure you can say I'm playing Monday Morning Quarterback but hell it's what I would do in any intruder situation. You'd have to be RETARDED to try to clear out your house on your own because you have no clue how many have intruded the premises. She is VERY lucky she didn't get shot in response to that, but then again, she probably will wish she'd been hit with the shit she will have to go through now. If you don’t know the law and you don’t have a plan do some research and avoid any “accidents.” I'm done here. This case will be studied for years and I've put more time than I wanted to put into this. Good Day all and be safe.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Allight. I guess since I'm dealing with trogledytes I need to explain my post.

It's not that I take ANY pleasure in seeing an Agent shot. My response:

"It was just a dog, ehr I mean, agent. He must have gotten in the way or he must have acted aggressively. Either way, she was simply protecting herself. Remember, the most important thing is that "she goes home at night." If there's a little "accident" well that's just the way it goes. It's just a shame she's going to have to pay for his mistake."

Is simply a re-write composite of all of the comments made by the LEO and their attendant wanna be patsies re:the numerous "mistakes" they have made in which an innocent is killed. Most of the time they (the agents involved not the NES peanut gallery) don't even acknowledge what they did. I'm so tired of reading this shit every day...So, if that is the prevalent LEO attitude (and it is) then I would say my comments were more than "Called For", they were overdue. What can I say: NO BIG LOSS. They'll simply make more. C'mon patsies, I hear you bitching daily about your "opportunity" to join the force. I reiterate, chin up. There's an opening now!

 

[terraformer]

Out of curiosity, how do you have 35 arrest, but only 27 indictments?

One count may apply to multiple people and the count may represent one action/crime which all people took part in at the same time.

 

[FunYun]

So what's the solution then? If you're directing a raid tomorrow of a home, how do you go about it?

Avoid raiding a home in the first place. While the home gives a great chance of finding the perp, it is also HIS home, he has the upper hand. Homes also tend to have non-involved people, mostly kids present. More no shoots for me, more hostages for him.

The solution is to make the arrest somewhere else.

If you must raid a house, at least use lights/sirens when you do. People are much more likely to figure out what is going on if they see normal police activity.

Also, if time is not a factor, effort should be made to figure who is in the house and what their intentions are. I know, I know, you don't have the resources for this. Well, if you don't have the money to do it right, then I would say people don't want you to do it in the first place.

If people want you to build a $5 million bridge for only $2 million, and the only way you can do it is to make huge safety compromises, then you shouldn't do it.

 

[law dawg]

It's not just her word, it's also her actions immediately after.

Not that bad guys ever come up with plans to scam the system. C'mon now....

It boils down to this - many people here have the instinctive reaction to back up anyone in a conflict against police. Others here (myself obviously in this group) gut reaction is to back up the cops.

Which is not to say that you can't change from one to the other depending on information gained. If the cops are dirty, for instance, I won't back them once I find that out. But my gut reaction is to figure they did things right.

In this case we're operating off minimal levels of information, so it basically boils down to - who do you believe?

I don't take the word of a criminal over a cop, as a rule.

 

[FunYun]

Run into my bedroom... Put on all the damn lights and sit there w/ my 12 gauge... Call 911... if they can confirm it's the police I come out if they yell "POLICE!" then i figure it's the Police... Sure you can say I'm playing Monday Morning Quarterback but hell it's what I would do in any intruder situation. You'd have to be RETARDED to try to clear out your house on your own because you have no clue how many have intruded the premises. She is VERY lucky she didn't get shot in response to that, but then again, she probably will wish she'd been hit with the shit she will have to go through now. If you don’t know the law and you don’t have a plan do some research and avoid any “accidents.” I'm done here. This case will be studied for years and I've put more time than I wanted to put into this. Good Day all and be safe.

She wasn't doing anything like that. She heard someone bust in her door. She goes to the stairs to see wtf is happening and sees an intruder. She takes a shot at him and retreats.

Personaly, I would take the fight to them if I had kids in the house. Better to have bullets flying on the first floor then on the second wher the kids are.

 

[law dawg]

Avoid raiding a home in the first place. While the home gives a great chance of finding the perp, it is also HIS home, he has the upper hand. Homes also tend to have non-involved people, mostly kids present. More no shoots for me, more hostages for him.

The solution is to make the arrest somewhere else.

If you must raid a house, at least use lights/sirens when you do. People are much more likely to figure out what is going on if they see normal police activity.

Also, if time is not a factor, effort should be made to figure who is in the house and what their intentions are. I know, I know, you don't have the resources for this. Well, if you don't have the money to do it right, then I would say people don't want you to do it in the first place.

If people want you to build a $5 million bridge for only $2 million, and the only way you can do it is to make huge safety compromises, then you shouldn't do it.

Some good ideas there.

As for announcing one's presence at a scene, it boils down to two things - preservation of evidence and safety.

A no-knock warrant executed correctly is amazing. The house will be completely cleared in seconds, not minutes, unless it's a monstrosity. You do those kind of warrants when you know the guy's gonna fight and is armed. Better there than out on the street with bystanders. Otherwise, if all you want is the body then you grab him on the street.

If you want the body and more evidence, it's back to the house (like in this case, IMO. They wanted him and whatever he had stashed at his house).

Preservation of evidence is another thing. If you're worried about evidence being flushed/destroyed you want to minimize the time from announcing to going in. If you announce too early and don't go right in, stuff will be destroyed.

I like having plenty of tools in the toolbox, personally. You don't use a wrench where a hammer is called for and vice versa.

 

[namedpipes]

You'd lose. Knowledge is not a requirement nor one of the essential elements of 18 USC 1114.

Was the officer in performance of his duties? Check. Did she then kill him while in performance of same? Check.

She's done like dinner. (That's about as "sensitive" as Raul D was acused of being.)

Lets just stipulate that you are correct that "in law" she is guilty of killing him, call it murder, manslaughter, whatever you like. (that means I'm not challenging that statement)

The basis of that law was probably well intentioned, but the intent was in all likelihood, to prevent people that are actually GUILTY of something from walking away because some idiot desk jockey didn't dot an i.

The idea that someone woken from sleep, defending her life and her children and shooting someone that is attacking her, is suddenly guilty of murder "just because" is stupid and immoral and while there may be a legal defense for it there is no ethical defense. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hey, lets charge the kids as accomplices, too.

Self defense is a legal term and in this case, because it was a fed, she didn't.

See, there's the problem. You see "Self Defense" as a legal term that pertains to licensed citizens defending against criminal elements period.

The Constitution simply affirms the right that we already have to defend ourselves from attack. It even goes so far, when read along with the Declaration of Independence, to point out that it may be necessary to defend yourself from your own country?

Obviously they didn't announce to her. She shot one, then called 911 and announced a robbery.

She may have poor judgment in picking a husband, but she did exactly what any of us would have (I would hope). Attempted to protect her kids.

 

[Raoul Duke]

In this case we're operating off minimal levels of information, so it basically boils down to - who do you believe?

I don't take the word of a criminal over a cop, as a rule.

Salient point- Let's take it a step further.

You take the word of the cop over the word of the alleged criminal (due process and all) because you are a cop and your experience leads you to take this position. Makes sense.

Now:

I generally assume that it is equally possible that the LEO in question is at fault. Why? Because the majority of the stories I read demonstrate (in my opinion) an overreaching tendency and complete lack of concern for the safety and security of the average citizen. Not to mention a 100% willingness to adopt an extremely dangerous approach to solving problem despite the risk it place on the citizen, simply so that the LEO "goes home at night."

Now, does that mean that that is what always happens? That the average LEO is cavalier with the lives of all Citizens? No, probably not. There are, no doubt, quality upstanding LEO out there (and here). The point is Most Americans run around talking about the "Heroes" in blue.

Bull,

The "heroes" ran into the WTC to save people AT GREAT RISK to themselves. That is what made them heroes. They didn't stand around and say, "gee that looks dangerous. Let's wait until the fire gets put out." No, they took a risk, as they are paid and expected to, and that is why they are heroes.

On the flip side we have an ingrained contempt for citizens prevalent in almost every strain of Law Enforcement which leads them to engage in behavior that is high risk (for everyone involved) yet, when their pernicious action leads to the death of any non-leo involved, we get endless..."so sorry" if we're lucky. Most of the time we get "no comment" or worse, "these things happen."

Point is, you see it from your side based on personal experience and media.

I see it from my side based on personal experience and media.

Who's right? I guess we both are.

 

[FunYun]

Not that bad guys ever come up with plans to scam the system. C'mon now....

It boils down to this - many people here have the instinctive reaction to back up anyone in a conflict against police. Others here (myself obviously in this group) gut reaction is to back up the cops.

Which is not to say that you can't change from one to the other depending on information gained. If the cops are dirty, for instance, I won't back them once I find that out. But my gut reaction is to figure they did things right.

In this case we're operating off minimal levels of information, so it basically boils down to - who do you believe?

I don't take the word of a criminal over a cop, as a rule.

The wife is not a criminal, she was a bystander who wasn't even the target of arrest. Her only reason for her action is her belief she was being attacked.

Why can we not believe everyone in this story, I don't see any conflicting accounts.

The wife saying she didn't hear them does not mean the LEO's didn't announce. It means she didn't hear them, which is all that matters for her.

She has the right to defend herself from PERCEIVED threats, not just actual threats.

No two people will perceive the same events equally. Everyone has a different view, which imparts different perceptions.

 

[Raoul Duke]

See, there's the problem. You see "Self Defense" as a legal term that pertains to licensed citizens defending against criminal elements period.

The Constitution simply affirms the right that we already have to defend ourselves from attack. It even goes so far, when read along with the Declaration of Independence, to point out that it may be necessary to defend yourself from your own country?

Bingo! we have a winner.

 

[terraformer]

....snip...As for announcing one's presence at a scene, it boils down to two things - preservation of evidence and safety.

...snip...

Preservation of evidence is another thing. If you're worried about evidence being flushed/destroyed you want to minimize the time from announcing to going in. If you announce too early and don't go right in, stuff will be destroyed.

Neither of which was attained in this case. He was a loser who ran after he crapped his pants and flushed his stash. They lost an agent. I question why they needed the body and the house at the same time in this case.

 

[law dawg]

The idea that someone woken from sleep, defending her life and her children and shooting someone that is attacking her, is suddenly guilty of murder "just because" is stupid and immoral and while there may be a legal defense for it there is no ethical defense. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Let's stipulate that this is, in fact, what occurred (you're stating what she believed at the time, which none of us really knows) - she's still guilty of murder of a fed. As for being ashamed of myself - sorry, I'm not. I said she's done like dinner and she is. I wouldn't make flippant statements like that if she was dead or seriously injured. But to someone who shot a fed doing his job? Oh yeah.

If you want to wield a handgun, know what the f*** you're shooting at. If it applies to us LEOs, it applies to others as well. She shot the gun, she owns the bullet.

She may have poor judgment in picking a husband, but she did exactly what any of us would have (I would hope). Attempted to protect her kids.

She wasn't innocent of her husband's business doings. Period. She lives with a dope dealer who kept coke in the house. She's really looking out for the kids.

 

[FunYun]

Some good ideas there.

As for announcing one's presence at a scene, it boils down to two things - preservation of evidence and safety.

A no-knock warrant executed correctly is amazing. The house will be completely cleared in seconds, not minutes, unless it's a monstrosity. You do those kind of warrants when you know the guy's gonna fight and is armed. Better there than out on the street with bystanders. Otherwise, if all you want is the body then you grab him on the street.

If you want the body and more evidence, it's back to the house (like in this case, IMO. They wanted him and whatever he had stashed at his house).

Preservation of evidence is another thing. If you're worried about evidence being flushed/destroyed you want to minimize the time from announcing to going in. If you announce too early and don't go right in, stuff will be destroyed.
I like having plenty of tools in the toolbox, personally. You don't use a wrench where a hammer is called for and vice versa.

So would you say this raid was junk? I mean the whole point is overwhelming force before the suspect can react. Instead one their own is shot dead and no shots were fired in return. They seem to have not been on the ball on this one.

To me, you should already have enough to put someone behind bars if you think you need a raid. Even then, the amount of evidence that can be easily destroyed is small, and drugs leave trace evidence everywhere.

 

[jmhorrible]

I don't take the word of a criminal over a cop, as a rule.

Is there any evidence that she was a criminal? The only information that I could find was that the husband had a warrant/was the target.

Like everyone said, there's going to be a lack of objective info on this one.

Executing a SWAT raid on a house w/ little kids seems pretty aggressive to me. As much as I want to defend the cops on this one, I think this should have been planned better. Was there a real threat that the husband was going to destroy the evidence/drugs at that moment? Could they have detained everyone a few hours later when they were outside? Is the risk of destroyed evidence worth the risk to the officers?

I may be prejudiced by the movies but I feel that theses SWAT type operations are too juiced to go in and bust things up. It's understandable. They train for years on these aggressive tactics against all kinds of crazy scenarios. Once you get that order, training and assumptions take over.
Supervisors are also excited to finally put their gear and assets to work, justifying all that training and expense.

They're executing a raid where they've been trained that everyone inside is a bad guy and a threat. They aren't trained to think that the people inside may not think the same way.

From what I've read, mom w/ two kids upstairs, calling 911, etc., I'd lean towards self-defense. New info could cause me to reconsider though.

 

[law dawg]

Neither of which was attained in this case. He was a loser who ran after he crapped his pants and flushed his stash. They lost an agent. I question why they needed the body and the house at the same time in this case.

Hey, I was watching the game last weekend and I saw the quarterback try and complete a pass to a receiver but he was sacked first. Obviously that play is ineffective and should be scrapped. Any play that doesn't have a 100% success rate should be scrapped.

 

[law dawg]

So would you say this raid was junk? I mean the whole point is overwhelming force before the suspect can react. Instead one their own is shot dead and no shots were fired in return. They seem to have not been on the ball on this one.

To me, you should already have enough to put someone behind bars if you think you need a raid. Even then, the amount of evidence that can be easily destroyed is small, and drugs leave trace evidence everywhere.

I wasn't there so I don't know how the raid was executed. Sometimes you can do everything right and still lose. It's the nature of violence. Murphy is everywhere.

And you don't always have enough to put someone behind bars before you do the raid. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.