From: [c--n] at [shell.portal.com] (Jeff Chan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: NEWS: St. Louis BATF raid
Date: 25 Jul 1994 22:20:33 GMT


From: [steve jones] at [partyline.org]
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 15:37:06 
Subject: ST. LOUIS BATF RAID

Jeff:

Please post this wherever you think it belongs...  I wasn't sure of it'
applicability.  Thanks.


I've been asked by multiple persons to elaborate on the facts of a
failed BATF raid in St. Louis recently.  Here goes...

At 4:30 a.m. on Wednesday July 13, 1994, a team of BATF agents executed
a no-knock search warrant on the home of Monique Montgomery of 1268
Woody Grove in unincorporated west St. Louis county, near the city of
Creve Coeur.  They will not discuss the basis of the warrant except to
say that it was a narcotics issue.

Ms. Montgomery was alone, asleep in her bed at the time of the raid.
The BATF "entered" her home.  Upon awaking, the woman armed herself
with a legally owned 9mm handgun she kept by her bedside.  The BATF
claims they advised her four times that they were federal agents in her
home with a search warrant, and to drop the gun.  They allege that she
continued to hold the gun on them and that they had no choice but to
fire.  She was struck by four 9mm bullets, survived and has since been
released from the hospital. Her handgun was loaded, but not fired.  No
narcotics and no other firearms were found in her home.

A BATF agent who was at the scene, Gerry (or Jerry) Miller, claims the
warrant was executed completely within BATF policys and guidelines.  On
July 22nd, when asked if any charges have been filed against the woman,
Agent Miller answered that none were yet but there was a possibility
assault charges would later be filed against the woman. He was asked how
much time elapsed between the "entry" and the shots being fired, and
said he couldn't say but that he would characterize it as a very short
period of time.

BATF spokesman Larry Washington said that a decision on charging the
woman will eventually be made by the US Attorney's office, but that
there is a five year statute of limitations on that offense, so the
decision may be some time coming.  Gee, that sounds like "Don't p*** us
off for the next five years, lady, by doing anything silly like suing
us."

According to a St. Louis Post Dispatch account of the incident, the
woman claims the agents did not make any announcements, and simply shot
her as soon as they entered her room and found her armed.  She claims
she was not aware they were law enforcement officials until after she
was shot.

Washington points out that the team that executed this warrant has been
in place for three years, and that this is the first shooting.  Over 150
search warrants have been executed by the highly trained team.

Now to some opinions and observations...

They execute warrants at that time of the morning because that is the
time occupants are most likely to be in R.E.M. sleep, the condition
which maximizes the time they will be disoriented upon being suddenly
wakened.  We cant know what Agent Miller's "short period of time"
means, but it is reasonable to assume it's only a few seconds.   A few
seconds to be awakened from R.E.M. sleep by intruders crashing into your
house, to grab the firearm you keep nearby to defend yourself, and sort
out what to do as your bedroom fills with screaming flashlights, all
trained on your face.  A few seconds to make the right decision to save
your life.  Remember, she did not fire.  They claim she kept her loaded
gun pointed at them, without firing it, and declined to obey four clear
orders to drop it.

What does four warnings mean?  Is that four guys yelling at once?
yelling the same thing?  Is it one guy yelling the same thing four
times?  Does it matter, a few seconds out of deep sleep?

Perhaps the lady was a "bad guy", perhaps not.  We hopefully can assume
that these warrants are not issued without good reason.  But mistakes
can be made.  We do know that there was nothing illegal at her home at
the time the warrant was served, and that she was not nearly as well
armed as one would expect a drug dealer to be.  But in any case, bad guy
or not, right house or not, the conduct of the BATF agents in this raid
leaves extremely little possibility for a person who has legally armed
themselves in self-defense to survive such a raid without being shot.
Even if they gave the warnings they claim to have given, is it
reasonable to expect that they were understood, and would be rationally
responded to?  Remember, the BATF chose to time the raid for the time
that would result in maximum disorientation.

The facts related here came straight from the BATF.  As did the claim
that BATF policies and procedures were not deviated from in the
slightest.  That leaves us with a decision - is this the kind of conduct
we are willing to endure in exchange for a more effective battle in the
drug war?  Or has a line been crossed - have the agents we depend on
been INSTRUCTED and TRAINED to go too far?  Remember, we are not talking
about human error here.  This one was by the book.

 * SLMR 2.1a * 

--
--
Jeff Chan
Internet: [c--n] at [shell.portal.com]
uucp mail: {apple,claris,pyramid}!shell.portal.com!chan