advertisement

SWAT Team apprehends five in connection with home invasion, assault

Thursday, August 11, 2011 | 9:47 p.m. CDT; updated 4:24 p.m. CDT, Saturday, August 13, 2011

COLUMBIA – Two people were injured and five men were apprehended in connection with a burglary and assault that took place at 908 Huntridge Drive on Thursday afternoon.

The Columbia Police Department SWAT Team was called in to a second residence located at 3709 Blue Cedar at about 3:30 p.m., where the five suspects were eventually apprehended, Columbia Police spokeswoman Jill Wieneke said.

A standoff lasted about 25 minutes before four of the men exited the home at Blue Cedar. A fifth man was detained in connection to the residence at Blue Cedar.

Two male residents of the Huntridge Drive residence were injured and drove themselves to a hospital. A third person inside the home, a female, was reported uninjured. The residents were described as “college-aged” by Wieneke.

No property was taken from the residence and the motive is unknown, according to the news release.

Officers were dispatched to the Huntridge residence around 2:17 p.m. after a receiving a report of assault with several suspects, according to a Columbia Police Department news release. Wieneke said three men are believed to have entered the Huntridge home.

According to the news release, the suspects had already left the scene when officers arrived.

Upon arrival at the Huntridge residence, police learned that a man had knocked on the door and asked to use the phone. One of the male residents let the suspect enter. The other man and woman in the home were downstairs at the time.

According to the release, a second man in a mask suddenly entered the residence. He struck the male resident in the face and knocked out some of his teeth. A struggle ensued.

The man and woman came upstairs when they heard the sounds of a fight. Another male suspect entered the home at some point during the scuffle, according to the news release.

The three suspects were eventually chased out of the house, according to the news release.

The second male resident was reported to have sustained injuries to his knee.

Information about a possible suspect vehicle provided by the Huntridge residents led police to the second location at 3709 Blue Cedar, Wieneke said. The vehicle was described as a black Ford Explorer.

Officers surrounded the Blue Cedar residence and attempted to make contact with the suspects believed to be inside the home over loudspeaker and by telephone, according to the news release.

Although some members of the SWAT Team were already on duty, the full SWAT Team was officially called to the scene at Blue Ridge at approximately 3:30 p.m. because of the suspects’ refusal to exit and the severity of the crime, according to the new release.

Wieneke said four men exited this residence after the 25-minute standoff. A fifth man, who was seen coming and going from the Blue Cedar home, was also detained, Wieneke said.

Officers then searched the home for other suspects and evidence, according to the news release.

About 15 officers, as well as several supervisors and detectives, were involved at both locations, Wieneke said.

Wieneke said she would describe the suspects as late teens or early 20s.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Eric Cox August 12, 2011 | 9:36 a.m.

I guess since there was no money they could seize and keep for themselves they didn't go in guns blazing. It does not escape my attention that SWAT surrounds and waits out actually dangerous situations, but when it's just some dude at home with his wife and child they kick in the door and shoot up the place.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams August 12, 2011 | 10:25 a.m.

Eric: No money they could seize and keep for themselves?

If you intend to be taken seriously, you probably should back up that claim. After all, if you call someone a thief, you better be able to defend that accusation.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis August 12, 2011 | 10:50 a.m.

@ Michael: I agree with you. Don't go throwing around accusations. They made mistakes in the past but are obviously, trying to learn from past mistakes and it sounds like they handeled this situation the right way...so let's give credit where credit is due! After all who of us has never made a mistake??

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire August 12, 2011 | 11:06 a.m.

Oh I suppose he is just jealous. He knows that if he came over and shot your dog that he might be charged with a crime.
And then, some people even have the humility to actually admit that they "made a mistake". Not common around here. Especially when we can blame the victim.

That said, I am happy that they arrested the stooges and that nobody was hurt.

(Report Comment)
Kathy Hutson August 12, 2011 | 12:16 p.m.

I agree with Paul. I might be inclined to acknowledge their successes if they would acknowledge their failures. Taking responsibilities implies that a person or organization has learned from their mistakes and aren't going to repeat them. If I only acknowledge their success and deny their failures then really I'm just enabling their poor behavior.

(Report Comment)
Eric Cox August 12, 2011 | 12:29 p.m.

Michael Williams the facts speak for themselves, http://forfeiturereform.com/ maybe you should take some time to educate yourself if you want to be taken seriously. If your intent is to keep drugs "off the streets" and "away from our children" why would you wait eight days to serve a warrant when you suspect a large shipment? Well it's because they don't give a crap about keeping drugs off the street, they wanted him to sell most of it so they could seize the cash. Why do they use dynamic entry on a small family but not in this case or at the Eastgate Motel incident? You explain that to me?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams August 12, 2011 | 1:39 p.m.

Eric: Big deal...your link is from Kentucky. Your suppositions and imagination extrapolated to Columbia based upon an incident in Kentucky are decidedly NOT evidence supporting your slander. Back it up.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley August 12, 2011 | 2:54 p.m.

Sally,

I wish that if I had a problem with my neighbor (which I don't), but if I did; I wish I could break into his house, shoot his dogs, and beat him up and then if I were charged and had to go to court for it, a Judge with the same attitude as you would say: He made mistakes in the past but he is obviously, trying to learn from past mistakes and it sounds like he handeled this situation the right way...so let's give him credit where credit is due! After all who of us has never made a mistake??" and just let me walk out of the court room with no consequences. You seem eager to apply this type of understnading to the CPD; are you as eager to apply that type of understanding to a person charged with a crime? How about a person charged with burglary?

We don't have to look any further than the Jonathan Whitworth SWAT Raid to see that there is no "extrapolation" to Columbia for how it's SWAT Team conducts itself.

Milt Harper sure did not mind giving evidence that supports Eric's "slander":

UNLAWFUL SEIZURE BY DETENTION OF P. M. BY DEFENDANTS, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 42 U.S.C. §1983

UNREASONABLE SEARCH OF P.E. FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED 42 U.S.C. §1983

LIABILITY OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, MISSOURI FOR THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST P. M.

FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF P. M. BY DEFENDANTS

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF SWAT OFFICERS

UNLAWFUL SEIZURE BY DETENTION OF MRS. WHITWORTH BY
AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

UNREASONABLE SEARCH OF MRS. WHITWORTH BY DEFENDANTS, IN
HE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AGAINST MRS. WHITWORTH

FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT OF MRS. WHITWORTH

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UPON MRS. WHITWORTH BY DEFENDANTS

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF SWAT OFFICERS BY THE COLUMBIA, MISSORI POLICE DEPARTMENT

Just to name a few of the "slanderous" indications made by Eric...

Oh, and that is all a matter of public record.

I'd say that Eric Cox has some points here. I'd say that we have witnessed enough SWAT Raids gone wrong, that we don't have to back anything up. Anyone tha thas "missed" it, is just plain stupid...

Ricky B. Gurley.

RMRI, Inc.
http://www.rmriinc.com
(573) 529-0808

(Report Comment)
Eric Cox August 12, 2011 | 3:08 p.m.

Michael Williams you have to scroll down, guess reading isn't your thing, you seem to be good at trolling though.

(Report Comment)
Harold Sutton August 14, 2011 | 7:00 a.m.

Well, I have been quiet up to now. So rather than give a long winded opinion, I have a suggestion which I have heard from others, also.

A "Do Not Respond" list. Any and all who have a low opinion of our various public serices such as Police, Fire Department, Medical emergency responders, trash collectors, light and water, should have the right to be put on a "Do not respond" list. And maybe even pass the word around to your neighbors so they don't have to make a "9-11" call on your behalf.

Maybe they will make a sign for your yard that says "Do Not Repond".

After all, if you don't trust them, don't use them.

Maybe next you can do a class action about taxes that would normally pay for these services.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams August 14, 2011 | 7:57 a.m.

The accusation I was addressing was, "I guess since there was no money they could seize and keep for themselves they didn't go in guns blazing."

Quite frankly, I don't remember:

(1) Did CPD seize money?
(2) Did they keep it for themselves?

(PS: Too bad the child endangerment charge didn't stick).

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley August 14, 2011 | 12:05 p.m.

Harold,

Perhaps the way to solve the problem is to start with the people responding instead of the people asking them to respond..?

But hold on just a minute...

Don't those people that request Police assistance pay taxes too? Isn't a part of what they are paying for, Police assistance with the money they pay taxes with? If their tax money is going to pay the Police Officer's salaries; don't they have a right to be critical of the people they are paying for service?

I'd be happy with not asking for Police assistance if I would not be charged with any crimes at all, no matter how I respond to a situation where I might otherwise have to call for Police assistance.

Examples: (1) You come up top my house, trespassing on my property verbally threatening my family, I don't call the Police, I step out the door with a high powered rifle, and shoot out your kneecaps, and don't get charged with assault since I opted not to waste the Police Department's time by calling for Police assistance. (2) You come in my yard and start to key my car, I walk out to where you are with a baseball bat and beat you until you are mentally retarded, I opted not to call the Police, did not waste their time; so I don't get charged with a crime or sued. (3) You threaten me out on the street, I try to walk away, you don't let me, I beat you to a bloody pulp, opt not to call the Police, don't waste the CPD's time; I don't get charged with assault.

In other words, the people that are being critical of the Police, don't have the option of not calling the Police and handling whatever situation they have to call the Police in on, theirself; without incurring criminal charges. Perhaps if they did have that option they might not call the Police for assistance?

Just some food for thought, Harold.....

Ricky B. Gurley.

RMRI, Inc.
http://www.rmriinc.com
(573) 529-0808

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements