As The Hartford Courant reported from inside the courtroom, police captain Robert Vignola said during cross-examination by defense attorney Thomas J. Ullman that he had no idea any violence was going on inside the Petit home when he arrived that day. He appeared agitated under questioning from Ullmann and said that if he had known what was going on inside, "I would have been the first one through that door."

Ullmann, cross-examining Vignola after the police captain gave his account to prosecutors, showed the court a timeline of events showing that 33 minutes elapsed from a bank employee's call alerting police to a possible hostage situation to the confirmation by police that at least one person at the home was in physical distress....Vignola testified that police were following the proper protocol for a hostage situation. He said the information they had gave no evidence of violence occurring inside the home. It was confusing, he said, and "still makes no sense today."

Under cross-examination, Vignola said no officers went to the front door of the home shortly after the police call. Vignola said he advised police not to enter until a better perimeter was set up. When Ullmann offered a wait time of 20 minutes, Vignola did not dispute the time....Ullmann also questioned Vignola about an officer who, upon hearing the call, went to the police department to get SWAT gear instead of going to the Petit home. Ullmann asked Vignola if police already carry weapons. Vignola said yes.

Ullmann, referring to the time police spent responding to the call, said that even with all the setup, "you were too late."

Recent thoughts on these situations point to the benefits of the first responders being prepared to make immediate entry. That requires a better trained and armed police force.

Also a few private citizens splattering these F#$)(#'s brains across a few windows would go a long way to deterring the behavior.

It is the fault of the perpetrators of the crime. Period.

My guess is the defense attorney knows his client is going to be convicted, so his goal with this line of questioning is to (i) deflect some of the jury's anger to the cops, and (ii) establish a basis for arguing that the defendants didn't plan to kill anyone, but simply panicked due to the cops' response. Basically, I think he's grasping at straws to at least keep his client off death row.

the second doesn't make any sense, as someone panicked doesn't rape first and then kill.

from what I read, the two defendants were going to, or already had, plead guilty and were not up for death sentencing with plea. Now though, since they insist on trying it, the prosecution is going for the death penalty, and rightfully so in my opinion.

Hm, one of the articles I read said the defendants had tried, several times, to plead guilty, but the prosecutor rejected the offers because it was such a slam dunk anyway.

Perhaps they should try the Chewbacca defense?

Interesting, I suppose I didn't know it was up to the prosecutor to accept pleas. I thought that was up to the judiciary.

Haven't you ever watched Law and Order? Egads!

Well you don't need more people if you move in recklessley. Slicing pie and all takes time but dramatically increases safety.

Of course other alternatives exist like smoke, OC, flashbangs, laser disorientors (though those tend to suck). Ways to dramatically lower the ability of those inside to act or react to an entry or to force them to flee. Of course then you have other considerations, property damage, legal liability for those with heart or lung conditions, and general cost - how many flashbangs you gonna carry on a night on patrol - how many are you going to use, how many is there actually a situation inside that requires it.