We have the arguments here about LEO misdeeds regularly, and it seems to come down to what some think are the 'cop haters' vs the 'sane citizens.'  But, has anyone ever thought that this has nothing to do with folks feelings about LEOs in general and more about the entire professions shift in attitude away from the American citizen rights? 

 

Lets look at 'No Knock Raids.'  There are countless stories of these raids being conducted at incorrect addresses or based on invalid or non verified information.  People rights trampled, their pets killed, even the mayor of one town was raided because his address was used for a drug delivery through a delivery service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B..._residence_drug_raid).  One woman was killed when her home was mistakenly raided (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10...l-mistaken-raid.html).  Here is another mayors home mistaken raided (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...1951.html?1360761979). 

 

Do a search for no knock raids and you will be shocked at how many mistakes are made.  You might say 'its the internet and ease of reporting national news now that puts these incidents in the spotlight' but that is far from the case.  The USA Today reports on the HUGE increase in no knock raids in the past 30 years:

 

The ... incident was among a growing number of no-knock police raids last year, a tactic that has grown in use from 2,000 to 3,000 raids a year in the mid-1980s, to 70,000 to 80,000 annually, says Peter Kraska, a professor of criminal justice at Eastern Kentucky University who tracks the issue.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...4-noknock14_ST_N.htm

 

Could it be that those that are paranoid about the US becoming a police state feel that way because law enforcement in general is using more and more military tactics like the no knock raid?

Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life here......

Original Post

Well said James T. Quite insightful. 

I'm not a "cop hater" , but I do believe that as more and more people become aware of the increasing use of excess force, the people who believe law enforcement should be other than a bunch of stormtroopers in search of drugs at all cost, maybe we can get back to some sanity.

 

 

A lot of city police cars in several places I have seen lately have a sign on the back that I believe tells the entire tale of all these raids.
"This Car paid for by Dug Money": (or something very similar)

When it became legal for police departments to utilize the assets gained by drug raids etc, we started hearing about this. Drug seized assets, ie: houses, cars , cash etc, should NOT be avaliable to local police departments. That breads greed and greed breads corruption.

Capt., analytically speaking, based on news of increasing drug activity and the documented increase in street violence, would you agree that the increase in no knock warrants may bee a result of the times? No just the need of jack booted thugs to violate rights? With that said, a no knock warrant should, by policy and law, require extensive  research, surveillance, and reliability. And the primary purpose should be for the safety of the officers and not the prevention of the destruction of evidence.

 

Why should agencies not receive the forfeited money and property? They fight and scrape every fiscal year for budget needs. They usually lose out as well. A judge must award them the seizure. It's not like they can roll up, take a house, and start moving in. And Seeweed, forgive me for the "cop hater" remark. It wasn't necessary. But I will hold steadfast that the actions of the good are lost on you, due to the actions of the bad.

Originally Posted by wright35633:

Why should agencies not receive the forfeited money and property? They fight and scrape every fiscal year for budget needs. They usually lose out as well. A judge must award them the seizure. It's not like they can roll up, take a house, and start moving in. And Seeweed, forgive me for the "cop hater" remark. It wasn't necessary. But I will hold steadfast that the actions of the good are lost on you, due to the actions of the bad.

=========

I apologize to you as well. The actions of the good are not lost on me, they are just not run in the news papers . I have quite a few friends that are (mostly retired now so were) cops. As I have said before, the ones that I know , and respect, are the ones that do the kids of things that don't make news; like making sure the old people have heat when there's a power failure, or just checking on people in their "beat" .  There was an article I posted last week about some cop that went out of his way to help some people get on to where they were going. 

I have never had any bad experiences personally with the law enforcement , with the exception I talked about in Memphis with the DWI van and all that so it' is not personal with me. 
I still think most of these problems are a result of the "war on drugs" , and I also think that the "war on drugs" is a loosing proposition and should be stopped as I have posted in the past. 

And no, I don't use illegal drugs, although I do enjoy a gin and tonic most every day.

 

When I was an LEO, I took GREAT PRIDE in what I did.  I worked in a small town where everyone knew everyone.  While other officers found a convenient place to 'hide' and wait on calls, I patrolled.  My Crown Vic was a 'nail magnet'.  I knew where every street and alley in town was.  Heck, as a part-timer, I knew more about my town than most of the full-time officers.  I wrote my share of citations and made my share of arrests (domestic violence arrests and child-restraint citations were especially rewarding).  I stayed on top of all state/federal laws and local ordinances. Most importantly, I knew the value of 'officer discretion'.  I was (still am) naïve enough to believe that I could actually make a difference.   

I’ve never been in trouble with the law but I have had occasion to be present in the city courtroom on several occasions.  I am appalled at the disrespect the popo show the court. After the bailiff instructs the gallery that they should remain quiet, turn off cell phones and not to eat or drink in the court room a contingent of popo immediately disobey the instruction by their milling around in conversation with each other while eating snacks and drinking soft drinks and coffee up front for the public to see. This looks bad and needs to be halted. It is ridiculous the disregard they show for the justice system  in front of the public.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

I’ve never been in trouble with the law but I have had occasion to be present in the city courtroom on several occasions.  I am appalled at the disrespect the popo show the court. After the bailiff instructs the gallery that they should remain quiet, turn off cell phones and not to eat or drink in the court room a contingent of popo immediately disobey the instruction by their milling around in conversation with each other while eating snacks and drinking soft drinks and coffee up front for the public to see. This looks bad and needs to be halted. It is ridiculous the disregard they show for the justice system  in front of the public.

Our judge had a strict 'no cell phone' policy.  If it went off in court, the bailiff confiscated it. One morning a cellphone went off. It kept ringing.  The judge finally looked at the bailiff, stood up and handed the bailiff his cellphone....

The biggest problem is wading through all the hype and getting to the actual number of "innocents" killed by cops each year. I've been looking and the most I can find is 2,002 in a three year period. Again, out of millions of calls and arrests made each year. The problem, there's no clear story of whether or not they were actually "innocents". Many of the claims of their innocence comes from family or friends, and people seem anxious to take their word for it instead of the cops word. Then you have people killed by the criminals in situations, and people blaming the cops because of the circumstances of the confrontations. Zero is the number you would want in a perfect world. We don't live in a perfect world. Cops, criminals, guns, both cops and criminals guns, adrenaline, bystanders, all can add up to bad situations and very bad outcomes. A cop is expected to bend over backwards to avoid shooting someone, even to save their own life. Yet when a civilian, such as a woman who had plenty of options besides murder, guns a man down at a service station, too many think it's funny and what he had coming to him.

 

Now, consider this. 

 

 

The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America.

Further research has confirmed the extent of medical errors. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that there were 181,000 severe injuries attributable to medical negligence in 2003. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement estimates there are 15 million incidents of medical harm each year. HealthGrades, the nation’s leading healthcare rating organization, found that Medicare patients who experienced a patient-safety incident had a one-in-five chance of dying as a result.

In the decade since the IOM first shined a light on the dismal state of patient safety in American hospitals, many proposals for improvement have been discussed and implemented. But recent research indicates that there is still much that needs to be done. Researchers at the Harvard School of Medicine have found that even today, about 18 percent of patients in hospitals are injured during the course of their care and that many of those injuries are life-threatening, or even fatal. The Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that one in seven Medicare patients are injured during hospital stays and that adverse events during the course of care contribute to the deaths of 180,000 patients every year



Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012...e-ama/#ixzz2b28QBydD

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by wright35633:

Capt., analytically speaking, based on news of increasing drug activity and the documented increase in street violence, would you agree that the increase in no knock warrants may bee a result of the times? No just the need of jack booted thugs to violate rights? With that said, a no knock warrant should, by policy and law, require extensive  research, surveillance, and reliability. And the primary purpose should be for the safety of the officers and not the prevention of the destruction of evidence.

 

Personally, I think the no knock warrant, in many cases, is easier for the department to execute, so they use it whenever they can find a way to justify it.  I agree that it should be used for LEO protection only when there is no other way to execute the warrant safely.  I don't think its the proliferation of drugs as much as it is the want by the government to eradicate drugs through their so called 'war on drugs.'  When you declare a 'war on drugs,' I guess you give the impression that wartime tactics are a fact of life. 

 

One solution might be to require departments to get the judge to sign off on the no knock raid when the warrant is applied for, so the department would have to justify the reasoning behind the use of the tactic. 

 

As for seized property, Im all for giving it to the departments.  I don't see how it can breed corruption, corrupt officers will 'skim' the seized property regardless.  Im all of anything to lower my tax burden and shift it to criminal enterprises 

 

 

Unfortunately,  the asset forfeiture is not always so clear cut.

 

"Asset forfeiture distorts law enforcement priorities; instead of chasing violent criminals, some police target wealthy citizens. Early in the morning of October 2, 1992, a small army of 31 people from eight law enforcement agencies smashed their way into 61-year-old Donald Scott’s home on his 200-acre Trail’s End Ranch in Malibu, California. The raiders were equipped with automatic weapons, flak jackets, and a battering ram.[20] Scott’s wife screamed when she saw the intruders, Scott came out of the bedroom with a pistol in his hands, and police gunned him down. After killing Scott, the agents thoroughly searched his house and ranch but failed to find any illicit drugs.

 

Ventura County district attorney Michael Bradbury investigated the raid and issued a report in 1993 that concluded that a “primary purpose of the raid was a land grab by the [Los Angeles County] Sheriff’s Department.”[21] Bradbury revealed that at a briefing before the raid took place, government agents were informed that the ranch had been appraised at $1.1 million and that “80 acres sold for $800,000 in 1991 in the same area.”[22] The law officers at the briefing were told that if they discovered as few as “14 marijuana plants” on the ranch, the entire property could be seized.[23] Bradbury also concluded that a Los Angeles sheriff’s deputy had lied to obtain a search warrant and declared: “This search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant. This guy should not be dead.”[24] Los Angeles officials claimed that a confidential informant told them that marijuana was being grown on Scott’s ranch, but the informant denied ever making such a statement.[25]"

 

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman...rights#ixzz2b3KUwYTu

 

 A man was killed in  bogus search because, admittedly, the sheriff's office wanted his property.  The link show several more such forfeitures that are out of control.  If it were stacks of cash found with drugs and the cars and property directly owned by the suppliers, I'd have little problem.  But, like the no knock warrants, its gone over board.  Warrants should detail why there is no knock.  If circumstances prove to be false, evidence would not be allowed  If no evidence, the police are liable for all damages.  Need to be more controls on property seized, as well.

 

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman...rights#ixzz2b3KUwYTu

One of my favorite stories involved the police seizure of a young man's corvette.  He'd bought it as junk and restored it.  Police stopped him for speeding and saw white powder on the floor. He told them it was baby powder, but police claimed it was cocaine.  The vette was seized and the man arrested.  Out on bail, he heard from friends his vette was being driven by the police all over town.  When he complained, the police chief stated to the local media, that the vette was police property and it was forfeit. A week later the lab test came back -- baby powder,  Man got a call to pick up his vette -- washed, waxed, and tank full.  But, many more miles recorded, than when seized.  Lawsuit cost the city quite a bit.  Cost the chief his job -- should have said alleged.

Here is the problem I have with the asset forfeiture laws.

When I was trying to get the AG to prosecute the people who broke the windows of my daughters car, stole her purse and went around town cashing checks (Daughter never did get that straightened out with that damm outfit that ok's checks) , one of my good friends who was a cop pulled me aside and told me straight "The only things they even try to prosecute are drug crimes and murder"

Turned out, apparently he was right, the girl that did all that was never arrested, or prosecuted , but my daughter was out about $500 for damage to her car, and the stolen gift cards.
In fact two weeks later, the same girl was caught breaking into a house over in Florence, and she just skated on that as well.

The AG told me she was a Confidential Informant for drug bust.

So, yea, being able to seize property is corrupting. We need law enforcement to protect us from bad people, not be after ever more and more property by putting all their efforts into enforcing drug laws. There are other laws that need enforcing as well.

 

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by wright35633:

Capt., analytically speaking, based on news of increasing drug activity and the documented increase in street violence, would you agree that the increase in no knock warrants may bee a result of the times? No just the need of jack booted thugs to violate rights? With that said, a no knock warrant should, by policy and law, require extensive  research, surveillance, and reliability. And the primary purpose should be for the safety of the officers and not the prevention of the destruction of evidence.

 

Personally, I think the no knock warrant, in many cases, is easier for the department to execute, so they use it whenever they can find a way to justify it.  I agree that it should be used for LEO protection only when there is no other way to execute the warrant safely.  I don't think its the proliferation of drugs as much as it is the want by the government to eradicate drugs through their so called 'war on drugs.'  When you declare a 'war on drugs,' I guess you give the impression that wartime tactics are a fact of life. 

 

One solution might be to require departments to get the judge to sign off on the no knock raid when the warrant is applied for, so the department would have to justify the reasoning behind the use of the tactic. 

 

As for seized property, Im all for giving it to the departments.  I don't see how it can breed corruption, corrupt officers will 'skim' the seized property regardless.  Im all of anything to lower my tax burden and shift it to criminal enterprises 

 

 

===============================

Why do you think a "no knock" warrant is easier to execute?

If an investigator wants to execute a search warrant after dark than he must explain to the judge why and the judge must stipulate this in the warrant IF he grants the request.

Originally Posted by smokey1:

Why do you think a "no knock" warrant is easier to execute?

If an investigator wants to execute a search warrant after dark than he must explain to the judge why and the judge must stipulate this in the warrant IF he grants the request.

Because a no knock warrant gives the officers the element of surprise, making it easier to execute the warrant over having to announce their arrival.  Problem is, they (no knock warrants) don't give the innocent the time to answer the door and allow them in peacefully either.

James T is all about everybody having a gun for personal protection,  consider this:

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house 

you get your gun and shoot them., Alabama law states you can do that.

the intruder is shot , maybe killed and you are a hero to your family and the community at large.

OR

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house

you get your gun and shoot them , Alabama law states you can do that,

The intruder is a cop - or group of cops misdirected to your address. you kill one or two.

If you live after being shot in your bed , you will be put on trial for killing a cop, convicted and sent to prison for life if you are lucky, given the needle if not.

 

The question I pose, is how, in the middle of the night when you are sound asleep, and someone is coming into your house are you suppose to make that judgement call ?

Something here seems to be missing.

 

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by smokey1:

Why do you think a "no knock" warrant is easier to execute?

If an investigator wants to execute a search warrant after dark than he must explain to the judge why and the judge must stipulate this in the warrant IF he grants the request.

Because a no knock warrant gives the officers the element of surprise, making it easier to execute the warrant over having to announce their arrival.  Problem is, they (no knock warrants) don't give the innocent the time to answer the door and allow them in peacefully either.

=====================

No knock warrants are not easier to execute. They are more difficult and dangerous than a day time warrant. 

Originally Posted by smokey1:

No knock warrants are not easier to execute. They are more difficult and dangerous than a day time warrant. 

I don't see any reference to the time of day in the legal definition of a 'no knock warrant.'

 

No Knock Warrant - A no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge which allows law enforcement to enter a premises without knocking or identifying themselves as police first.  It is a warrant authorizing officers to enter certain premises to execute a warrant without first knocking or otherwise announcing their presence where circumstances (such as a known risk of serious harm to the officers or the likelihood that evidence of crime will be destroyed) justify such an entry.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/no-knock-warrant/

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by smokey1:

No knock warrants are not easier to execute. They are more difficult and dangerous than a day time warrant. 

I don't see any reference to the time of day in the legal definition of a 'no knock warrant.'

 

No Knock Warrant - A no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge which allows law enforcement to enter a premises without knocking or identifying themselves as police first.  It is a warrant authorizing officers to enter certain premises to execute a warrant without first knocking or otherwise announcing their presence where circumstances (such as a known risk of serious harm to the officers or the likelihood that evidence of crime will be destroyed) justify such an entry.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/no-knock-warrant/

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant

What he means, if I read it correctly, is that a judge must approve the No Knock Warrant, just as he or she does a nighttime search warrant. Granted, if the officers get there and determine knocking would create substantial risk, they may proceed without knocking and announcing from what I understand. The inherent danger involved in both no knock and night time warrants are usually synonymous.

Originally Posted by seeweed:

James T is all about everybody having a gun for personal protection,  consider this:

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house 

you get your gun and shoot them., Alabama law states you can do that.

the intruder is shot , maybe killed and you are a hero to your family and the community at large.

OR

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house

you get your gun and shoot them , Alabama law states you can do that,

The intruder is a cop - or group of cops misdirected to your address. you kill one or two.

If you live after being shot in your bed , you will be put on trial for killing a cop, convicted and sent to prison for life if you are lucky, given the needle if not.

 

The question I pose, is how, in the middle of the night when you are sound asleep, and someone is coming into your house are you suppose to make that judgement call ?

Something here seems to be missing.

 

Keep in mind that not all are mistaken addresses. In fact, that happens a small percentage of the time. There are real situations where knocking before making entry would result in the loss of life for police. It isn't a good situation either way. Would you be surprised that most police officers do not want that to happen and take measures to prevent it?

Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

James T is all about everybody having a gun for personal protection,  consider this:

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house 

you get your gun and shoot them., Alabama law states you can do that.

the intruder is shot , maybe killed and you are a hero to your family and the community at large.

OR

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house

you get your gun and shoot them , Alabama law states you can do that,

The intruder is a cop - or group of cops misdirected to your address. you kill one or two.

If you live after being shot in your bed , you will be put on trial for killing a cop, convicted and sent to prison for life if you are lucky, given the needle if not.

 

The question I pose, is how, in the middle of the night when you are sound asleep, and someone is coming into your house are you suppose to make that judgement call ?

Something here seems to be missing.

 

Keep in mind that not all are mistaken addresses. In fact, that happens a small percentage of the time. There are real situations where knocking before making entry would result in the loss of life for police. It isn't a good situation either way. Would you be surprised that most police officers do not want that to happen and take measures to prevent it?

===========

And yet, they have gone from 3000 in 1981 to 50,000 in 2005.
Although it would seem that the people who were wrongly killed are just considered to be an occupational necessity , IMHO, one single innocent person killed in one of these "no knock raids" is an atrocity in what is supposed to be a country where a person is supposed to be safe inside their own home. How has our country come to this point ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

 

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by smokey1:

No knock warrants are not easier to execute. They are more difficult and dangerous than a day time warrant. 

I don't see any reference to the time of day in the legal definition of a 'no knock warrant.'

 

No Knock Warrant - A no-knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge which allows law enforcement to enter a premises without knocking or identifying themselves as police first.  It is a warrant authorizing officers to enter certain premises to execute a warrant without first knocking or otherwise announcing their presence where circumstances (such as a known risk of serious harm to the officers or the likelihood that evidence of crime will be destroyed) justify such an entry.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/no-knock-warrant/

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant

=======================

The stories cited in the original post describe them as occuring at night.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

James T is all about everybody having a gun for personal protection,  consider this:

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house 

you get your gun and shoot them., Alabama law states you can do that.

the intruder is shot , maybe killed and you are a hero to your family and the community at large.

OR

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house

you get your gun and shoot them , Alabama law states you can do that,

The intruder is a cop - or group of cops misdirected to your address. you kill one or two.

If you live after being shot in your bed , you will be put on trial for killing a cop, convicted and sent to prison for life if you are lucky, given the needle if not.

 

The question I pose, is how, in the middle of the night when you are sound asleep, and someone is coming into your house are you suppose to make that judgement call ?

Something here seems to be missing.

 

Keep in mind that not all are mistaken addresses. In fact, that happens a small percentage of the time. There are real situations where knocking before making entry would result in the loss of life for police. It isn't a good situation either way. Would you be surprised that most police officers do not want that to happen and take measures to prevent it?

===========

And yet, they have gone from 3000 in 1981 to 50,000 in 2005.
Although it would seem that the people who were wrongly killed are just considered to be an occupational necessity , IMHO, one single innocent person killed in one of these "no knock raids" is an atrocity in what is supposed to be a country where a person is supposed to be safe inside their own home. How has our country come to this point ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

 

There you go again supposing. No one wants to "wrongly kill" someone. It is not a necessity. Your bias really intervenes in your rational thought process. What I meant was that wrong addresses are far less frequent than successful no knock warrants. Officers typically take every measure to prevent such an incident from happening.

Originally Posted by seeweed:

A lot of city police cars in several places I have seen lately have a sign on the back that I believe tells the entire tale of all these raids.
"This Car paid for by Dug Money": (or something very similar)

When it became legal for police departments to utilize the assets gained by drug raids etc, we started hearing about this. Drug seized assets, ie: houses, cars , cash etc, should NOT be avaliable to local police departments. That breads greed and greed breads corruption.

___

I saw one of those signs this past Sunday in the Atlanta area, seeweed.  The exact words were, "This car paid for by your local drug dealer."

 

This incentive for law enforcement agencies to seize cash and property is undoubtedly responsible for some of the gone-bad  no-knock raids and other excesses we read about all too often.  There are, however, situations in which it is legitimate to  use such tactics.  Unfortunately, in too many cases, those deciding how to proceed err on the side of excess force and incomplete information.

Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

James T is all about everybody having a gun for personal protection,  consider this:

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house 

you get your gun and shoot them., Alabama law states you can do that.

the intruder is shot , maybe killed and you are a hero to your family and the community at large.

OR

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house

you get your gun and shoot them , Alabama law states you can do that,

The intruder is a cop - or group of cops misdirected to your address. you kill one or two.

If you live after being shot in your bed , you will be put on trial for killing a cop, convicted and sent to prison for life if you are lucky, given the needle if not.

 

The question I pose, is how, in the middle of the night when you are sound asleep, and someone is coming into your house are you suppose to make that judgement call ?

Something here seems to be missing.

 

Keep in mind that not all are mistaken addresses. In fact, that happens a small percentage of the time. There are real situations where knocking before making entry would result in the loss of life for police. It isn't a good situation either way. Would you be surprised that most police officers do not want that to happen and take measures to prevent it?

===========

And yet, they have gone from 3000 in 1981 to 50,000 in 2005.
Although it would seem that the people who were wrongly killed are just considered to be an occupational necessity , IMHO, one single innocent person killed in one of these "no knock raids" is an atrocity in what is supposed to be a country where a person is supposed to be safe inside their own home. How has our country come to this point ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

 

There you go again supposing. No one wants to "wrongly kill" someone. It is not a necessity. Your bias really intervenes in your rational thought process. What I meant was that wrong addresses are far less frequent than successful no knock warrants. Officers typically take every measure to prevent such an incident from happening.

========

Well, I do agree on that , but still, like I said, one innocent person who is killed by a mistake whether it be a bad address, or whatever is too much.
While I harbor no love for drug dealers, I do have a great love of our Constitution , and I believe breaking into someone's house and shooting them in their bed is just Constitutionally wrong. Scum that they may be, they are entitled by the Constitution to a fair trial .
Just like police high speed chases in the case that they know who they are chasing, I believe innocent people are put in harm's way unnecessarily . There are times where those things may be necessary, but I tend to think it is far less than it is practiced.

(BTW, I don't always blame the individual cop - I think a lot of this is institutional and the cop is just following orders, with the exception of the jerk we saw the video of at that DWI stop - that was just a jerk being a jerk)

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

James T is all about everybody having a gun for personal protection,  consider this:

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house 

you get your gun and shoot them., Alabama law states you can do that.

the intruder is shot , maybe killed and you are a hero to your family and the community at large.

OR

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house

you get your gun and shoot them , Alabama law states you can do that,

The intruder is a cop - or group of cops misdirected to your address. you kill one or two.

If you live after being shot in your bed , you will be put on trial for killing a cop, convicted and sent to prison for life if you are lucky, given the needle if not.

 

The question I pose, is how, in the middle of the night when you are sound asleep, and someone is coming into your house are you suppose to make that judgement call ?

Something here seems to be missing.

 

Keep in mind that not all are mistaken addresses. In fact, that happens a small percentage of the time. There are real situations where knocking before making entry would result in the loss of life for police. It isn't a good situation either way. Would you be surprised that most police officers do not want that to happen and take measures to prevent it?

===========

And yet, they have gone from 3000 in 1981 to 50,000 in 2005.
Although it would seem that the people who were wrongly killed are just considered to be an occupational necessity , IMHO, one single innocent person killed in one of these "no knock raids" is an atrocity in what is supposed to be a country where a person is supposed to be safe inside their own home. How has our country come to this point ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

 

There you go again supposing. No one wants to "wrongly kill" someone. It is not a necessity. Your bias really intervenes in your rational thought process. What I meant was that wrong addresses are far less frequent than successful no knock warrants. Officers typically take every measure to prevent such an incident from happening.

========

Well, I do agree on that , but still, like I said, one innocent person who is killed by a mistake whether it be a bad address, or whatever is too much.
While I harbor no love for drug dealers, I do have a great love of our Constitution , and I believe breaking into someone's house and shooting them in their bed is just Constitutionally wrong. Scum that they may be, they are entitled by the Constitution to a fair trial .
Just like police high speed chases in the case that they know who they are chasing, I believe innocent people are put in harm's way unnecessarily . There are times where those things may be necessary, but I tend to think it is far less than it is practiced.

(BTW, I don't always blame the individual cop - I think a lot of this is institutional and the cop is just following orders, with the exception of the jerk we saw the video of at that DWI stop - that was just a jerk being a jerk)

===============

 

How is a search warrant signed by a judge unconstitutional? And the police don't execute search warrants just to shoot someone in their bed.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

James T is all about everybody having a gun for personal protection,  consider this:

 

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house 

you get your gun and shoot them., Alabama law states you can do that.

the intruder is shot , maybe killed and you are a hero to your family and the community at large.

OR

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house

you get your gun and shoot them , Alabama law states you can do that,

The intruder is a cop - or group of cops misdirected to your address. you kill one or two.

If you live after being shot in your bed , you will be put on trial for killing a cop, convicted and sent to prison for life if you are lucky, given the needle if not.

 

 

I dont see how they could convict you if they made the mistake on which house they were raiding.

 

 On the subject of having a gun for personal protection - what do you think has a better chance of happening - a raid on your house by mistake or a criminal breaking into your home? Id say, in the bigger scheme of things, the chances of a criminal breaking in are much higher.  

 

Not owning a gun for fear of an accidental police raid is about like not owning a gun for fear that it might not fire when you shoot it (there is probably a better chance of that happening......)

 

No knock tactics vs. "military" operations.

 

Military Operations Urban Terrain [MOUT] tactics differs significantly in several ways from no-knock entry tactics.

 

Consider

 

In MOUT, methods of breaching may use kinds of force with little regard to human life on the other side.  Shoulder fired missiles for instance.

 

No knock has the ability to use shaped charges but use a battering ram when they aren’t actually kicking the door.  I can imagine what some folks would say if LE actually blew down a door.  OMG!

 

Following breaching, the MOUT team may deploy a fragmentation grenade or a flash/bang at a minimum into any space if they so much as "suspect" a hostile within.

 

No knock teams use flash bangs as a distraction at a maximum only in targeted areas.

 

MOUT breaching teams may not be as concerned with target identification as with target acquisition.

 

No knock emphasizes target identification.

 

Utilizing enhanced NVGs, MOUT nighttime entries are preferred over daytime usually around 0200 local.  OBL for example.

 

No knocks that use daytime are likely to lose the element of surprise.

 

MOUT rarely knows the floorplan of the structure they are clearing.

 

No knocks may not know the specifics, but there is usually a working knowledge of a floor plan.

 

It’s usually shoot first in MOUT.  Very little "negotiation" takes place.  Occasionally you might hear a MOUT team member holler "DROP THE WEAPON!" in whatever dialect, but this usually draws unnecessary and unwanted attention from other sectors.

 

No knock make entry encouraging dialog by first verbally announcing their presence and giving verbal orders to the occupants.  They talk first.

 

No knock are bound by the US Constitution.

 

MOUT is bound by the Geneva Convention Rules of War.

 

One more thing.  When our Reserve and Guard SWAT guys headed off to get their MOUT training prior to deployment, it was clear to us the military was heavily dependent on our training and adopted tactics from their civilian counterparts ... probably none more so than LAPD SWAT because up till we started kicking doors in Iraq, no one had better training in forced entry than US law enforcement.  Better AND safer, I might add.

 

No google links to give you.  Just personal observations FWIW.

Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by wright35633:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

James T is all about everybody having a gun for personal protection,  consider this:

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house 

you get your gun and shoot them., Alabama law states you can do that.

the intruder is shot , maybe killed and you are a hero to your family and the community at large.

OR

you wake up in the middle of the night and people are coming into your house

you get your gun and shoot them , Alabama law states you can do that,

The intruder is a cop - or group of cops misdirected to your address. you kill one or two.

If you live after being shot in your bed , you will be put on trial for killing a cop, convicted and sent to prison for life if you are lucky, given the needle if not.

 

The question I pose, is how, in the middle of the night when you are sound asleep, and someone is coming into your house are you suppose to make that judgement call ?

Something here seems to be missing.

 

Keep in mind that not all are mistaken addresses. In fact, that happens a small percentage of the time. There are real situations where knocking before making entry would result in the loss of life for police. It isn't a good situation either way. Would you be surprised that most police officers do not want that to happen and take measures to prevent it?

===========

And yet, they have gone from 3000 in 1981 to 50,000 in 2005.
Although it would seem that the people who were wrongly killed are just considered to be an occupational necessity , IMHO, one single innocent person killed in one of these "no knock raids" is an atrocity in what is supposed to be a country where a person is supposed to be safe inside their own home. How has our country come to this point ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant

 

There you go again supposing. No one wants to "wrongly kill" someone. It is not a necessity. Your bias really intervenes in your rational thought process. What I meant was that wrong addresses are far less frequent than successful no knock warrants. Officers typically take every measure to prevent such an incident from happening.

========

Well, I do agree on that , but still, like I said, one innocent person who is killed by a mistake whether it be a bad address, or whatever is too much.
While I harbor no love for drug dealers, I do have a great love of our Constitution , and I believe breaking into someone's house and shooting them in their bed is just Constitutionally wrong. Scum that they may be, they are entitled by the Constitution to a fair trial .
Just like police high speed chases in the case that they know who they are chasing, I believe innocent people are put in harm's way unnecessarily . There are times where those things may be necessary, but I tend to think it is far less than it is practiced.

(BTW, I don't always blame the individual cop - I think a lot of this is institutional and the cop is just following orders, with the exception of the jerk we saw the video of at that DWI stop - that was just a jerk being a jerk)

===============

 

How is a search warrant signed by a judge unconstitutional? And the police don't execute search warrants just to shoot someone in their bed.

=========

Not referring to search warrents, referring to the semingly increasing incidence of a police raid that just comes in and shoots people in their bed. 
Sorry, but I got a real problem with that being Constitutional.

 

Yes, i agree, there is a difference between the two.  The increased use of the no knock warrant is just another example of why many people feel that Law Enforcement in general are becoming less concerned with the rights of the citizen.  Dont get me wrong, im not referring to the officer on the street, but the policy and policy writers in the offices.

 

Another good example is my recent post about the TSA - why do we need the TSA at sporting events with their heavy handed random searches?

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×