updates on Ryan Frederick (knock-knock vs. no-knock)

[rkt88edmo]

There is some interesing discussion here:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126706.html

particularly:
This then raises the question of what exactly you're supposed to do when someone knocks on your door, and announces that they're the police and that they have a search warrant. Don't come to the door, and they're going to break it down and come after you. Come to the door to verify it's really the police (by no means a given)—and to let them in if it is—and your very movement toward the door can, also, be a trigger to break the door down and storm your home. Arm yourself and wait for them to come in? You're practically begging them to shoot you.

Seems your only option is stand somewhere in your own house with your hands in the air, wait for the door to come down, and hope the raiding officers don't mistake your t-shirt for a gun, or possibly trip or mistakenly fire and accidentally kill you. Be prepared to be thrown to the ground, stepped on, handcuffed, and have the barrel of a gun pointed at the back of your head.

This is just one of many conundrums posed by the proliferation of paramilitary-style police raids. The people on the receiving end of the raids are put in positions where it's nearly impossible to even know what the right response is, much less be in a position to make it. Not to mention that, at the same time, they're being subjected to trauma that makes any sort of clear-headedness or careful consideration of their options pretty much impossible. Make the wrong decision and you're either dead or facing a felony charge.


Lets stay out of the mindless LEO bashing - that kind of stuff will only get the thread flushed.

[GenLee]

Unbelievable, The worst part is they (LEO) make this huge mistake, Lie, yet then attempt to prosecute to the fullest? Wtf? reminds me of that attorney my wife and I once hired in a landlord tenant dipute " These rights you people think you have" lol..........Fired!

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Unbelievable, The worst part is they (LEO) make this huge mistake, Lie, yet then attempt to prosecute to the fullest? Wtf? reminds me of that attorney my wife and I once hired in a landlord tenant dipute " These rights you people think you have" lol..........Fired!

But what else can they do? Sure, tell the truth. We know that human beings almost always try to cover up when a mistake is made and the stakes are high. That said, prisons are full to brimming with "innocent" people. So it's a swearing match between LE and the arrested party. Like always. The courts are there to sort this sort of thing out, and the DA does not always get what they are looking for. It's a bargaining posture.

Seems that the real lesson is that if you're going to be a drug user, you had better understand that you need to be deciding between drugs and weapons. Even if his shot is deemed reasonable under the circumstances, he is screwed. He has set himself up for a world of hurt. He lied on his 4473. He probably sold. He seems to have been in posession. And another drug user will turn on him in a second to work off charges.

I would bet that if he had chosen not to become involved in drugs, he would not have been on LE's radar, and the issue of what to do when LE knocks would have been moot. I guess the lesson is - be sure of your target and your backstop.

[GenLee]

But what else can they do? Sure, tell the truth. We know that human beings almost always try to cover up when a mistake is made and the stakes are high. That said, prisons are full to brimming with "innocent" people. So it's a swearing match between LE and the arrested party. Like always. The courts are there to sort this sort of thing out, and the DA does not always get what they are looking for. It's a bargaining posture.

Seems that the real lesson is that if you're going to be a drug user, you had better understand that you need to be deciding between drugs and weapons. Even if his shot is deemed reasonable under the circumstances, he is screwed. He has set himself up for a world of hurt. He lied on his 4473. He probably sold. He seems to have been in posession. And another drug user will turn on him in a second to work off charges.

I would bet that if he had chosen not to become involved in drugs, he would not have been on LE's radar, and the issue of what to do when LE knocks would have been moot. I guess the lesson is - be sure of your target and your backstop.

All definatly valid points. I guess I was heated about and trying to get at was the way these warrant's are being served and as the author IMO was getting at when they are served in this manor, We have little control on the outcome, and suffer huge concequences one way or the other.

[Spaceghost]

Mixing drugs with weapons is a dumb thing to do, but the real problem is with these no knock warrants. Simply saying, innocent people don't get served with these things, so it's not my problem. Isn't a solution. It's apathy.

In fact, one of our own got hit with one these recently and had his home raided by an entire swat term. His place was trashed, but his weapons were returned. He could of easily been shot and killed by the police over a warrant that will most likely in my opinion, have little to no merit. He was cleaning weapons when they came over to play.

What if he was shot and killed? You had better believe anytime people bash down my door, we will have a problem. Dead people don't tell their side of the story so good, so as long as the physical evidence matches the concocted story, it's gravy...



But what else can they do? Sure, tell the truth. We know that human beings almost always try to cover up when a mistake is made and the stakes are high. That said, prisons are full to brimming with "innocent" people. So it's a swearing match between LE and the arrested party. Like always. The courts are there to sort this sort of thing out, and the DA does not always get what they are looking for. It's a bargaining posture.

Seems that the real lesson is that if you're going to be a drug user, you had better understand that you need to be deciding between drugs and weapons. Even if his shot is deemed reasonable under the circumstances, he is screwed. He has set himself up for a world of hurt. He lied on his 4473. He probably sold. He seems to have been in posession. And another drug user will turn on him in a second to work off charges.

I would bet that if he had chosen not to become involved in drugs, he would not have been on LE's radar, and the issue of what to do when LE knocks would have been moot. I guess the lesson is - be sure of your target and your backstop.

[formerTexan]

I'm about speechless after reading the article. The inconsistencies between what the PD said versus eye witness accounts stands out. But all this could've been avoided if they simply did these things:

1. monitor the suspect's schedule
2. serve him as he leaves his house or coming home

Nobody dies unnecessarily. All this "drug-related" = SWAT rolls out is ridiculous. If the PD did just a little more background work, that dead detective won't be dead right now. I understand the above steps may not work in all cases, but it sure would reduce the number of "violent encounters" between the police and the people it supposedly serves.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

All definatly valid points. I guess I was heated about and trying to get at was the way these warrant's are being served and as the author IMO was getting at when they are served in this manor, We have little control on the outcome, and suffer huge concequences one way or the other.

Well, the stormtrooper approach does have me disturbed. And mistakes are made. From the article, I would assume the only safe thing is to assume the position before they make entry and hope you don't get shot. This is clearly unacceptable, especially since there is no way to be sure who's there until you either hear announced ID or see a badge.

This sort of thing makes me think a whole-house surveillance system is the ticket. Nothing like video to document what did and didn't happen.

[deleted by PC police]

This story stinks bad...

The police say sixteen officers were present for the raid, and that they were divided into two units, one at the front door to the house, and one unit that was prepared to enter the detached garage. This differs sharply from what Frederick's neighbors told me. One woman told me she came outside after she heard shots, and saw one car and two officers at Frederick's home. It was only later that other officers arrived.

Frederick's attorney James Broccoletti made a good point, too. According to Roberts' own testimony, Frederick fired only after the battering ram breached the lower panel of Frederick's door. This is a pretty good indication that Frederick's mindset was one of self defense (never mind his clean record, and praise from neighbors, friends, and prior employers). If this were a premeditated attempt to kill a cop (which no one who knows Frederick says he's capable of ), and if Frederick knew these were police officers due to their alleged repeated announcements, why would he wait until they had broken down his door to begin firing? And why would he give up after firing just two rounds? Those seem like the acts of someone who's scared and uncertain, not someone hellbent on killing himself a cop.

Ok I'm no expert, I only know what I have seen on cops but I'm pretty sure most cops aren't dumb enough to use a battering ram with only two of them there. If one of them can even swing the thing by himself he's a dead man if the other one gets shot after the door is breached. They should be able to use the dash cams to determine if other officers were there, they may not show what happend but they should at least show they were at the scene.

[GenLee]

This story stinks bad...



Ok I'm no expert, I only know what I have seen on cops but I'm pretty sure most cops aren't dumb enough to use a battering ram with only two of them there. If one of them can even swing the thing by himself he's a dead man if the other one gets shot after the door is breached. They should be able to use the dash cams to determine if other officers were there, they may not show what happend but they should at least show they were at the scene.


+1 This stinks? and what stinks worse is how often this BS is happening.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Mixing drugs with weapons is a dumb thing to do, but the real problem is with these no knock warrants. Simply saying, innocent people don't get served with these things, so it's not my problem. Isn't a solution. It's apathy.

In fact, one of our own got hit with one these recently and had his home raided by an entire swat term. His place was trashed, but his weapons were returned. He could of easily been shot and killed by the police over a warrant that will most likely in my opinion, have little to no merit. He was cleaning weapons when they came over to play.

What if he was shot and killed? You had better believe anytime people bash down my door, we will have a problem. Dead people don't tell their side of the story so good, so as long as the physical evidence matches the concocted story, it's gravy...

No-knock warrants are just the ticket for known violent offenders or offenders that are known or reasonably expected to be heavily armed. Or are officers expected to knock and talk all of the time? I don't think we pay them enough for that kind of risk. In some cases, it would be suicide.

The best defense is to: a) lead a clean life, and b) be sure of your target. Our CalGuns guy did A, and didn't need to worry about B. The subject of the story did neither. Even if the police were wrong, he was also wrong - in shooting at something without identifying his target. His careless actions led to an unnecessary death.

And with the strong link that has been developed with gangs, drugs and guns, the no-knock raid for drugs is getting more and more reasonable. The stakes are high, and the willingness to shoot at LE is there. For all we know, the subject of the story had just moved all of his product. I am sure that will come out in court.

[pnkssbtz]

No-knock warrants are just the ticket for known violent offenders or offenders that are known or reasonably expected to be heavily armed. Or are officers expected to knock and talk all of the time? I don't think we pay them enough for that kind of risk. In some cases, it would be suicide.
Translation:
Because some people are bad, we are taking the rights away from everyone else in the country.

The best defense is to: a) lead a clean life, and b) be sure of your target. Our CalGuns guy did A, and didn't need to worry about B. The subject of the story did neither. Even if the police were wrong, he was also wrong - in shooting at something without identifying his target. His careless actions led to an unnecessary death.
Translation:
Citizen, you should have no objections if we inspect your house for contraband. Afteral, only criminals have anything to hide. You are not a criminal, right citizen?


And with the strong link that has been developed with gangs, drugs and guns, the no-knock raid for drugs is getting more and more reasonable. The stakes are high, and the willingness to shoot at LE is there. For all we know, the subject of the story had just moved all of his product. I am sure that will come out in court.
Translation:
The death of innocent people, is an acceptable loss in the war on drugs/terror/gangs.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Translation:
Because some people are bad, we are taking the rights away from everyone else in the country.


Translation:
Citizen, you should have no objections if we inspect your house for contraband. Afteral, only criminals have anything to hide. You are not a criminal, right citizen?



Translation:
The death of innocent people, is an acceptable loss in the war on drugs/terror/gangs.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

:D Funny. That's not what I said at all :D

[M. Sage]

The best defense is to: a) lead a clean life, and b) be sure of your target. Our CalGuns guy did A, and didn't need to worry about B. The subject of the story did neither. Even if the police were wrong, he was also wrong - in shooting at something without identifying his target. His careless actions led to an unnecessary death.

Ah, so all we have to do is not violate any laws at all.

Which is impossible. There are so many on the books with such a wide scope that it's impossible to avoid breaking some small, stupid, should-never-have-existed law at some point without even knowing it.

A lot of the blame in this specific case goes to the criminal who was on the police payroll that broke into this guy's house and went to the police claiming that there was marijuana growing in his garage.

So what if he'd been growing Mary Jane in his house? Should they kick his door down and rush in with flash bangs and machine guns? Where's the victim in someone growing pot? Why do we have the police reacting this way to crimes that are victimless?

[geeknow]

Why do we have the police reacting this way to crimes that are victimless?

because thats where the money is

[M. Sage]

because thats where the money is

Can't be about money. If the government does something for monetary reasons, isn't that corruption?

[rkt88edmo]

he was also wrong - in shooting at something without identifying his target.

If I saw a hand reaching through my door after knocking a hole in it in an attempt to open it I would say my target is pretty darn well identified.

[geeknow]

Can't be about money. If the government does something for monetary reasons, isn't that corruption?

This isnt corruption. This is reality. The government gets to seize property. The "perp" is forced to pay fines, and usually does vs violent crime "perps" who generally sit it out in the pokey, on our dime.

To answer your question, though. Yes, if the gov't does something for monetary gain, it is corruption. Just ask Sheriff Corona down in the OC.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Translation:
Because some people are bad, we are taking the rights away from everyone else in the country.

Translation:
Citizen, you should have no objections if we inspect your house for contraband. Afteral, only criminals have anything to hide. You are not a criminal, right citizen?

Translation:
The death of innocent people, is an acceptable loss in the war on drugs/terror/gangs.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Um, no. But law enforcement needs tools that are commensurate with the threat that is present. If there are needs for more stringent proof before issuing a no-knock warrant, then that is a matter of procedure. No officer should have a problem with that. After all, they are just trying to do their job, to take bad people off of the street. To make YOUR life better.

I'm not sure where the other comment came from. I never said they ought to just be able to inspect your property? Huh?

BTW, this was ONE case, not everyone or every case. It is easy to try to magnify a viewpoint by saying 'always' or 'everyone', but that is clearly not what we are talking about. Certainly I am not talking about that. Even if there are 100 cases like this, that is a drop in a drop in the bucket compared to the warrants that were properly served and concluded.

Ah, so all we have to do is not violate any laws at all.

Which is impossible. There are so many on the books with such a wide scope that it's impossible to avoid breaking some small, stupid, should-never-have-existed law at some point without even knowing it.

A lot of the blame in this specific case goes to the criminal who was on the police payroll that broke into this guy's house and went to the police claiming that there was marijuana growing in his garage.

So what if he'd been growing Mary Jane in his house? Should they kick his door down and rush in with flash bangs and machine guns? Where's the victim in someone growing pot? Why do we have the police reacting this way to crimes that are victimless?

Good point. There are usually a few laws we always break or don't even know about, even if we have to go back to the 1850's to find when the law was written and what it was for. But that mostly doesn't matter. I don't think downgrading a weapons charge to spitting on the sidewalk would wash in court. And if it does, you should reconsider where you live. Because the people who live there have elected the officials that believe that is OK. Your interests and views are not in step with your home if that is the case.

Drug charges are interesting. I have a relative who served 3 1/2 years for posession of so little coke that it couldn't be presented in court because the test for coke took the whole sample. If he had been busted in his home town, he would have been ticketed and released with no bond and had gotten presumptive probation. Different locales have different attitudes. We should all live in one that reflects ours.

Whether the door comes down or whether the bust is a knock and talk depends largely upon where you live and what the LEOs have to deal with normally - and what the record of the person being arrested is. There is no blanket answer to this, and different tools come out for different jobs. If LE oversteps, then that is what court is for.

[PatriotnMore]

I know I may have what some have seen as a harsh attitude towards LEO's, and I am here to say, that is not the case. I have a hard attitude against abuse under the color of authority, small or large.

I am not bashing on police per se, but how can I list the grievances without sounding like I am?

Every tool the police have at their disposal is good if properly used, I have no problem with them. Unfortunately, I see, and continually see abuse, and an ever developing police state mentality and actions.

We get sold a bill of goods through the media, and the police themselves when they screw the pooch. How many times do we see or read about these police busts for drugs, that end up being some minor amount of whatever substance they find, then they show us pictures of the guns they found while at the residence, as if they saved my *** or yours. Hell if you went into my home, or my neighbors to the left and right of me, you could show a small arsenal, so what? all are legal.

Just because little Johnny smoked some weed, does that make him a violent criminal? Hell no!, and they don't need to use "Jack Boot" tactics unless it is absolutely warranted.

If the Government, and LEO"S really wanted to stop drugs, they would stop it before it ever got here. I see more drugs coming into California by way of Mexicali doing minute men duty (of which I don't get paid for, and has its own risks) then all of the drugs I've seen on tv busts. But no, its better to bust your kids for experimenting, just like 90% of all cops, and you did at one time. Drugs have been around heavily for over 40 years, do you see a Nation of addicts? I sure don't, most reasonable people after experimenting with drugs walk away, some go over the deep end, but no matter what the issue, you will have a group who will. Does that mean I want the Government and police enforcing morality? Hell no, I can figure out whats best for me without their meddling.

Aren't all these police officers and Government officials who are now our morality squad glad SWAT didn't bust down their door when they were smoking weed?

And, its not just drugs, its wink and nod law enforcement and Government, people getting drawn down on with a gun like its a normal course of business, lack of support for our Constitutional rights such as gun control, DUI check points, and the list goes on.

I would like nothing better than to sit here and type how great it all is, but when I see myself, family and future generations losing the right to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we choose, not as others would choose for us, at the hands of the few, I have to stand up and say enough is enough.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

I have a hard attitude against abuse under the color of authority, small or large.
...



I agree wholeheartedly. I think that it is easy for people to get sidetracked on the individual issues so as to miss this one underlying element. We have a lot of abuse of authority going on now, and the wink-and-nod selective enforcement is just as bad. While I support strong tools for big or demonstratively dangerous problems, those same tools coupled with misuse of authority can be a real bad combination.

When it comes down to it, the thing that is sickening is that it appears to be citizens that receive this harsh treatment under color of authority while illegals flip the bird and jump the border. Even if they get caught, they sometimes get deported 3, 5, 7 times before anything sticks to them. It is this that is really maddening to me. It appears that since citizens have something to lose, they are a better target.

[PatriotnMore]

I agree wholeheartedly. I think that it is easy for people to get sidetracked on the individual issues so as to miss this one underlying element. We have a lot of abuse of authority going on now, and the wink-and-nod selective enforcement is just as bad. While I support strong tools for big or demonstratively dangerous problems, those same tools coupled with misuse of authority can be a real bad combination.

When it comes down to it, the thing that is sickening is that it appears to be citizens that receive this harsh treatment under color of authority while illegals flip the bird and jump the border. Even if they get caught, they sometimes get deported 3, 5, 7 times before anything sticks to them. It is this that is really maddening to me. It appears that since citizens have something to lose, they are a better target.

Our troops, who are in a war zone, have much more strict rules of engagement then our LEO's. Troops cannot fire on someone because they have/see a gun, they have to be shot at first. Our Government gives the people we are at war with more rights, and liberties than you do, walking the streets as a citizen. Now how messed up is that?

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Our troops, who are in a war zone, have much more strict rules of engagement then our LEO's. Troops cannot fire on someone because they have/see a gun, they have to be shot at first. Our Government gives the people we are at war with more rights, and liberties than you do, walking the streets as a citizen. Now how messed up is that?

Way.

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

I understand the mistakes made here, but this one persons ideas, though some of them are from the hearing some of them are hear-say. Not that hes wrong or lying.

Also think of it this way, your going to serve a warrant for a marijuana growing house. Your ampt up, it could possibly be high risk, as many are involving drugs. The last thing you are going to think of is a regular joe in bed sleeping who just diddnt wake up untill after the 4 announcments.

Heres what I think a large number of us would think...

We knock and announce four times, then a light turns on and we hear movement, there is a possible drug manufacturer/seller inside and hes doing something inside that could be dangerous, because he hasnt come to the door yet.

Also consider this, if you are going to use deadly force against someone, you better had be in fear of your life. Now dont get me wrong if I saw someone IN my house with a weapon, or that looked like they could seriously harm or kill me, i would drop them. But it says he saw a hand reaching through the door.
Would you just point and shoot at a hand through the door? Are you really in fear of your life at that point? Also if they used a battering ram, it would be a big whole, when is the last time a criminal used one of those on your door?


Now let me set this straight. Im not saying either side is right. The cops fudged on the details yes and they should never have lied or skewed any details, but lets not forget a cop was shot and killed doing his job. To the best of their knowledge they were doing there job right up untill the details were skewed.

In the article it was said that he had sold drugs here and there, and did have a very small amount in his house, although he wasn't growing. I realize that his neighbors said hes a good guy and such and no record, and im not saying hes bad, BUT drugs and sales arent good!

I guess what im saying here i think both parties fudged here!
Ryan fredereick should not have fired when he did
the police should not fudge the details
I think the police that lied should be dealt as per departmental policy,
and instead of murder maybe a lesser sentence, but everyone is forgetting he DID take a life when he diddnt have to, of course hindsight is always clear, and im sure he was ampt up to, but the bottom line is he killed another human being.
I am always ashamed when the police fudge up on stuff like that, police should hold themselves to higher standars, we are all human and make mistakes, but we should not lie to cover them

Also ill leave you with this, out of the thousands of search warrants served each year, im sure that other people are woken up and frightened to... what happened in those instances?

moral to the story? always be sure of your target, its a sad tragedy a police officer lost his life, as is the way his partners handled the case.

[formerTexan]

Re-reading the article, another thing that struck me was that these police officers took a light being turned on as a sign that they've been "made". They come knocking at night, and they think a light coming on is odd or threatening? I turn on lights as I walk through the house if its dark, and I'm sure most reasonable people do as well.

The suspect in this case, should have been given a reasonable time to at least look at who is at the door, perhaps if a marked police vehicle was in front. Is 16 seconds enough time? I don't know, maybe a jury/judge will have to make that decision. Also, isn't the implication of a knock-warrant that the suspect is not considered dangerous or able to destroy (too much) evidence when the cops show up? I guess this goes back to, is 16 seconds enough time for the subject to answer the door, and maybe take a peek out the window before that. I understand that warrants allow the police to enter if no-one comes to the door, but this seems to not be the case. Instead, its the "light turning on" thing that caused the "eight ball" to roll.

[pnkssbtz]

:D Funny. That's not what I said at all :DOh, but you did. You just don't realize it.

You don't seem to realize that the words you uttered as justifications have been uttered before in antiquity. And the most horrendous atrocities, both the loss of life and the deprivation of liberty, have ensued from such noble and good intentions.



"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt, British House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange."- Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[PatriotnMore]

Oh, but you did. You just don't realize it.

You don't seem to realize that the words you uttered as justifications have been uttered before in antiquity. And the most horrendous atrocities, both the loss of life and the deprivation of liberty, have ensued from such noble and good intentions.



"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt, British House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange."- Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


Great quotes! I believe, because I have seen.
Not to get between you and MrDude but, I think his heart is in the right place, and you're more on the same side, than not.

[pnkssbtz]

Great quotes! I believe, because I have seen.
Not to get between you and MrDude but, I think his heart is in the right place, and you're more on the same side, than not.You are correct.
I can see and understand his reasoning. However, as the quotes I referenced allude too, such thinking is very very dangerous.

[PatriotnMore]

Re-reading the article, another thing that struck me was that these police officers took a light being turned on as a sign that they've been "made". the "light turning on" thing that caused the "eight ball" to roll.

Here is my sticking point. I have seen and heard many reasons why police do what they do. What really bothers me is, they might as well come out and say, we messed up, and it cost someone their life, but they won't because it would cost jobs and money.
I could say, if I were alive at this point, I saw a light outside, so I grabbed my gun, then I heard the knob turn and I feared for my life, so I fired. Now, the law says, and I am paraphrasing, someone correct me, we as citizens have to be sure that we are in eminent danger for our lives before we can use deadly force. In this case it would mean, he would have had to wait until the door opened and recognized an actual threat from non LEO's, with a weapon before firing.

Now, a LEO's can claim I saw a gun and fired, and its a justifiable shooting. High fives all around.

This is your home, the home you are allowed to own a gun for purposes of defense, this person did not go looking for a fight. No, a fight was brought to his door with a no knock warrant, had a knock warrant been issued, and had it been performed properly, this individual would be alive today.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Oh, but you did. You just don't realize it.

You don't seem to realize that the words you uttered as justifications have been uttered before in antiquity. And the most horrendous atrocities, both the loss of life and the deprivation of liberty, have ensued from such noble and good intentions.



"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt, British House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange."- Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

And what is the essential liberty that I am giving away for safety?

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Here is my sticking point. I have seen and heard many reasons why police do what they do. What really bothers me is, they might as well come out and say, we messed up, and it cost someone their life, but they won't because it would cost jobs and money.
I could say, if I were alive at this point, I saw a light outside, so I grabbed my gun, then I heard the knob turn and I feared for my life, so I fired. Now, the law says, and I am paraphrasing, someone correct me, we as citizens have to be sure that we are in eminent danger for our lives before we can use deadly force. In this case it would mean, he would have had to wait until the door opened and recognized an actual threat from non LEO's, with a weapon before firing.

Now, a LEO's can claim I saw a gun and fired, and its a justifiable shooting. High fives all around.

This is your home, the home you are allowed to own a gun for purposes of defense, this person did not go looking for a fight. No, a fight was brought to his door with a no knock warrant, had a knock warrant been issued, and had it been performed properly, this individual would be alive today.

Well, the justifiable shooting thing is a bit, um, lighthearted. It's not like that at all. It is a very serious matter. I've seen more than one officer go down in flames over a bad shoot. And we're not talking over-the-top bad shoot, we're talking marginal legalese bad shoot that everyone thought was justifiable. Seeing a gun is not enough around here. Getting a gun pointed at you is sometimes not enough.

I hear you on the fight coming in the door. But we're not talking about a fight coming into Pastor John's door, your door, or my door. We are probably talking about a CI giving information on a source. And there was probably traffic pulled on the location to justify the warrant as well as a trash run to verify byproduct. Who knows how much they did or didn't do? No one outside of the department knows how good that paper was. I wonder if the CI told them the guy had a gun, and that justified the no-knock?

If he was moving kilos, would it be ok? If he were moving meth? For all we know, he moved everything right before the bust and stuffed all the cash in his cat. I have seen good paper turned worthless by that very thing more than once. Well, the cash wasn't in the cat...

[pnkssbtz]

And what is the essential liberty that I am giving away for safety?
No-knock warrants are a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights, EXCEPT that the SCOTUS has decreed that in the interest of public safety pursuing criminals at the expense of the populace, in that fashion is a necessary and reasonable intrusion upon our 4th amendment rights.

Let me quote again what rkt88edmo quoted from the original article:
This then raises the question of what exactly you're supposed to do when someone knocks on your door, and announces that they're the police and that they have a search warrant. Don't come to the door, and they're going to break it down and come after you. Come to the door to verify it's really the police (by no means a given)—and to let them in if it is—and your very movement toward the door can, also, be a trigger to break the door down and storm your home. Arm yourself and wait for them to come in? You're practically begging them to shoot you.

Seems your only option is stand somewhere in your own house with your hands in the air, wait for the door to come down, and hope the raiding officers don't mistake your t-shirt for a gun, or possibly trip or mistakenly fire and accidentally kill you. Be prepared to be thrown to the ground, stepped on, handcuffed, and have the barrel of a gun pointed at the back of your head.

This is just one of many conundrums posed by the proliferation of paramilitary-style police raids. The people on the receiving end of the raids are put in positions where it's nearly impossible to even know what the right response is, much less be in a position to make it. Not to mention that, at the same time, they're being subjected to trauma that makes any sort of clear-headedness or careful consideration of their options pretty much impossible. Make the wrong decision and you're either dead or facing a felony charge.

If you then cannot see how our constitutional rights have been eroded and usurped under the altruistic guise of necessity, under the most "noble" of intentions, yet the abuses of which this usurped authority have begun to rack up a body count of innocent people; I'd say that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

[PatriotnMore]

Well, the justifiable shooting thing is a bit, um, lighthearted. It's not like that at all. It is a very serious matter. I've seen more than one officer go down in flames over a bad shoot. And we're not talking over-the-top bad shoot, we're talking marginal legalese bad shoot that everyone thought was justifiable. Seeing a gun is not enough around here. Getting a gun pointed at you is sometimes not enough.

I hear you on the fight coming in the door. But we're not talking about a fight coming into Pastor John's door, your door, or my door. We are probably talking about a CI giving information on a source. And there was probably traffic pulled on the location to justify the warrant as well as a trash run to verify byproduct. Who knows how much they did or didn't do? No one outside of the department knows how good that paper was.

If he was moving kilos, would it be ok? If he were moving meth? For all we know, he moved everything right before the bust and stuffed all the cash in his cat. I have seen good paper turned worthless by that very thing more than once. Well, the cash wasn't in the cat...


I see your point, let me mull it over awhile before I post. I just can't justify someone losing their job, when another person lost their life.
If you are LEO, you sound like a sensible one, we want and need those types enforcing our laws. :D

[MisterDudeManGuy]

No-knock warrants are a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights, EXCEPT that the SCOTUS has decreed that in the interest of public safety pursuing criminals at the expense of the populace, in that fashion is a necessary and reasonable intrusion upon our 4th amendment rights.

Let me quote again what rkt88edmo quoted from the original article:


If you then cannot see how our constitutional rights have been eroded and usurped under the altruistic guise of necessity, under the most "noble" of intentions, yet the abuses of which this usurped authority have begun to rack up a body count of innocent people; I'd say that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

The innocent getting caught in the crossfire is an unfortunate circumstance of there being a fight in the first place. The fight is between the law and those who would break the law. The only way to avoid this is to not have the fight at all. There will be missteps, there will be accidents, there will be bad judgement. We are all human, and we all just do the best we can. I suppose not having the fight for law and order is an option, but the results would be worse - kind of like Mexico, where money gets you whatever justice you want. But in a land where justice goes to the highest bidder - well, we know how that ends up.

I'd never argue about our rights being eroded. I can see that as plainly as you or anyone else can. However, no-knock raids save the lives of good, hard-working police officers that are working for you and your family. People like you, with families and their part of the American dream to build. SO, if no-knock raids were gone, what would you propose be put in their place?

I am certainly a believer in the rights of the people having no bounds unless explicitly denied, and government having no rights unless explicitly granted. Given that we must deal with ever-increasing criminal threats to our families and homes, what balance can be struck between the extremes of absolute property rights and no property rights? Understanding, of course, that if you fail to pay taxes, 'your' property is no longer 'yours'...

[Harrison_Bergeron]

I suppose not having the fight for law and order is an option...

There's always the option of enforcing the law upon everyone equally, LE included.

SO, if no-knock raids were gone, what would you propose be put in their place?

Might try replacing them with good ol' fashion police work, as many in these threads have proposed. I find it hard to believe that all suspected criminals hold up in there homes 24/7/365. How about staging someones arrest when they are in plain sight, as opposed to behind a door in their own home where they are probably the most able to defend themselves? Nevermind, wouldn't want logic to prevent anyone from using their cool tactical gear.

I am certainly a believer in the rights of the people having no bounds unless explicitly denied, and government having no rights unless explicitly granted. Given that we must deal with ever-increasing criminal threats to our families and homes, what balance can be struck between the extremes of absolute property rights and no property rights?

Can you quote the section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that mentions this "Greater Good" clause? I know China's Constitution has one, but I have yet to find one in our own. Our Constitution establishes that criminal's may go free in the name of personal liberties, not this innocent citizens may have there doors busted down in the name of security nonsense.

[pnkssbtz]

The innocent getting caught in the crossfire is an unfortunate circumstance of there being a fight in the first place. The fight is between the law and those who would break the law. The only way to avoid this is to not have the fight at all. There will be missteps, there will be accidents, there will be bad judgement. We are all human, and we all just do the best we can.
That's just it, it is NOT against the "law" and the "criminals". When LEO's are doing no-knocks on the wrong house and innocents are dying, do not say that it is between the law and the criminals.

When innocent people like BWO get falsely arrested under fictitious allegations, do not say that it is between the law and the criminals.

Because it is not. It is between the law, and those who get in their way. Be you a law abiding upstanding citizen, or a criminal dreg of society.


Right now, my biggest fear isn't that I will get mugged transporting my works deposit to the bank. It is not a home burglary. It is not my car getting stolen.

My biggest fear is that my government will mis characterize me either intentionally or mistakenly as a dissident or a criminal and guys with guns will show up on my doorstep to arrest me, and threaten to kill me under false and fictitious charges, all in the name of "public safety."


I suppose not having the fight for law and order is an option, but the results would be worse - kind of like Mexico, where money gets you whatever justice you want. But in a land where justice goes to the highest bidder - well, we know how that ends up.
Please, that is the sorriest excuse of a straw man argument I've seen in a while. That some how if the police cannot invade our constitutional rights, the streets will over flow with anarchy.


I'd never argue about our rights being eroded. I can see that as plainly as you or anyone else can. However, no-knock raids save the lives of good, hard-working police officers that are working for you and your family. People like you, with families and their part of the American dream to build. SO, if no-knock raids were gone, what would you propose be put in their place?
How many death's of innocent people, how many illegal and unconstitutional invasions of peoples rights is an acceptable loss?

5? 10? 100? 10,000? How many?


You seem to be under some mistaken impressions. I understand the need for no-knock raids. However they should never be used except under the MOST SCRUTINIZED of circumstances. But oh no! Now we have no-knock raid warrants being signed off for solely under the word of a criminal, who is not even present in court to swear under oath and who is trying to cop a plea bargain without any corroboration.

Heck, the officers some times don't even bother to check if the house they are busting into is the right one.


I am certainly a believer in the rights of the people having no bounds unless explicitly denied, and government having no rights unless explicitly granted. Given that we must deal with ever-increasing criminal threats to our families and homes, what balance can be struck between the extremes of absolute property rights and no property rights? Understanding, of course, that if you fail to pay taxes, 'your' property is no longer 'yours'...

I think the only disagreement we have is the altruistic nature in which you seem to view these incidents under. That is not an insult, but a point of distinction. Let me quote these words of wisdom:

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." - Lyndon Johnson


My point of contention is that the cavalier and negligent use and method in which no-knocks are being employed under is becoming more and more prevalent.


Again, I cannot reiterate enough, nor say more eloquently than what has been said in history. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

There's always the option of enforcing the law upon everyone equally, LE included.



Might try replacing them with good ol' fashion police work, as many in these threads have proposed. I find it hard to believe that all suspected criminals hold up in there homes 24/7/365. How about staging someones arrest when they are in plain sight, as opposed to behind a door in their own home where they are probably the most able to defend themselves? Nevermind, wouldn't want logic to prevent anyone from using their cool tactical gear.



Can you quote the section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that mentions this "Greater Good" clause? I know China's Constitution has one, but I have yet to find one in our own. Our Constitution establishes that criminal's may go free in the name of personal liberties, not this innocent citizens may have there doors busted down in the name of security nonsense.

And how do the laws not apply to LE? I missed that part.

Interesting. Good ole fashioned police work would be great. Catch 'em on the run, Model A's racing through the countryside, with BARs and Tommy guns barking, justice served out in a hail of gunfire, Bonny & Clyde style... But you know what - a search warrant is served on a location. Arrest comes when evidence is uncovered. And it has to be specifically called out in the warrant, or no go. Arrest warrants are different, and are catch as you can. But a suspect is much more likely to run and become a threat to others when they are in the open. There are way too many uncontrollable factors to take into account when someone is in public. In a residence, they have few exits which can all be covered. What better way to box someone in then to trap them in a box? Surely you can see that.

The good ole fashioned police work is actually sitting off a location, night after night, watching activity and taking notes. Pulling traffic on people as you can, and sometimes you want to, but can't. Coordinating with other officers that do the same thing during the day. And all that to get a warrant that might yield nothing because people do things, they get rid of things, they don't come home for a week. Whatever. You seem to have an idealized notion of police work.

Who said anything about greater good? Screw that. I am concerned about our having effective law enforcement. Even a Libertarian viewpoint of the world calls out the necessity for the government to provide law enforcement. In fact, it's one of the few reasons to HAVE government. To use force to protect your rights from those who would violate them.

[pnkssbtz]

And how do the laws not apply to LE? I missed that part.
Oh come on now!

You do know that LEO are exempt from the safe handgun list?

LEO, with their CLEO's approval, can purchase PERSONAL firearms that are categorized as assault weapons and restricted from purchase by the rest of the populace?

LEO, if caught speeding, can simply get a fellow LEO to sign off on their speeding ticket?

etc. etc...





Interesting. Good ole fashioned police work would be great. Catch 'em on the run, Model A's racing through the countryside, with BARs and Tommy guns barking, justice served out in a hail of gunfire, Bonny & Clyde style... But you know what - a search warrant is served on a location. Arrest comes when evidence is uncovered. And it has to be specifically called out in the warrant, or no go. Arrest warrants are different, and are catch as you can. But a suspect is much more likely to run and become a threat to others when they are in the open. There are way too many uncontrollable factors to take into account when someone is in public. In a residence, they have few exits which can all be covered. What better way to box someone in then to trap them in a box? Surely you can see that.I emplore you to visit the cato institute website I posted a link for previously and READ all of the botched no-knock raids. You will be astonished to find out how often the police either raid the wrong house, raid a house that the suspect moved out of 6 months prior, or raid a house solely under the word of a criminal informant who lied to get out of trouble with the law.

As to "Arrest comes when evidence is uncovered." I think you should look up BlackwaterOPS and tell him that.


Who said anything about greater good? Screw that. I am concerned about our having effective law enforcement. Even a Libertarian viewpoint of the world calls out the necessity for the government to provide law enforcement. In fact, it's one of the few reasons to HAVE government. To use force to protect your rights from those who would violate them.Then why not put camera's in everyone's home? Why not enact legislation allowing for police to enter our homes any time for any reason to verify complicity with the law? I am sure if we get rid of the whole constitutional rights the LEO's ability to catch criminals will be much much more effective.

However, this all comes with a price.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Oh come on now!

You do know that LEO are exempt from the safe handgun list?

LEO, with their CLEO's approval, can purchase PERSONAL firearms that are categorized as assault weapons and restricted from purchase by the rest of the populace?

LEO, if caught speeding, can simply get a fellow LEO to sign off on their speeding ticket?

etc. etc...





I emplore you to visit the cato institute website I posted a link for previously and READ all of the botched no-knock raids. You will be astonished to find out how often the police either raid the wrong house, raid a house that the suspect moved out of 6 months prior, or raid a house solely under the word of a criminal informant who lied to get out of trouble with the law.

As to "Arrest comes when evidence is uncovered." I think you should look up BlackwaterOPS and tell him that.


Then why not put camera's in everyone's home? Why not enact legislation allowing for police to enter our homes any time for any reason to verify complicity with the law? I am sure if we get rid of the whole constitutional rights the LEO's ability to catch criminals will be much much more effective.

However, this all comes with a price.

I meant laws that actually have to do with the subject we were discussing. Or are we just grinding axes over every aspect of LE that we don't like?

I live in Kansas because of CA's willingness to subject people like BWO to that sort of treatment. Follow the law - no, become an expert in the law - and get arrested anyway for following the law. One of the reasons I left, as a matter of fact. Ca is no example to look to. A socialist state with a socialist agenda, and a government that is mistrustful of its citizens - because they are systematically raping them. Vote with your feet. Take your skills and tax money and spend it where you and your rights are respected and appreciated. Move to a place where the law actually has meaning. Live with people who are of a like mind as you and you will be a happier person.

Cameras, ah yes. Extremism at its best. Do you have any solutions, or is this the extent of it? I am willing to listen, but please make it worth my time. I seriously want to know what alternative to no-knock you would propose that wouldn't completely throw away our rights.

[pnkssbtz]

I meant laws that actually have to do with the subject we were discussing. Or are we just grinding axes over every aspect of LE that we don't like?
Let me quote the quotes of quotes so you can follow the chain of replies that culminated in my response.
I suppose not having the fight for law and order is an option, but the results would be worse - kind of like Mexico, where money gets you whatever justice you want. But in a land where justice goes to the highest bidder - well, we know how that ends up.There's always the option of enforcing the law upon everyone equally, LE included.And how do the laws not apply to LE? I missed that part.
You mentioned the lawlessness that exists in mexico due to the rampant corruption. You were attempting to illustrate the anarchy that would ensue of police were not allowed to act under the law and authority that they do. So, my points are pertinent to this part of the dialog.



I live in Kansas because of CA's willingness to subject people like BWO to that sort of treatment. Follow the law - no, become an expert in the law - and get arrested anyway for following the law. One of the reasons I left, as a matter of fact. Ca is no example to look to. A socialist state with a socialist agenda, and a government that is mistrustful of its citizens - because they are systematically raping them. Vote with your feet. Take your skills and tax money and spend it where you and your rights are respected and appreciated. Move to a place where the law actually has meaning. Live with people who are of a like mind as you and you will be a happier person.So you then concede that the issue is not between the "Law and the Criminal'? Doesn't that kind of contradict everything you have been saying?

Cameras, ah yes. Extremism at its best. Do you have any solutions, or is this the extent of it? I am willing to listen, but please make it worth my time. I seriously want to know what alternative to no-knock you would propose that wouldn't completely throw away our rights.You didn't read my post did you. You are now ignoring parts and picking and choosing things out of context. And seriously, what is with this "make it worth my time" stuff?

You seem to be under some mistaken impressions. I understand the need for no-knock raids. However they should never be used except under the MOST SCRUTINIZED of circumstances. But oh no! Now we have no-knock raid warrants being signed off for solely under the word of a criminal, who is not even present in court to swear under oath and who is trying to cop a plea bargain without any corroboration.

Heck, the officers some times don't even bother to check if the house they are busting into is the right one.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Let me quote the quotes of quotes so you can follow the chain of replies that culminated in my response.

You mentioned the lawlessness that exists in mexico due to the rampant corruption. You were attempting to illustrate the anarchy that would ensue of police were not allowed to act under the law and authority that they do. So, my points are pertinent to this part of the dialog.



So you then concede that the issue is not between the "Law and the Criminal'? Doesn't that kind of contradict everything you have been saying?

You didn't read my post did you. You are now ignoring parts and picking and choosing things out of context. And seriously, what is with this "make it worth my time" stuff?

Yeah, my bad. I missed a whole post, and spoke wrongly. I seriously thought you were just being extreme. My apologies. :( I was trying to figure out whether I should try and quickly edit my prior post or just wait to get nailed for it. :D

I see your post, and I agree. A useful tool that should be used in the most stringent of cases. And probably misused or completely botched in the original case. Unfortunately, we live in a nation that is driven by issues and single facts, and not principles. So SCOTUS ruled that it's OK to use the tool, and now everybody wants one because of the single decision/issue. Pity. Some restraint is in order, but it won't come until there is some moderating case law.

And the CI issue is waaay out of hand.

[tankerman]

The LE Officers should be charged with the murder of their collegue.

That entire department should be ashamed of themselves. Only one thing left to do, stop lieing and tell the truth. Time for them to act like men and stop hiding behind their badge.

[pieeater]

One of my ex girlfriends after being raped jumped out of the car at a stoplight. Ran to the nearest house and started beating on the door and trying to kick it in. Glad there wasnt some idiot pothead there to shoot her thru the door.

[pnkssbtz]

Yeah, my bad. I missed a whole post, and spoke wrongly. I seriously thought you were just being extreme. My apologies. :( I was trying to figure out whether I should try and quickly edit my prior post or just wait to get nailed for it. :D

I see your post, and I agree. A useful tool that should be used in the most stringent of cases. And probably misused or completely botched in the original case. Unfortunately, we live in a nation that is driven by issues and single facts, and not principles. So SCOTUS ruled that it's OK to use the tool, and now everybody wants one because of the single decision/issue. Pity. Some restraint is in order, but it won't come until there is some moderating case law.

And the CI issue is waaay out of hand.

I think I completely agree with your post =P


Regardless of right or wrong for scotus to ok the use of no-knock; the fact remains that SWAT and other paramilitary tactics are filtering down to every day use where they should not be employed.


As to moderating case law... let me quote Justice Brennan from the California case Kolender vs. Laweson, specifically in response to the CA Stop and Identify statutes that used to exist:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=461&invol=352
If 647(e) remains in force, the validity of such arrests will be open to challenge only after the fact, in individual prosecutions for failure to produce identification. Such case-by-case scrutiny cannot vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of persons like appellee, many of whom will not even be prosecuted after they are arrested, see ante, at 354.

Just as in the case of PC 647(e), there will be no scrutiny because no prosecution will take place on the erroneous incidents.

[SchooBaka]

I know I may have what some have seen as a harsh attitude towards LEO's, and I am here to say, that is not the case. I have a hard attitude against abuse under the color of authority, small or large.

I am not bashing on police per se, but how can I list the grievances without sounding like I am?

Every tool the police have at their disposal is good if properly used, I have no problem with them. Unfortunately, I see, and continually see abuse, and an ever developing police state mentality and actions.

We get sold a bill of goods through the media, and the police themselves when they screw the pooch. How many times do we see or read about these police busts for drugs, that end up being some minor amount of whatever substance they find, then they show us pictures of the guns they found while at the residence, as if they saved my *** or yours. Hell if you went into my home, or my neighbors to the left and right of me, you could show a small arsenal, so what? all are legal.

Just because little Johnny smoked some weed, does that make him a violent criminal? Hell no!, and they don't need to use "Jack Boot" tactics unless it is absolutely warranted.

If the Government, and LEO"S really wanted to stop drugs, they would stop it before it ever got here. I see more drugs coming into California by way of Mexicali doing minute men duty (of which I don't get paid for, and has its own risks) then all of the drugs I've seen on tv busts. But no, its better to bust your kids for experimenting, just like 90% of all cops, and you did at one time. Drugs have been around heavily for over 40 years, do you see a Nation of addicts? I sure don't, most reasonable people after experimenting with drugs walk away, some go over the deep end, but no matter what the issue, you will have a group who will. Does that mean I want the Government and police enforcing morality? Hell no, I can figure out whats best for me without their meddling.

Aren't all these police officers and Government officials who are now our morality squad glad SWAT didn't bust down their door when they were smoking weed?

And, its not just drugs, its wink and nod law enforcement and Government, people getting drawn down on with a gun like its a normal course of business, lack of support for our Constitutional rights such as gun control, DUI check points, and the list goes on.

I would like nothing better than to sit here and type how great it all is, but when I see myself, family and future generations losing the right to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as we choose, not as others would choose for us, at the hands of the few, I have to stand up and say enough is enough.

I could'nt have said it better myself.
Nicely put sir.
:yes:

[Harrison_Bergeron]

And how do the laws not apply to LE? I missed that part.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/strickland/

Interesting. Good ole fashioned police work would be great. Catch 'em on the run, Model A's racing through the countryside, with BARs and Tommy guns barking, justice served out in a hail of gunfire, Bonny & Clyde style... But you know what - a search warrant is served on a location. Arrest comes when evidence is uncovered. And it has to be specifically called out in the warrant, or no go. Arrest warrants are different, and are catch as you can. But a suspect is much more likely to run and become a threat to others when they are in the open. There are way too many uncontrollable factors to take into account when someone is in public. In a residence, they have few exits which can all be covered. What better way to box someone in then to trap them in a box? Surely you can see that.

Nice way to twist the idea, but I was referring to detaining the perceived threat on their front lawn, if you've done your police work you will have a pretty good idea when that will be easiest, if there is no threat why not knock?

The good ole fashioned police work is actually sitting off a location, night after night, watching activity and taking notes. Pulling traffic on people as you can, and sometimes you want to, but can't. Coordinating with other officers that do the same thing during the day. And all that to get a warrant that might yield nothing because people do things, they get rid of things, they don't come home for a week. Whatever. You seem to have an idealized notion of police work.

How does getting/serving a warrant based solely on the word of a CI guilty of a worse offense than the one he is reporting good police work?

Who said anything about greater good? Screw that. I am concerned about our having effective law enforcement. Even a Libertarian viewpoint of the world calls out the necessity for the government to provide law enforcement. In fact, it's one of the few reasons to HAVE government. To use force to protect your rights from those who would violate them.

How is subjecting law abiding citizens to no knock raids and then bringing criminal charges against them for the consequences protecting their rights? You were asked before and refrained from response, how many unjustified raids is too many? What is the magic number that has to be reached before it is acceptable to expect repercussions against those involved?

[M. Sage]

Good point. There are usually a few laws we always break or don't even know about, even if we have to go back to the 1850's to find when the law was written and what it was for. But that mostly doesn't matter. I don't think downgrading a weapons charge to spitting on the sidewalk would wash in court. And if it does, you should reconsider where you live. Because the people who live there have elected the officials that believe that is OK. Your interests and views are not in step with your home if that is the case.

Drug charges are interesting. I have a relative who served 3 1/2 years for posession of so little coke that it couldn't be presented in court because the test for coke took the whole sample. If he had been busted in his home town, he would have been ticketed and released with no bond and had gotten presumptive probation. Different locales have different attitudes. We should all live in one that reflects ours.

Whether the door comes down or whether the bust is a knock and talk depends largely upon where you live and what the LEOs have to deal with normally - and what the record of the person being arrested is. There is no blanket answer to this, and different tools come out for different jobs. If LE oversteps, then that is what court is for.

I agree that what's considered "reasonable" depends a lot on where you're standing at the time, but it boggles my mind that there could be people out there who think that police using tactics like this for victimless crimes is even close to reasonable. That kind of thinking is just insane.

Why do you need to risk anybody's life over something that isn't life-threatening in the first place? They're chasing mosquitos with hatchets and nobody cares.

The war on drugs is a fight that doesn't need to be fought. It's a "war" that's killed more people than Iraq. Yet you see protests world wide over one, but not the other. Strange, huh?

[Hoop]

The only way to avoid this is to not have the fight at all. There will be missteps, there will be accidents, there will be bad judgement.

When I was in High School we had a gym teacher who would give us access to whatever junk we needed that day - tennis rackets, baseball bats/balls, etc, and say "go play" while he went off to drink. Then he'd come back towards the end of the period to find that something got broken, someone was hurt, yadda yadda. And he'd figure out some excuse and that was that.

Whenever I hear about cops raiding a house a mile from where they are supposed to be, tearing the hell out of it and so forth, I wonder if my old PE coach is now a Chief of Police somewhere.

Just because you can't have a "perfect" system doesn't mean that a little housecleaning isn't in order.

[buff_01]

sickening... this country is going downhill fast. with the california gun law restrictions, I was contemplating moving out of state, but what's the use if this crap is going on everywhere? All we can do is BOHICA or leave the country at this point :(

[MisterDudeManGuy]

I agree that what's considered "reasonable" depends a lot on where you're standing at the time, but it boggles my mind that there could be people out there who think that police using tactics like this for victimless crimes is even close to reasonable. That kind of thinking is just insane.

Why do you need to risk anybody's life over something that isn't life-threatening in the first place? They're chasing mosquitos with hatchets and nobody cares.

The war on drugs is a fight that doesn't need to be fought. It's a "war" that's killed more people than Iraq. Yet you see protests world wide over one, but not the other. Strange, huh?

Yes, most drugs should be legal. But they're not. The war on drugs is almost a complete jerkoff. Agreed.

But note that the guy in the story was not expected to be a simple user, but a dealer with a minor grow op. And who knows, maybe the CI who tipped LE was reliable up to then. Most LEOs I know would not take a tip from an unproven CI. (Note: The contract a CI signs here has a clause that keeps his original charge 'on the back burner' for just such an event. Bad tip, and they go up for their original offense with no negotiation at sentencing.)

The simple case of a user is not, in and of itself, a big deal. And penalties tend to (but not always) reflect this. I've seen stashes flushed and verbal warnings given for ounces. But every user, big and small, support an infrastructure that is not legal. And at some level, each and every user contributes to the demand that causes people to import tons of drugs into our nation. At some level, it does become a big deal. A grow op is a big deal. A one-car garage grow op can easily net $300k per year, wholesale, depending upon the quality of the product. Just from a tax evasion standpoint, that is felony territory.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Nice way to twist the idea, but I was referring to detaining the perceived threat on their front lawn, if you've done your police work you will have a pretty good idea when that will be easiest, if there is no threat why not knock?

How does getting/serving a warrant based solely on the word of a CI guilty of a worse offense than the one he is reporting good police work?

How is subjecting law abiding citizens to no knock raids and then bringing criminal charges against them for the consequences protecting their rights? You were asked before and refrained from response, how many unjustified raids is too many? What is the magic number that has to be reached before it is acceptable to expect repercussions against those involved?

For a bench warrant (a warrant for a persons arrest), what you propose could and does occur. For a search warrant, what you propose is really not realistic. A search is for a location, for specific contraband. Sitting outside, waiting for someone to come out (and they might not), is a great way to let criminals destroy evidence and take pot-shots at LEOs. I wonder if you'd like to wear a uniform and sit in a car in the middle of the 'hood for a couple hours (hey, maybe a few), waiting for a banger to come out and play. Where all you have to do is be white to be made as a cop. What do you think they are almost always carrying concealed when they come out the door?

A warrant made solely on a single CI is not good police work. Typically, the CI starts a chain of events that leads to good police work, which then results in a search warrant. A CI's information can be made more reliable by the CI having repercussions for bad info. See my other post. It is very uncommon for a CI to make any progress on working off charges by turning in lesser offenders. SInce the contract they sign can be rescinded at any time by the PD, if they fail to net a bigger fish, they are up on their original charges.

Check the story. The suspect wasn't a law-abiding citizen. While we can argue whether pot should be legal, it is not. Giving some benefit of the doubt, I believe that the LEO's involved did believe that they were busting a grow op. Or are we to believe that these officers, with malice of forethought, went and broke in the door of a person they knew to be innocent? Believe it or not, there are repercussions for officers that cause a waste of resources on bad information/shoddy work. If 16 officers were there that night, they weren't somewhere else, being useful.

One botched raid is too many. But they will occur. Officers that are conducting and participating in field operations should be held to the highest standards of conduct. It is their job to uphold the law. And hey - if you're in CA, you have the most liberal court system in the world when it comes to granting huge cash settlements to 'victims', whether real or not.

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

The LE Officers should be charged with the murder of their collegue.

That entire department should be ashamed of themselves. Only one thing left to do, stop lieing and tell the truth. Time for them to act like men and stop hiding behind their badge.

Thats an ignorant thing to say
Although I dont agree with what they did, don't make those blind ignorant comments. read my post on page two

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

One of my ex girlfriends after being raped jumped out of the car at a stoplight. Ran to the nearest house and started beating on the door and trying to kick it in. Glad there wasnt some idiot pothead there to shoot her thru the door.

One of my points exactly!
Are you really in fear of your life, when someone is pounding at your door? At what point is it ok to open fire? I don't know about you guys but me personally would feel real bad about shooting an unknown person through my front door, especially if it turned out to be a police officer or a rape victim.

I guess the law is up to interpretation, but me personally, Im not in fear of my life when someone is pounding at my door, if the door comes open and I see someone that could harm me, or someone that is armed, then im in fear.

For all we know, the homeowner could have thought it was a rival drugdealer, or something to do with the drugs. Even the articles admitted that he had sold drugs, so i guess what Im saying here was I dont think the very first shots fired from the homeowner was justified.

[rkt88edmo]

He reportedly didn't shoot until the door was breached and there was an arm reaching through.

I'd say that is quite a bit different then someone just pounding on it.

In the case of the ex-GF I am sure she was also crying and screaming and obviously in distress. That would add more data for the homeowner as well.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

He reportedly didn't shoot until the door was breached and there was an arm reaching through.


We'll see how blind-shooting through a door plays in court. Anyone on this forum knows that target identification = being responsible for rounds you choose to send downrange. When no weapon is visible, the burden of proof is much higher for the shooter.

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

yes exactly if your using deadly force you better be sure of your target

[StukaJr]

This is yet another example of bad and unconfirmed Intel, followed by poor planning and execution of a botched raid which all led to a death of a Police Officer. Regardless of what law enforcing agency was planning to find, they made a series of mistakes and chose a riskiest way of serving the warrant, putting the officers and civilian lives in jeopardy with disproportionate level of force vs supposed gain...

Granted the level of danger the Citizen is put, the Law Enforcement agencies have to bear the burden of proof of due diligence and bear responsibility for failure to do so...

[pnkssbtz]

He reportedly didn't shoot until the door was breached and there was an arm reaching through.

I'd say that is quite a bit different then someone just pounding on it.

In the case of the ex-GF I am sure she was also crying and screaming and obviously in distress. That would add more data for the homeowner as well.

Of course one of the officers lied under oath...


A .380 pistol doesn't have the power to go through a door, an arm and into the body of a person. The officer had to have been at the door for the round to penetrate.


I hope the officer that lied on the stand gets the electric chair.

[FortCourageArmory]

We'll see how blind-shooting through a door plays in court. Anyone on this forum knows that target identification = being responsible for rounds you choose to send downrange. When no weapon is visible, the burden of proof is much higher for the shooter.

He stated he fired when he saw an arm come through his door groping around trying to unlock it. That will play VERY well in court as a homeowner defending his home from potential break-in. As a secondary result, it also makes the testimony that the dead LEO was on the front lawn out to be a lie. It'll be a pretty hard sell to convince the jury that a pipsqueak .380 went through a door, travelled across the yard and then went through an arm and then lodged in the chest of the dead officer. The LEOs screwed up big time here. The homeowner is being prosecuted to cover up that fact. The LEO in charge of the raid should be the one being held responsible.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

He stated he fired when he saw an arm come through his door groping around trying to unlock it. That will play VERY well in court as a homeowner defending his home from potential break-in. As a secondary result, it also makes the testimony that the dead LEO was on the front lawn out to be a lie. It'll be a pretty hard sell to convince the jury that a pipsqueak .380 went through a door, travelled across the yard and then went through an arm and then lodged in the chest of the dead officer. The LEOs screwed up big time here. The homeowner is being prosecuted to cover up that fact. The LEO in charge of the raid should be the one being held responsible.

With no weapon in sight, I think the case is harder for the defendant. A reasonable person can't use lethal force to defend property in all states, and some require the offender to be inside. Moreover, the defendant can't show that there was any escalation of the event. He didn't warn - he just shot the cop. Shooting at an unknown person through a door, with no warning, no target identification, no verbal threat from the target, no weapon visible, and no body inside the residence...

...makes me wonder what qualifies by your standards as a bad shoot on the part of the defendant? BTW, I'm not excusing missteps by LE, but come on.

[StukaJr]

This case is strongly resembling the case of the 92 year old grandma being shot after she fired and wounding 3 officers serving a no-knock warrant (gained under false information) in New Orleans.

Last I heard, the 3 officers were on trial and at least one of them plead guilty...

This will come back and bite law enforcement in the arse - until then, someone should start adding "law enforcement proofing" to their "burglar protection" packages.

With no weapon in sight, I think the case is harder for the defendant. A reasonable person can't use lethal force to defend property in all states, and some require the offender to be inside. Moreover, the defendant can't show that there was any escalation of the event. He didn't warn - he just shot the cop. Shooting at an unknown person through a door, with no warning, no target identification, no verbal threat from the target, no weapon visible, and no body inside the residence...

...makes me wonder what qualifies by your standards as a bad shoot on the part of the defendant? BTW, I'm not excusing missteps by LE, but come on.

Pretty easy thing to do when you are woken up in the middle of the night by someone breaking down your door - it's not defense of the property if you are in fear for your life. If there is a hole in your door - I would assume that a big ***** weapon made that hole and the person opening the door is a threat!

[MisterDudeManGuy]

This case is strongly resembling the case of the 92 year old grandma being shot after she fired and wounding 3 officers serving a no-knock warrant (gained under false information) in New Orleans.

Last I heard, the 3 officers were on trial and at least one of them plead guilty...

This will come back and bite law enforcement in the arse - until then, someone should start adding "law enforcement proofing" to their "burglar protection" packages.



Pretty easy thing to do when you are woken up in the middle of the night by someone breaking down your door - it's not defense of the property if you are in fear for your life. If there is a hole in your door - I would assume that a big ***** weapon made that hole and the person opening the door is a threat!

If they did get the warrant under bad information, then they deserve to be called on it. The CI also deserves a piece of that if false information was turned in to LE. Any improper action by LE should also be handled through the courts. As representatives of the law, they need to lead by example.

It also cuts the other way. If the defendent acted irresponsibly, he should be called on it. The courts will decide if blindly shooting through a door qualifies as responsible.

[rkt88edmo]

Why would you think he is defending property? He is inside and the person is attempting to come inside where he is - I think that is pretty good support for defense of person.

I'm not sure how you get that there is no escalation when the door has actually been breached. I also think that the ability to breacht he door would demonstrate the capability to do harm (strength/violence)

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Why would you think he is defending property? He is inside and the person is attempting to come inside where he is - I think that is pretty good support for defense of person.

I'm not sure how you get that there is no escalation when the door has actually been breached. I also think that the ability to breacht he door would demonstrate the capability to do harm (strength/violence)

No escalation on the part of the shooter. No verbal warning. No warning shot. No nothing. Just blind shots at an unknown person. Who probably would have withdrawn had they known that a weapon was trained on them.

[rkt88edmo]

Is there a duty to warn or escalate?

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Is there a duty to warn or escalate?

Given that he didn't even look to see who he was killing, I'd say so.

[rkt88edmo]

Is there any duty to warn or escalate according to law, case law, etc.? (I honestly don't know the answer to this)

Warning shots? C'mon, is there any credible source recommending warning shots? (This I think I know the answer to)

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

Its common sense for a number of reasons, I think its very important to know your target, if you take any credible shooting classes, you will learn KNOW YOUR TARGET! A hand through a door is not a target.
Do you want people to shoot through doors at things they dont know whats behind? thats not good training.
If there was a criminal a simple "I am armed and if you come through my door you will get shot" would work, i am positive no criminal would proceed.
And in this case the police at that point wold have announced themselves again.
Like i said many times before i am no way in agreeance with what the police did to try and cover. BUT we cant ignore the poor actions of the drug dealer, which is what he was, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, he sold drugs. He shot at a door with an unknown target behind. That is wrong, and I hope that no one has ever been taught to do so.

[rkt88edmo]

So what was attached to the hand?

If there was a criminal a simple "I am armed and if you come through my door you will get shot" would work, i am positive no criminal would proceed.

Guess you won't be needing those guns then, just words :) We all know how smart and sensible criminals are.

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

At that point, you have no idea, proven in this case it was a cop.

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

Hey im all for home protection, but you cant just go blasting people through doors, and hand through a door is not threatening your life at that point so why use lethal force? lethal force should only be used when neccesary.

[rkt88edmo]

Ok - so you don't think someone attempting to enter your house with force constitutes a deadly threat to your person and I do.

Side question - what would it take for you to consider someone a threat to you if you were inside your house? If you shouted warnings and they did not withdraw but continued to proceed to unlock your front door where would things go?

[GuyW]

No escalation on the part of the shooter. No verbal warning. No warning shot. No nothing. Just blind shots at an unknown person. Who probably would have withdrawn had they known that a weapon was trained on them.

FUD

[GuyW]

At that point, you have no idea, proven in this case it was a cop.

And we know no criminal in that circumstance would claim to be a cop...

[pnkssbtz]

No escalation on the part of the shooter. No verbal warning. No warning shot. No nothing. Just blind shots at an unknown person. Who probably would have withdrawn had they known that a weapon was trained on them.
That is such a specious and disingenuous statement.

An unknown person who just broke down your door and is attempting to gain entry into your home via deadly force.


As far as I am concerned one of the drawbacks for doing a no-knock should be that people should legally be able shoot back at you under the assumption that you are a home invader attempting to inflict bodily harm.



If the people breaking into the house were not police, I doubt highly that anyone would be objecting to the actions of the defendant.

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

The point the door opens and you identify your target is the point where I squeeze the trigger.

No i do not constitute someone standing behind a door a threat on my LIFE.
a threat yes, but lethal force is used if you have an immediate threat on your life.

I would announce and when the door opened and i identified, if it was a criminal, bang, if it was a cop hands up

yes criminals could say they were the police, but believe me if you told them you have a gun 90% will take off, the other 10 will get shot upon entry

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

That is such a specious and disingenuous statement.

An unknown person who just broke down your door and is attempting to gain entry into your home via deadly force.


As far as I am concerned one of the drawbacks for doing a no-knock should be that people should legally be able shoot back at you under the assumption that you are a home invader attempting to inflict bodily harm.



If the people breaking into the house were not police, I doubt highly that anyone would be objecting to the actions of the defendant.


good point let me ad

DRUG DEALERS shouldnt be able to own guns, but hey this isnt the perfect world

Out of the thousands of search warrants done, how many end up like this? Even the ones that are on completely wrong houses (as this one wasnt) i guess the homeowners have better judgement

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

they actually did knock
and the door wasnt down just had a hole in it

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Is there any duty to warn or escalate according to law, case law, etc.? (I honestly don't know the answer to this)

Warning shots? C'mon, is there any credible source recommending warning shots? (This I think I know the answer to)

A reasonable person should want to preserve life when possible, since life is the fundamental basis of all other rights. LEO have the duty to show escalation or they risk a bad shoot. Verbal commands, hands on, mace, taser, baton - it's all an escalation used to avoid having to resort to lethal force and skipping steps can land LEO in a world of hurt if it's not justified.

If the tables were turned and LEO had just skipped right to shooting without escalation, it would have been looked at very differently. Very differently indeed. My same criticisms would go doubly so the other way around.

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

yahtzee!

[pnkssbtz]

A reasonable person should want to preserve life when possible, since life is the fundamental basis of all other rights. LEO have the duty to show escalation or they risk a bad shoot. Verbal commands, hands on, mace, taser, baton - it's all an escalation used to avoid having to resort to lethal force and skipping steps can land LEO in a world of hurt if it's not justified.The difference is, "Bad Shoot" for LEO means the PD and the state pay out money.

"Bad Shoot" for civilians means they go to jail.

But there is no law stating that private citizens have to "announce" their presence. No law stating that they have to retreat first. And no law stating they have to "show escalation".

If and when unknown persons use force to gain entry to my home; the moment at which they cross my threshold they are a threat to my safety and well being. Else why would they use force to gain entry to my home?

If the tables were turned and LEO had just skipped right to shooting without escalation, it would have been looked at very differently. Very differently indeed. My same criticisms would go doubly so the other way around.Um hello!!!! The Cops are lying under oath.

The neighborhood, with the exception of a single LEO who lives nearby, is unanimous in that the police did not announce their presence. (LINK (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125136.html))

The testifying LEO claimed that the police never fired a shot, despite the fact that there was a .223 spent shell casing found inside the home. (Link (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126706.html))

The testifying LEO claimed that the LEO that was shot was standing on the front lawn. Despite the fact that the a .380 would have to go through a door, through the LEO's arm and then pierce his chest.

And really, do LEO's stand around on the front lawn in the line of fire of a door while other LEO's are staging for a no-knock? Seriously. Come on.



Please answer me this:

If the police don't act like police and don't announce themselves, then how is any reasonable person to know they are not police?

[GuyW]

The point the door opens and you identify your target is the point where I squeeze the trigger.

No i do not constitute someone standing behind a door a threat on my LIFE.
a threat yes, but lethal force is used if you have an immediate threat on your life.

I would announce and when the door opened and i identified, if it was a criminal, bang, if it was a cop hands up

yes criminals could say they were the police, but believe me if you told them you have a gun 90% will take off, the other 10 will get shot upon entry

Please instruct your relatives to post here in the event of your untimely demise....so that we have the opportunity to attend your services...

[fireluvrandrew@gmail.com]

Please instruct your relatives to post here in the event of your untimely demise....so that we have the opportunity to attend your services...

Ok let me know when you pop someone through your door and if they dont die they can turn around and sue your ***** off. Or if they do die, their family will... believe me, there was a case in CA where a criminal broke is leg while burglarizing a house, sued the homeowners and won.
Ill be sure to attend your court case

[pnkssbtz]

Ok let me know when you pop someone through your door and if they dont die they can turn around and sue your ***** off. Or if they do die, their family will... believe me, there was a case in CA where a criminal broke is leg while burglarizing a house, sued the homeowners and won.
Ill be sure to attend your court case

Action > Reaction.

To stop, announce, hem and haw, and then decide whether to shoot or not means you will be dead before you do anything.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

The difference is, "Bad Shoot" for LEO means the PD and the state pay out money.

"Bad Shoot" for civilians means they go to jail.

But there is no law stating that private citizens have to "announce" their presence. No law stating that they have to retreat first. And no law stating they have to "show escalation".

If and when unknown persons use force to gain entry to my home; the moment at which they cross my threshold they are a threat to my safety and well being. Else why would they use force to gain entry to my home?

Um hello!!!! The Cops are lying under oath.

The neighborhood, with the exception of a single LEO who lives nearby, is unanimous in that the police did not announce their presence. (LINK (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125136.html))

The testifying LEO claimed that the police never fired a shot, despite the fact that there was a .223 spent shell casing found inside the home. (Link (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126706.html))

The testifying LEO claimed that the LEO that was shot was standing on the front lawn. Despite the fact that the a .380 would have to go through a door, through the LEO's arm and then pierce his chest.

And really, do LEO's stand around on the front lawn in the line of fire of a door while other LEO's are staging for a no-knock? Seriously. Come on.



Please answer me this:

If the police don't act like police and don't announce themselves, then how is any reasonable person to know they are not police?

Have I defended LEO in this case? I have said no-knock is a tool to be used in special cases. A grow op with a weapon present may qualify. Clearly the occupant was armed and used and/or dealt drugs. No one knows how much support there was for that warrant. Are the officers being forthcoming about what happened? Doesn't look like it. That is TYPICAL courtroom posture for every person entering the legal system today. It's wrong, but that's life.

A spent .223 casing... And where was the impact? Who was missing a round? Did the shell casing match any of the weapons present? Hey, I've got tons of brass to weapons I don't own. About 230lbs of it, in fact. If the LEO heard no shot, or there was a simultaneous shot/loud noise, his testimory is truthful and accurate. We weren't there, and we don't know. I have yet to hear about a recovered .223 slug.

Just about every time you have a case like this, it seems that all of the neighbors will say how the police did wrong. That is what happens. Everyone rallies around the local boy and say "oh he was such a good guy". Even when we got BTK, people were like "oh, but he was so nice". Yeah, right. Rarely do you find a witness that a) actually heard or saw what went on in its entirety, or b) actually saw the parts that mattered, or c) has an impartial perspective. But they almost always agree that PD was wrong - even though the stories all differ in the actual details, they all tend to agree on that 'fact'.

Answer: No knock is dangerous. When they storm the doors, the idea is to surprise and overwhelm, thus reducing the possible response. In this case, that was clearly not what happened. The tactic, when properly executed, is very effective. As I stated waaay before, short of assuming the position I don't know what you can do to be safe or react reasonably. That is the problem. I suppose the answer is you get a free shot in and LEO can tough it because it's a tough job.

[pnkssbtz]

Have I defended LEO in this case? I have said no-knock is a tool to be used in special cases. A grow op with a weapon present may qualify. Clearly the occupant was armed and used and/or dealt drugs. No one knows how much support there was for that warrant. Are the officers being forthcoming about what happened? Doesn't look like it. That is TYPICAL courtroom posture for every person entering the legal system today. It's wrong, but that's life.How was it a grow op? How can you say "clearly the occupant... dealt drugs"? What evidence?

The SOLE EVIDENCE that the police acted upon was the word of a criminal informant who had a personal bias against the person he was informing upon.

A spent .223 casing... And where was the impact? Who was missing a round? Did the shell casing match any of the weapons present? Hey, I've got tons of brass to weapons I don't own. About 230lbs of it, in fact. If the LEO heard no shot, or there was a simultaneous shot/loud noise, his testimory is truthful and accurate. We weren't there, and we don't know. I have yet to hear about a recovered .223 slug.Clearly you haven't been reading the article's then.

http://tidewaterliberty.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/breach-of-trust-the-evidence/
Most damningly, the inventory reports that 3 shell casing were recovered, 2 .380 ACP casings and one .223 casing. Frederick had a .380 pistol, but no AR-15 or other rifle to account for the .223. Police often carry such rifles in SWAT type actions.
The police have made no statement admitting that one of their officers fired a shot, nor has any explanation for that rifle casing been offered. It would be no surprise, and no indication of additional wrongdoing, if one of the officers fired his weapon in the course of the incident, so why let these weeks go by with that casing unexplained? The result is that something that might well be entirely reasonable takes a on sinister appearance. Further, posts on the Virginian Pilot blogs pointing out that irregularity have been quickly removed, adding to the appearance of a cover-up and eroding our trust in the Pilot as well.

Just about every time you have a case like this, it seems that all of the neighbors will say how the police did wrong. That is what happens. Everyone rallies around the local boy and say "oh he was such a good guy". Even when we got BTK, people were like "oh, but he was so nice". Yeah, right. Rarely do you find a witness that a) actually heard or saw what went on in its entirety, or b) actually saw the parts that mattered, or c) has an impartial perspective. But they almost always agree that PD was wrong - even though the stories all differ in the actual details, they all tend to agree on that 'fact'.That is because the police are clearly lying and covering up a botched raid.

More evidence of perjury on the stand:

The same neighbor said she and Frederick's other neighbors don't believe Shivers was in the yard when he was shot, as Ebert asserted at last week's bond hearing. This neighbor also says that only Shivers and his partner served the warrant, not the 13 police officers Ebert also claimed at the hearing. "When my dog started barking, I went outside," the neighbor told me. "I only saw two cops. The others only started showing up after Detective Shivers was already down."



Answer: No knock is dangerous. When they storm the doors, the idea is to surprise and overwhelm, thus reducing the possible response. In this case, that was clearly not what happened. The tactic, when properly executed, is very effective. As I stated waaay before, short of assuming the position I don't know what you can do to be safe or react reasonably. That is the problem. I suppose the answer is you get a free shot in and LEO can tough it because it's a tough job.I ask again:
If the police don't act like police and don't announce themselves, then how is any reasonable person to know they are not police?

[MisterDudeManGuy]

How was it a grow op? How can you say "clearly the occupant... dealt drugs"? What evidence?

The SOLE EVIDENCE that the police acted upon was the word of a criminal informant who had a personal bias against the person he was informing upon.

Clearly you haven't been reading the article's then.

http://tidewaterliberty.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/breach-of-trust-the-evidence/


That is because the police are clearly lying and covering up a botched raid.

More evidence of perjury on the stand:

I said he was clearly armed, and used. The and/or before dealt was meant to indicate that he may or may not have dealt. My bad sentence structure, I suppose. It was reported to be a grow op, and I assume that was the basis for the visit.

If the informant has a personal bias against the suspect, that may not have been clear until after the raid. Again, CI's around here suffer consequences if they misinform or fail to yield results. It's in the contract.

I don't see a reference for the .223 bullet hole or slug. A casing is not a shot. A lack of a denial is not an admission, it is simply nothing.

People rally against the cops even when they DON'T do wrong or cover things up. In some neighborhoods, being a cop is reason enough to draw fire - for doing nothing at all other than being there.

Once again, it was a botched raid - but we've been over that before. Anyway, take your free shots through that door at people you haven't identified and let the courts decide. The wild west this ain't.

[pnkssbtz]

I said he was clearly armed, and used. The and/or before dealt was meant to indicate that he may or may not have dealt. My bad sentence structure, I suppose. It was reported to be a grow op, and I assume that was the basis for the visit.You said:
Clearly the occupant was armed and used and/or dealt drugs.
I want to know where you are getting your information to imply that the suspect did in fact deal drugs. When you open up with "Clearly" you are making a statement of fact. However no such evidence of drug dealing has come forth.

It was ALLEGED to be a grow op. However it is fact that the suspect was a known amateur gardener, and was growing a species of Japanese Maple Tree whose leaves look, at first glance, to be the same as pot leaves but are not. (LINK (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124622.html))

If fish tank aquarium supplies can be explained as meth lab paraphernalia then home depot is the terrorist / meth lab nightmare for police. The presence of gardening equipment does not constitute a grow operation any more than a shoe string constitute constructive possession of a machine gun.

If the informant has a personal bias against the suspect, that may not have been clear until after the raid. Again, CI's around here suffer consequences if they misinform or fail to yield results. It's in the contract.Again you haven't read any of the articles about this incident.

Before the identity of the informant was made known, in an interview with the Virginian Pilot, Fredrick's stated that during his interview the police told him that they knew about the prior break in, and they knew who had done it. (Link (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125136.html))

The police were aware that their Criminal Informant had a personal bias, because the CI was the one whom broke into Fredrick's house.


I don't see a reference for the .223 bullet hole or slug. A casing is not a shot. A lack of a denial is not an admission, it is simply nothing.Then where did the casing come from? Why is it on the evidence inventory list?

From zero fact you can state with fact that "Clearly the occupant was armed and used and/or dealt drugs but you come to a complete halt on the .223 casing?

A spent casing and tight lipped LEO's perjuring themselves on the stand and you can't put 2 and 2 together?

People rally against the cops even when they DON'T do wrong or cover things up. In some neighborhoods, being a cop is reason enough to draw fire - for doing nothing at all other than being there.That is anecdotal, a red herring and thus irrelevant. This case, this facts, this outcome.


Once again, it was a botched raid - but we've been over that before. Anyway, take your free shots through that door at people you haven't identified and let the courts decide. The wild west this ain't.My contention was that it was not "free shots through a door. Once you gain access to a house via forceful and violent means, and cross the threshold, you are a valid threat.

The whole argument of "shots through a door" is week, when the officer broke through the door and reached in to manually unlatch the door.

I ask again: If the police don't act like police and don't announce themselves, then how is any reasonable person to know they are not police?

[Harrison_Bergeron]

I like how the pro-LEO group in this thread conveniently skipped over the Peyton Strickland (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/strickland/) issue. Top shelf debate tactic.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

I'm curious what part you think is ignorant? When a group robs a liquor store, street races, or otherwise breaks the law and one of the participants is killed do the rest not get charged with the death of their "colleague"?

Thats an ignorant thing to say
Although I dont agree with what they did, don't make those blind ignorant comments. read my post on page two

[MisterDudeManGuy]

You said:
I ask again: If the police don't act like police and don't announce themselves, then how is any reasonable person to know they are not police?

Answer (again): No knock is dangerous. When they storm the doors, the idea is to surprise and overwhelm, thus reducing the possible response. In this case, that was clearly not what happened. The tactic, when properly executed, is very effective. As I stated waaay before, short of assuming the position I don't know what you can do to be safe or react reasonably. That is the problem. I suppose the answer is you get a free shot in and LEO can tough it because it's a tough job.

The granny in NewOrleans case seems to be bearing this out. A drug user has a very reasonable expectation that the police will show up, and hence less of a defense than granny, IMO. But then drug users can claim under-the-influence, or that they aren't reasonable or something like that to disclaim responsibility.

(Again) Feel free to fire through a door without making an ID. An arm is not an ID. The courts will decide. Be sure to hold your Glock sideways so it looks cool. (sigh) I suppose that looking down the wrong end of a gun makes you see life differently. May you never have to do so.

[AKman]

I don't worry about "No Knock" searches. Besides the fact that there is no valid reason for a search of any kind, I have outdoor motion detectors and cameras that alert me when someone is approaching the house. So, before they get to the house I know they are coming, from how many directions (different zones on each side of the house) and what they look like. Plus its all recorded on a DVR.

[pnkssbtz]

Answer (again): No knock is dangerous. When they storm the doors, the idea is to surprise and overwhelm, thus reducing the possible response. In this case, that was clearly not what happened. The tactic, when properly executed, is very effective. As I stated waaay before, short of assuming the position I don't know what you can do to be safe or react reasonably. That is the problem. I suppose the answer is you get a free shot in and LEO can tough it because it's a tough job.

The granny in NewOrleans case seems to be bearing this out. A drug user has a very reasonable expectation that the police will show up, and hence less of a defense than granny, IMO. But then drug users can claim under-the-influence, or that they aren't reasonable or something like that to disclaim responsibility.

(Again) Feel free to fire through a door without making an ID. An arm is not an ID. The courts will decide. Be sure to hold your Glock sideways so it looks cool. (sigh) I suppose that looking down the wrong end of a gun makes you see life differently. May you never have to do so.
You still have not answer my question.

And why even mention the Granny? I have no clue why you even brought it up.


The fact remains that a private citizen cannot both legally protect themselves against armed home invaders AND comply with police no-knock raids.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Paging MrDudeManGuy, what say you?

I like how the pro-LEO group in this thread conveniently skipped over the Peyton Strickland (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/strickland/) issue. Top shelf debate tactic.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

I don't worry about "No Knock" searches. Besides the fact that there is no valid reason for a search of any kind, I have outdoor motion detectors and cameras that alert me when someone is approaching the house. So, before they get to the house I know they are coming, from how many directions (different zones on each side of the house) and what they look like. Plus its all recorded on a DVR.

You, my friend, are wise. In this day and age, this indeed may be the best approach.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

You still have not answer my question.

And why even mention the Granny? I have no clue why you even brought it up.


The fact remains that a private citizen cannot both legally protect themselves against armed home invaders AND comply with police no-knock raids.

(Again, for the last time) As I stated waaay before, short of "assuming the position" I don't know what you can do to be safe or react reasonably. That is the problem. I suppose the answer is you get a free shot in and LEO can tough it because it's a tough job. I believe that you said your own answer is to fire upon anything that crosses your threshold. It's your right to do so.

Keep in mind, LEO's don't make department policy, PD's do. Half of those guys are rooks that are with a senior partner in a car, and most of those cars have no say in how a deal goes down. They just get to live with it. Or not.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Paging MrDudeManGuy, what say you?

Patience, friend. I am reading. There is a lot of material there.

[rkt88edmo]

okay - things are getting a little heated here. If people choose to stop resonding DO NOT antagonize them or try to goad them into posting.

THAT IS NOT OK.

It is also not okay to chase them around about this thread in other threads.

Just want everyone to keep that in mind.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

I apologize. I was getting heated and I believe strongly that when these two cases are viewed together it paints a pretty outrageous, and irrefutable, picture of the legal system in our country.

okay - things are getting a little heated here. If people choose to stop resonding DO NOT antagonize them or try to goad them into posting.

[rkt88edmo]

I just don't want anyone to get a time out for an, admittedly probably cotroverial, thread that I started.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

I like how the pro-LEO group in this thread conveniently skipped over the Peyton Strickland (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/strickland/) issue. Top shelf debate tactic.

No worries. It's all good. :D

Well, I've been tag-teamed pretty hard and it is hard to keep up with all of that. I have also dropped points that I don't think will go anywhere. Not because I won't or can't present arguments, but in all honesty, I don't have time to argue everything. I do have a life. :D

The Strickland case, being a completely different case, did not pique my interest initially and sounded like a sidetrack, so I skipped it. I was also having fun with Cuthulu, so I was focused on that debate. What I see in Strickland is a clear cut case of why presenting an image to the world is a serious matter, and why LEO should be carefully selected for SWAT-style tactics. It sounds like a horrible mistake.

Most of police work is profiling, spotting the person or thing that doesn't belong, or the person or thing that matches a profile. Of course you go past the image, but profiling is the first thing. If I see a kid dressed as a skater, it is fair to assume that the image he projects is accurate - after all, he selected that image to present to the world. Even if he's not a skater, he wants you to think he is one. And if he's a wannabe, he's likely to try harder to maintain the image. That comes out after you meet and talk to him. A kid that looks like a clean-cut bookworm likely is, since that is not a popular stereotype for a kid to adopt. But again, it is the image he chooses to present (or he is blind to image). If a kid chooses to present a persona of being heavily-armed, that is also a choice. Which heavily-armed kids are really into weapons and which ones are playing dress-up?

In this world, all you have is the word of another person as to what they are willing to do. There is no gold standard that you can hold all people up to to determine if they are just posturing or if they are dead serious. So, if a guy acts like he is into weapons and is heavily-armed, you have to accept that he is being truthful. You have to accept him as being what he appears to be - the image he chooses to present to the world. Only if you have a chance to dig deeper will you maybe discover that which is hidden about a person. Clearly, LE must always dig deeper. That's the job. Depending upon the person, there may not be much information to dig through.

That said, LEO that participate in SWAT-style raids need to be suitable for the job, and have to train accordingly. An officer that is so green or jumpy as to mistake signals of normal parts of the operation (ie door breaching mixup with gunfire), probably is not right for the job. Moreover, a no-knock raid over a Playstation sounds like a PD and judge that have some introspection to do. To expect arms to be presented over that level of crime is not reasonable, but surely the image the kid chose to present to the world must be considered. But it appears to only have been considered at face value, and not deeper.

The outcome is very regrettable. Did the kid do anything wrong? Eh - as much as we all pretend to be something else in life at times, no. Could he have known that the image he chose to present to the world would have such an effect? Maybe. With all the press these days regarding this very issue, it is hard not to be aware of the scrutiny we all are under by the government, in the name of domestic security. Did the LEO do anything wrong? Clearly. It appears that he was ill-suited to that assignment, and his jumpy reaction cost a life. Was it criminal? I think that's a stretch. As far as I read, he was acting within department policy and made a very regrettable mistake. Manslaughter - I couldn't say. I think the results of the legal process are more accurate of an assessment than I could render. Since the people of the community had a chance to be represented, it appears that for that region, the will of the people was served as best it could be.

Do I defend it? No. But I can see the reasoning on all parts that contributed to the outcome as a whole. It is an empty thing to the parents to get some cash for the loss of their son, who is irreplaceable, but in our money-for-justice society, that seems to be the best they can get. The officer will have to live with the burden of having killed a kid for nothing more than his lack of skill as an officer. I am not cutting him a break, but I do see that the cost to him will be borne over the rest of his life. A life sentence of knowing you killed through ineptitude or a life sentence knowing your kid died in a botched raid over a playstation and a persona he chose to project. Wow...

[pnkssbtz]

No worries. It's all good. :D

You made a pretty damn good post.


In the case of fredrick's, how about we list out what we know about the case? That way we can draw conclusions from the facts presented.


Fact's not contested:
• Criminal Informant burglarized Fredrick's house.
• Criminal Informant has ties to Fredrick through familial relations.
• Criminal Informant has criminal history.
• Fredrick accused the Criminal Informant (Who is dating Fredrick's Fiance's sister) of the burglary weeks prior to the police raid.
• Criminal Informant was arrested prior to the raid on charges of Grand Larceny (Credit Card Theft and Cred Card Fraud)
• Charges were then reinstated, but however the Criminal Informant is now a wanted fugitive at large.
• After the raid on Fredricks, those charges were dropped.
• Fredrick's has no criminal history.
• Fredrick is a amateur gardener.
• Fredrick has species of plant (Japanese Maple) whos leaves appear at first glance to look like cannabis leaves, and of which require a grow lamp in its early stages of development.
• Upon interrogation, police notified Fredrick that they were aware of his burglary, and knew who the suspect was.
• LEO's obtained warrant solely on word of aforementioned Criminal Informant and no other investigations were conducted.
• LEO's present were wearing body armor. (Including one who was shot.)
• The police confiscated the broken Door in the raid.
• A small amount of marijuana, below the legal limit to be defined as resale was found in Fredrick's house, this is the only contraband found and constitutes a misdemeanor.


Facts that are contested:
• How many LEO's were present for warrant service (2 or 13?) prior to shooting? (Witness say only 2 officers until officer was shot, later more showed up.)
• Who, How and Why is there a spent .223 casing in the evidence inventory?
• Did the LEO's announce their presence 4 times, with 4 second intervals between announcements? (Witness say no, police say yes)
• If the LEO's were not conducting a no-knock raid, why would a light turning on signal that they've been "spotted" and cause them to initiate the entry?
• If the LEO who was shot was out on the lawn, how can you explain the fact that the wound was caused by a .380 ACP fired through a door, the deceased LEO's arm, and then into his chest cavity through the side (unprotected) portion of the vest?
• If there were only two officers, and they were preparing for a door breach, why would one officer be standing on the lawn, at an angle to allow for his unprotected (unarmored) sides to be in the field of fire?
• Did Fredrick fire upon seeing the hand reach inside his house to unlatch the door, after a hole was made via a ram, or did he fire through the door blindly to strike the deceased officer?

[AKman]

You, my friend, are wise. In this day and age, this indeed may be the best approach.

That's not what my wife said when I installed the system. It took a long time to work out the bugs and minimize false alarms. However, she has come to really appreciate the added security.

[JGarrison]

I never saw an update thread on this, but Frederick ended up getting 10 years in prison.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/02/verdict-reached-ryan-frederick-trial-details-come-0

[Untamed1972]

Re-reading the article, another thing that struck me was that these police officers took a light being turned on as a sign that they've been "made". They come knocking at night, and they think a light coming on is odd or threatening? I turn on lights as I walk through the house if its dark, and I'm sure most reasonable people do as well.

.......I understand that warrants allow the police to enter if no-one comes to the door, but this seems to not be the case. Instead, its the "light turning on" thing that caused the "eight ball" to roll.


Here was my thought......I think the raid was "made" when the LEOs knocked on the door and announced themselves. And like you....I find it pretty ridiculous to say that someone turning on a light in the middle of the night when someone knocks on the door as a signal to engage high-risk entry procedures.

Here's an idea. If you're concerned about high-risk entry. Watch the house, wait for the person to leave and to reasonable be sure the house is EMPTY. Have marked units detain the guy away from the house and do your search. Why purposely do a high-risk entry in the middle of the night when you don't have to?

The inconsistent story of the LEOs vs. witness accounts is disconcerting. I think perhaps it should be the policy that when the LEOs shoot someone, or a LEO is shot during a raid like this perhaps and outside agency needs to come in and do the investigation to try and minimize cover-ups and distortion of facts. If someone is shot, they can finish clearing the house for suspects, evac wounded and then must immediately exit the house, secure the perimeter and wait for the state police, FBI, or whatever other outside agency to come and investigate. Internal investigation / self-policing is a joke.

[Theseus]

I would think that serving a no-knock warrant on a home that is "filled with armed and dangerous criminals" is actually a pretty risky proposition.

AND IIRC, the police didn't really have anything on this guy and were turned onto him by an informant that used this situation to make a deal and avoid jail himself. . . They had him break into the home to get them the PC they needed for the warrant. . .


No-knock warrants are just the ticket for known violent offenders or offenders that are known or reasonably expected to be heavily armed. Or are officers expected to knock and talk all of the time? I don't think we pay them enough for that kind of risk. In some cases, it would be suicide.

The best defense is to: a) lead a clean life, and b) be sure of your target. Our CalGuns guy did A, and didn't need to worry about B. The subject of the story did neither. Even if the police were wrong, he was also wrong - in shooting at something without identifying his target. His careless actions led to an unnecessary death.

And with the strong link that has been developed with gangs, drugs and guns, the no-knock raid for drugs is getting more and more reasonable. The stakes are high, and the willingness to shoot at LE is there. For all we know, the subject of the story had just moved all of his product. I am sure that will come out in court.

[Untamed1972]

I would think that serving a no-knock warrant on a home that is "filled with armed and dangerous criminals" is actually a pretty risky proposition.

AND IIRC, the police didn't really have anything on this guy and were turned onto him by an informant that used this situation to make a deal and avoid jail himself. . . They had him break into the home to get them the PC they needed for the warrant. . .

Doesn't having a "civilian" acting as an agent for the state break into a house to gather evidence constitute a crime and make any evidence gathered inadmissable?

[JDoe]

FYI...just happened this morning...Ryan Frederick sentenced to 10 years for killing detective. (http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/ryan-frederick-sentenced-10-years-killing-detective)

[Knauga]

Insanity

[GaryV]

Okay, I know this is a different case, but the gist of the thread, even in the OP's first post, is more about no-knock warrants than a specific case. So that we can focus more on that than the character of one particular subject, I thought I'd post a story from last summer:

BERWYN HEIGHTS, Md. - Mayor Cheye Calvo got home from work, saw a package addressed to his wife on the front porch and brought it inside, putting it on a table.

Suddenly, police with guns drawn kicked in the door and stormed in, shooting to death the couple's two dogs and seizing the unopened package.

In it were 32 pounds of marijuana. But the drugs evidently didn't belong to the couple.

Police say the couple appeared to be innocent victims of a scheme by two men to smuggle millions of dollars worth of marijuana by having it delivered to about a half-dozen unsuspecting recipients.

The two men under arrest include a FedEx deliveryman; investigators said the deliveryman would drop off a package outside a home, and the other man would come by a short time later and pick it up.

Now, federal authorities say they're looking into how local law enforcement handled the July 29 raid. FBI Agent Rich Wolf said late Thursday that the bureau had opened a civil rights investigation into the case.

A furious Calvo said earlier Thursday that he and his wife, Trinity Tomsic, had asked the government to investigate.

"Trinity was an innocent victim and random victim," Calvo said outside his two-story, red-brick house in this middle-class Washington suburb of about 3,000 people. "We were harmed by the very people who took an oath to protect us."

Calvo insisted the couple's two black Labradors were gentle creatures and said police apparently killed them "for sport," gunning down one of them as it was running away.

"Our dogs were our children," said the 37-year-old Calvo. "They were the reason we bought this house because it had a big yard for them to run in."

The mayor, who was changing his clothes when police burst in, also complained that he was handcuffed in his boxer shorts for about two hours along with his mother-in-law, and said the officers didn't believe him when he told them he was the mayor. No charges were brought against Calvo or his wife, who came home in the middle of the raid.

Prince George's County Police Chief Melvin High said Wednesday that Calvo and his family were "most likely ... innocent victims," but he would not rule out their involvement, and he defended the way the raid was conducted. He and other officials did not apologize for killing the dogs, saying the officers felt threatened.

The FBI will monitor how effective, fair and professional the law enforcement agency's conduct was during the incident, Wolf said. A police spokesman declined comment Thursday on the FBI investigation.

Police announced Wednesday they had arrested two men suspected in a plot to smuggle 417 pounds of marijuana, and seized a total of $3.6 million in pot. Investigators said the package that arrived on Calvo's porch had been sent from Los Angeles via FedEx, and they had been tracking it ever since it drew the attention of a drug-sniffing dog in Arizona.

Police intercepted it in Maryland, and an undercover detective posing as a deliveryman took it to the Calvo home.

Calvo's defenders — including the Berwyn Heights police chief, who said his department should have been alerted ahead of time — said police had no right to enter the home without knocking.

But officials insisted they acted within the law, saying the operation was compromised when Calvo's mother-in-law saw officers approaching the house and screamed. That could have given someone time to grab a gun or destroy evidence, authorities said.

Neighbors in Berwyn Heights, which Calvo described as "Mayberry inside the Capital Beltway," have rallied around the couple. On Sunday night, supporters gathered on a ballfield to pay tribute to the family and the dogs. A banner on the wooden fence around Calvo's yard read, "Cheye and Trinity, We support you, Friends and Citizens of Berwyn Heights." Around it were dozens of handwritten messages from supporters.

In addition to being the part-time mayor, Calvo works at a nonprofit foundation that runs boarding schools. His wife is a state finance officer.

"When all of this happened I was flabbergasted," said next-door neighbor Edward Alexander. "I was completely stunned because those dogs didn't hurt anybody. They barely bark."

The case is the latest embarrassment for Prince George's County officials. A former police officer was sentenced in May to 45 years in prison for shooting two furniture deliverymen at his home last year, one of them fatally. He claimed that they attacked him. In June, a suspect jailed in the death of a police officer was found strangled in his cell.

Calvo said he was astonished that police have not only failed to apologize, but declined to clear the couple's names.

His wife spoke through tears as she described an encounter with a girl who used to see the couple walking their dogs.

"She gave me a big hug and she said, `If the police shot your dogs dead and did this to you, how can I trust them?'" Tomsic said. "I don't want people to feel like that. I just want them to be proud of our police and proud to live in Prince George's County."

So, this ISN'T a case where the subjects did anything to deserve what happened.

I'll give my perspective on the general issue. No-knock warrants should be illegal. They were enacted by Nixon as part of his launch of the drug war, and, while are often cited as needed because of armed/dangerous subjects, were actually originally designed, and primarily used, to prevent people from destroying drug evidence before it could be secured. This is, in fact, the only justification needed in order to have one issued. Tracking the statistics of when these warrants are requested, along with when SWAT units are used to serve warrants, shows that the overwhelming use of no-knock tactical entries in drug cases are not against known dangerous subjects, but are used in cases like the one above, where the real issue was whether the drugs would be recovered.

On their face, no-knock warrants are unconstitutional (although they've been upheld in court). They're also almost entirely unnecessary. If the choice is between losing evidence of a drug crime (and realistically, how much dope can you flush down a toilet in the extra time it takes the police to ID themselves before they kick in the door?) and creating a lethal confrontation in order to preserve it, it's clear that it is irresponsible to choose the latter option.

In the case of truly dangerous suspects, why make an entry at all, unless there are hostages involved? Wait and take them in the open, as has already been suggested, where you have all the advantages, or just wait them out. Again, it is irresponsible to force a confrontation when doing so only ups the risk of violence.

With the castle-doctrine laws that many states have passed (and which, I believe, set the correct standard for self-defense in the home), if someone forces, or is trying to force, their way into your home, you are perfectly justified in shooting them, without hesitating long enough to determine whether they might be police if they haven't ID'd themselves already. Even shooting through the door, which is not a good idea, is legal. So no-knock warrants set the police up to be shot by people exercising their legitimate right to self-defense in a lawful way, while doing virtually nothing legitimate to serve justice.

What they do (as can be seen by their dramatic rise in use over the last decade) is justify police department expenses in SWAT and militarization. SWAT teams are expensive, far more so than regular patrol or investigative officers. And if you're spending that money, and only using your team once or twice a year for situations that really justify using it, people are going to question the cost. But if you call them out to serve every search warrant on a drug case, now they're seen to be "needed" all the time, and are easier to justify.

The police are not legally a military force, and not supposed to act as one. That's at the very heart of the 2nd Amendment. When the options are between using military-style force and losing evidence (as opposed to saving lives of private citizens from an imminent - as that word is used in self-defense law - threat), they should be legally obligated to forego military action. They need to knock, identify themselves, and give a reasonable time for the occupant to open the door. That used to be the legal standard until Nixon, and it should be again. If the situation makes that approach too risky, then you don't enter the building. You wait to serve the warrant when the subject exits, or you surround the building and negotiate a surrender. Lives, of the subjects or the police, should never be secondary to securing evidence or a politically expedient solution.

[Untamed1972]

FYI...just happened this morning...Ryan Frederick sentenced to 10 years for killing detective. (http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/ryan-frederick-sentenced-10-years-killing-detective)

Yeah....because even if the COPs screwed up, lied, and gathered evidence illegally to get a warrant....we can't send the message to the public that it's ok to kill COPs.

[BobB35]

This PERP got what he deserved, because cops don't lie and never do anything wrong. HMMMMM....

Yea right, another case of super-soldier, paramilitary BS in the war on Drugs ending up in a bad situation.

If this doesn't show what the future is going to be like....you don't have the right to defend yourself against the state and if you do you will be beat down and your freedom will be taken away. Bend over here it comes.

LEO are you friends and are just here to help....

[PatriotnMore]

I hope everyone keep the pressure up on this subject to their State and Federal representatives. I am appalled at the amount of bad "No Knock" raids, and the training tactics; Like just shoot the dog, which seems to be a common theme at many of these raids, even tho the dogs are running away with their tail between their legs, and pissing on the carpet.

Children being held at gun point, the old treated roughly, and property being destroyed, most in the name of the war on drugs.

[ilbob]

I am more and more leaning toward just banning all no knock warrants short of some exigent circumstance that actually matters.

Potential for loss of evidence is not one of them that matters any IMO. Nor is getting to use all the neat new toys the taxpayers got the SWAT team.

[Theseus]

It matters not the case anymore. With the number of invasion robberies where they are identifying themselves as police, some even with uniforms and ID's, even some actually committed by Sheriff Deputies I am thinking seriously about treating anything forcibly coming through my front door as an intruder and worrying about the rest later.

I think I should also point out that there is no reason why police should be knocking on my door, much less no knocking my door down.

I think that in this particular case the police were in the wrong. It is sad an officer had to loose his life to this, but I don't think I would have done much different knowing only a small bit of the facts that I do.

[SimpleCountryActuary]

It matters not the case anymore. With the number of invasion robberies where they are identifying themselves as police, some even with uniforms and ID's, even some actually committed by Sheriff Deputies I am thinking seriously about treating anything forcibly coming through my front door as an intruder and worrying about the rest later.

I think I should also point out that there is no reason why police should be knocking on my door, much less no knocking my door down.

You make some very good points. I think that our LEO are too valuable to risk on useless and dangerous no-knock warrents. A criminal does not hide in his house for months at a time. He leaves his house occaisionally, if only because his moll (obsolete term for b****) can't be bothered to go buy more beer. (Hey, nobody can stockpile enough beer.) So, LEO should do the smart thing, and not the "News at Eleven" thing.

It would save lives. LEO lives and citizen lives.

"As it is written, let it be so." (Darn, I wished I'd said that first.) ;)

[aileron]

A response from the thread about this article at reason.


P Brooks | May 28, 2008, 9:41am | #
they detected movement in the house. Roberts says a light "changed." It was at this point that they announced "Eight ball! Eight Ball!" a code signaling that the raid had been compromised.

This is so utterly nonsensical it's harde to believe a "highly educated member of the bar" could be induced to bring it into court.

"Well, Your Honor, the officers knocked on the door, and announced themselves. When it became evident that the occupant had become aware of their presence, and responded to the knock, the oficers had no other recourse than to break down the door and enter in force."

Some how I believe this obvious problem will be overlooked.

[jnojr]

This then raises the question of what exactly you're supposed to do when someone knocks on your door, and announces that they're the police and that they have a search warrant. Don't come to the door, and they're going to break it down and come after you. Come to the door to verify it's really the police (by no means a given)—and to let them in if it is—and your very movement toward the door can, also, be a trigger to break the door down and storm your home. Arm yourself and wait for them to come in? You're practically begging them to shoot you.

Seems your only option is stand somewhere in your own house with your hands in the air, wait for the door to come down, and hope the raiding officers don't mistake your t-shirt for a gun, or possibly trip or mistakenly fire and accidentally kill you. Be prepared to be thrown to the ground, stepped on, handcuffed, and have the barrel of a gun pointed at the back of your head.

This is just one of many conundrums posed by the proliferation of paramilitary-style police raids. The people on the receiving end of the raids are put in positions where it's nearly impossible to even know what the right response is, much less be in a position to make it. Not to mention that, at the same time, they're being subjected to trauma that makes any sort of clear-headedness or careful consideration of their options pretty much impossible. Make the wrong decision and you're either dead or facing a felony charge.

This is a good part of why I'm in favor of fortification... beef up your entry points so that anyone who's coming through will make so much noise and take so long to do it that you have time to dial 911, warn them off, arm yourself, and figure out what's going on.

There's always the very real possibility that anyone knocking down your door and yelling, "Police!"... isn't. I would have to assume that they're home invaders, because there is no reason for the real police to come kick in my door. If they want anything from me, all they have to do is call or knock politely and ask, and I'll be happy to get my attorney and see what assistance I can render.

[Texas Boy]

Let's hope one of these cases winds up before the SCOTUS and arguments like GaryV's prevail. The war on drugs has gone way too far and forced entry warrants have created an impossible situation.

Like others here have stated, I have no reason to believe the police would ever serve a warrant on me - and certainly such a warrant would would be unfounded and illegitimate. Hence, if I ever heard pounding on my door claiming to be police I would be highly suspicious and suspect it was really a robbery. Would I get my gun? Possibly. If I did would I fire as they came through the door/window/etc? Probably. If it was the police would they shoot my large and vocal but very gentile dog? Sounds likely based on the above. If I was holding a gun would said person receive the entire contents of my magazine? No doubt. Would it end badly? Sounds likely.

But what choice would I have? Stand powerless as my home is invaded in what is quite likely a robbery? Allow who ever it is (Police or robbers) to kill my dog just because she is barking as all hell breaks loose? Allow these thugs ("legal" or otherwise) to trash my home and endanger my family? It is truly an impossible and completely unnecessary situation. Fortunately few (percentage wise) will ever face this situation - but may God pity those that do.

[TheBundo]

Re-reading the article, another thing that struck me was that these police officers took a light being turned on as a sign that they've been "made". They come knocking at night, and they think a light coming on is odd or threatening? I turn on lights as I walk through the house if its dark, and I'm sure most reasonable people do as well.

The suspect in this case, should have been given a reasonable time to at least look at who is at the door, perhaps if a marked police vehicle was in front. Is 16 seconds enough time? I don't know, maybe a jury/judge will have to make that decision. Also, isn't the implication of a knock-warrant that the suspect is not considered dangerous or able to destroy (too much) evidence when the cops show up? I guess this goes back to, is 16 seconds enough time for the subject to answer the door, and maybe take a peek out the window before that. I understand that warrants allow the police to enter if no-one comes to the door, but this seems to not be the case. Instead, its the "light turning on" thing that caused the "eight ball" to roll.

I count only 12 seconds - 4 announcements, 4 seconds apart.

[sreiter]

But it says he saw a hand reaching through the door.
Would you just point and shoot at a hand through the door? Are you really in fear of your life at that point?

Ummm, YES!!!

The presumption of someone entering your house uninvited is they are there to do you bodily harm. IIRC, the law says you can use deadly force when someone has broken into you house, specifically is because of the presumption the intruder is there to do you great bodily harm

[sreiter]

Ruby Ridge comes to mind

[nicki]

Knock vs no Knock.

Let's face it, being a police officer can be a very dangerous job. In the old days, the bad guys had some respect for cops.

Today Bad guys don't think twice about shooting a cop, in fact, many will do it because it is a "status symbol".

But now we have a problem. What happens if there is a "clerical error" on a search warrant and the "wrong house is hit".

This happened to one of my co workers a few years back. Her house was torn apart, her young children were traumatized. She never followed up on with any lawsuits, they were afraid of police reprisals.

Apparently they were after a drug dealer who was a few houses down the block. Of course after this raid, the drug dealer probably split town.

If my house got hit with a no knock in the middle of the night, I probably would get killed even if unintentional by the cops.



Nicki