PDA

View Full Version : What happened to the forced entry search warrant thread?


CalCop
01-01-2009, 10:26 AM
Okay, am I really slow this morning, or did someone delete the thread about forced entry search warrants, and how they might not be a good idea? That was a good discussion. Did some idiot say something stupid and get the mods to shut it down? If so, why not just delete the offensive posts, not the whole thread. Am I missing something?

scootergmc
01-01-2009, 10:32 AM
Okay, am I really slow this morning, or did someone delete the thread about forced entry search warrants, and how they might not be a good idea? That was a good discussion. Did some idiot say something stupid and get the mods to shut it down? If so, why not just delete the offensive posts, not the whole thread. Am I missing something?

You must be new. I'm reminded of an old saying: "A thread about cops and Calguns are soon parted." I wasn't following the thread, but they usually digress into an leo bash-fest in the late hours of the day and eventually disappear in the wee hours of the morning.

Dr Rockso
01-01-2009, 10:56 AM
Okay, am I really slow this morning, or did someone delete the thread about forced entry search warrants, and how they might not be a good idea? That was a good discussion. Did some idiot say something stupid and get the mods to shut it down? If so, why not just delete the offensive posts, not the whole thread. Am I missing something?
Man, you're right, not just locked either. Must have really gotten good.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 10:57 AM
You must be new. I'm reminded of an old saying: "A thread about cops and Calguns are soon parted." I wasn't following the thread, but they usually digress into an leo bash-fest in the late hours of the day and eventually disappear in the wee hours of the morning.
Yes, newbie here. I've seen the cop-bashes...whatever...doesn't hurt my feelings. I just hoped that the mod would only delete the offensive posts. There was some good discussion going on about how forcible search warrants are generally bad ideas. I think it is a very relevant and useful discussion that needs to be talked about as much as possible. I am LEO and I am of the thinking that dynamic entry into a person's home only makes sense if necessary to immediately preserve life.

BobB35
01-01-2009, 11:05 AM
Calcop,

Had the same question, newbie also.

Find it kind of strange to censor/delete discussion threads. Isn't that something we are fighting against?

I usually go by the "if the shoe fits, wear it" approach, and from what I saw the shoe was fitting pretty good in that thread.

Is there some reason in this community that we don't want to call into question inappropriate behavior. If so, then I have found the wrong group of civil rights activists.

If the police are acting like Jackbooted stormtoopers and hurting innocent taxpayers why can't that be discussed?

I understand the mods can do whatever they want, but wow talk about hypocrisy if that is that is the case....

journeyman
01-01-2009, 11:24 AM
it did get really good as i was one of the those posting on that thread in the late night early morning hours but nothing too inflammatory imo interesting nevertheless

journeyman
01-01-2009, 11:27 AM
also i noticed my post count has went down so i guess the whole thread has been deleted like it never happened thats funny......in the future if one of us.......well nevermind!

CalCop
01-01-2009, 11:33 AM
There were some inappropriate cop-hater comments, I get that. But there was also some very good discussion going on. Cops have an inherently dangerous job. But, is it really necessary to storm the house, kill the mayors dogs, and cuff his wife because of some pot? I am putting myself in the situation of the homeowner of the botched entry. If someone yelled police and rammed in my door, am I really supposed to lay down and take it? If it is the bad man, now I will have to watch as my wife and children are raped? Screw that. Just because the cops got the wrong house does not mean that the citizen has no right to defend himself. I am glad I am not on the SWAT team...very dangerous...they are just following orders...don't get to pick whose house they search. My assignment does sometimes entail writing search warrants. Really careful about what I decide my partners' lives are worth...and the collateral damage to the relationship with the community should things go wrong. The castle doctrine should be broader and stronger. A man's home should be considered more sacred than it is at this time. Any other LEOs want to chime in and tell me why I'm wrong...feel free...I'm open to it. This is just some more recent critical thinking I have been doing on how and why we do what we do as cops.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 11:42 AM
Alright, let's try this again...and please, be nice, let's not get it shut-down this time.

Why Are We Making Entries? (http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/articles/why_are_we_making_entries.html;jsessionid=E547D44D 85F134F040A1B0FF01808822)

So, why are we making entries? The usual reasons are to prevent escape and the destruction of evidence. Mostly, we make entry because that is the way we have always done it. But, as I used to ask my students at our Academy, "How much cocaine is your life worth?" Most officers just give a blank stare, convinced that it will never happen to them, always to someone else. Well, here is a news flash: you are "someone else" to everyone else in law enforcement.

journeyman
01-01-2009, 11:48 AM
the boys will be along shortly!!!

aileron
01-01-2009, 11:52 AM
Yes, newbie here. I've seen the cop-bashes...whatever...doesn't hurt my feelings. I just hoped that the mod would only delete the offensive posts. There was some good discussion going on about how forcible search warrants are generally bad ideas. I think it is a very relevant and useful discussion that needs to be talked about as much as possible. I am LEO and I am of the thinking that dynamic entry into a person's home only makes sense if necessary to immediately preserve life.

Thank you... I am one of those citizens who feels dynamic entries are being heavily abused, and have little place in a free society.

The 4th amendment means what is says. Just like the rest of them.

I too wish for respectful dialog about this...

BobB35
01-01-2009, 12:00 PM
here are a few articles on why I think these type of high risk entries occur. Not because they have to but because if you have the equipment you want to use it.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg.htm

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121169.html

to me these two issues (militarized police and increased high risk entries) have a causal relationship not just correlation.

BobB35
01-01-2009, 12:02 PM
Here is another link for anyone who thinks bad raids only occur "Rarely"

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

Bad Voodoo
01-01-2009, 12:04 PM
I am glad I am not on the SWAT team...very dangerous...they are just following orders...

Hmmm, I wonder if that's what the feds will say after they've confiscated our weapons under the new administration? "We're sorry. We were just following orders." :rolleyes:

I'd find it difficult to believe under any circumstances, that someone with the seniority and training required of a SWAT officer, didn't have the individual input during briefs to maybe suggest that what they were planning might not be such a good idea. Isn't your first priority to defend and protect the Constitution of the US of A? I mean, in some circles, no-knocks might be considered an infringement of several personal protections. Or are SWAT teams a microcosm of society in general? A bunch of sheep blindly following command/control directives?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

eta34
01-01-2009, 12:21 PM
Here is another link for anyone who thinks bad raids only occur "Rarely"

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

That is a very pretty map. Now, how does that compare with the number of search warrants that are "good?" Please provide some statistical evidence behind the map. I can and do agree that many (if not most) of those warrants were bad (based on the descriptions provided). I am certainly not arguing that bad search warrants do not exist (my post history here is clear evidence of this). However, a little bit of intellectual honesty and statistical evidence would be nice.

tyrist
01-01-2009, 12:46 PM
That is a very pretty map. Now, how does that compare with the number of search warrants that are "good?" Please provide some statistical evidence behind the map. I can and do agree that many (if not most) of those warrants were bad (based on the descriptions provided). I am certainly not arguing that bad search warrants do not exist (my post history here is clear evidence of this). However, a little bit of intellectual honesty and statistical evidence would be nice.

I can glance at that map and tell it's relatively low against the total number served within the country in 23 years (the date goes back to 1985).

Dr Rockso
01-01-2009, 12:49 PM
That is a very pretty map. Now, how does that compare with the number of search warrants that are "good?" Please provide some statistical evidence behind the map. I can and do agree that many (if not most) of those warrants were bad (based on the descriptions provided). I am certainly not arguing that bad search warrants do not exist (my post history here is clear evidence of this). However, a little bit of intellectual honesty and statistical evidence would be nice.
I'm sure that the vast majority of search warrants are 'good warrants', and even if the portion that were bad was statistically insignificant it still wouldn't change the argument. Raids do occur based on bad information, and when the authorities paint the resident into a corner by busting down his door like a bad guy in the middle of the night, they put themselves and the resident at unnecessary risk.

eta34
01-01-2009, 12:51 PM
Here is another link for anyone who thinks bad raids only occur "Rarely"

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

This is HIS quote. You read my response. I simply responded to his quote. Nothing has been said to prove that bad raids occur more than "rarely."

BitterVoter
01-01-2009, 1:57 PM
I still don't see the tactical advantage of forcibly entering someones home when they are asleep and disoriented...

You scare an animal and the animal is likely to react in an unpredictable manner.

I am pretty sure that the other thread was closed because some people were calling the officers in the case "scumbag" and such. You can disagree with the situation, but the name calling is a bit overboard.

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 2:13 PM
I still don't see the tactical advantage of forcibly entering someones home when they are asleep and disoriented...

You do catch your pray unawares and generally unarmed if it is done quickly. I like the more subtle approach of using surveillance and taking someone once they leave their home (BWO was taken in a T-stop - really Matt, I wasn't involved) or by using some kind of ruse.

Spoke once with a federal agent who used a staged collision with the suspect's parked car to get him out of his house!:D:thumbsup::clap::rofl2:

The dramatic entry also is a great "stage" for justifying expensive equipment and training (Waco anyone?).

fleegman
01-01-2009, 2:21 PM
That is a very pretty map. Now, how does that compare with the number of search warrants that are "good?" Please provide some statistical evidence behind the map. I can and do agree that many (if not most) of those warrants were bad (based on the descriptions provided). I am certainly not arguing that bad search warrants do not exist (my post history here is clear evidence of this). However, a little bit of intellectual honesty and statistical evidence would be nice.

It sounds to me that you are suggesting that the "bad" raids are acceptable collateral damage, since they may be "rare".

Meplat
01-01-2009, 2:21 PM
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your objectivity. I too think these discussions are extremely important. LEOs talk to citizens every day but often the citizen does not feel at ease saying what he really thinks about how you do your job. I would think this would be an extremely valuable sounding board to get a handle on how the public really feels. Even if it is sometimes difficult to listen to, it is important to know. It is what it is, good bad or indifferent, it is valuable insight. I value highly our officers on this forum. I value their perspective and am happy we have so many. I at times get brutally honest, but I hope to never be abusive or petty.:thumbsup:



There were some inappropriate cop-hater comments, I get that. But there was also some very good discussion going on. Cops have an inherently dangerous job. But, is it really necessary to storm the house, kill the mayors dogs, and cuff his wife because of some pot? I am putting myself in the situation of the homeowner of the botched entry. If someone yelled police and rammed in my door, am I really supposed to lay down and take it? If it is the bad man, now I will have to watch as my wife and children are raped? Screw that. Just because the cops got the wrong house does not mean that the citizen has no right to defend himself. I am glad I am not on the SWAT team...very dangerous...they are just following orders...don't get to pick whose house they search. My assignment does sometimes entail writing search warrants. Really careful about what I decide my partners' lives are worth...and the collateral damage to the relationship with the community should things go wrong. The castle doctrine should be broader and stronger. A man's home should be considered more sacred than it is at this time. Any other LEOs want to chime in and tell me why I'm wrong...feel free...I'm open to it. This is just some more recent critical thinking I have been doing on how and why we do what we do as cops.

eta34
01-01-2009, 2:33 PM
It sounds to me that you are suggesting that the "bad" raids are acceptable collateral damage, since they may be "rare".

It sounds to me that you are putting words into my mouth. Please show where I stated or implied that bad raids are acceptable. You cannot, as I did neither. I do not find them acceptable at all. Thankfully, they are rare.

Please read my post before making asinine accusations. Thank you.

Liberty1
01-01-2009, 2:35 PM
If someone yelled police and rammed in my door, am I really supposed to lay down and take it?

Violent criminals have used "Police search warrant!" to gain an advantage.

BobB35
01-01-2009, 2:44 PM
I would love nothing more than to provide you with that information. Unfortunatlly like much of what the police do that is a big secret. What I was pointing out (if you read the article) was that people who have looked into this estimate that errors occur at a rate of 1 per week. The map is not all inclusive and I am sure things get reclassified after the fact. That means in the last 23 years there have probably been well over a 1000 incorrect raids. At some point the number itself becomes significant and the % ceases to matter. The problem as I see it is one where a lot of these raids did not need to be done this way....but hey if you have the toys....

I would also bet that you are one of those people who say "What do I care, I am not breaking the law". My reply to that has always been, "Ok, but what about tomorrow when they change the law".

LE has bought into the "NOBLE LIE" hook line and sinker, which is really a shame because if you remember the police used to help people. e.g. Andy Griffith....

That is a very pretty map. Now, how does that compare with the number of search warrants that are "good?" Please provide some statistical evidence behind the map. I can and do agree that many (if not most) of those warrants were bad (based on the descriptions provided). I am certainly not arguing that bad search warrants do not exist (my post history here is clear evidence of this). However, a little bit of intellectual honesty and statistical evidence would be nice.

BitterVoter
01-01-2009, 2:46 PM
Actually, I just got done watching an old episode of COPS where the detectives would call known felons with warrants and tell them they were going to get a color TV if they were willing to fill out a survey after 30 days so that they could confirm the address, phone number and time the felon would be there and scoop them up unsuspecting....

Pretty smart for a popo...haha!!

But the small town mentality of not having to USE THE LAW to enforce or change behavior. I have made the argument before, sometimes the punishment is far worst than the crime. It justice always so strict? You find a guy drunk in public why do you HAVE to arrest him. Maybe he is in public drunk because he didn't want to drive and endanger someones life...why can't you give them a ride home? Or maybe to a local jail to cool down without charges?

eta34
01-01-2009, 2:52 PM
I would love nothing more than to provide you with that information. Unfortunatlly like much of what the police do that is a big secret. What I was pointing out (if you read the article) was that people who have looked into this estimate that errors occur at a rate of 1 per week. The map is not all inclusive and I am sure things get reclassified after the fact. That means in the last 23 years there have probably been well over a 1000 incorrect raids. At some point the number itself becomes significant and the % ceases to matter. The problem as I see it is one where a lot of these raids did not need to be done this way....but hey if you have the toys....

I would also bet that you are one of those people who say "What do I care, I am not breaking the law". My reply to that has always been, "Ok, but what about tomorrow when they change the law".

LE has bought into the "NOBLE LIE" hook line and sinker, which is really a shame because if you remember the police used to help people. e.g. Andy Griffith....

You make assumptions about me without any evidence. Perhaps you should read some of my post history here. I realize that it is much easier to make baseless accusations rather than do actual research. I don't break the law. However, as a 2a advocate, I clearly see that the laws can abruptly and drastically change, making a once-legal act illegal. I am not sure how you were able to make any character evaluations about me based on this thread.

Since it seems difficult for you to understand, I will make it clear. I believe that even one bad raid is "significant." If by the "estimates" (again, not actual evidence) one bad raid occurs in the U.S. per week, it would still be a rarity when compared to the total number of search warrants served during a year's period. Again, rare does not mean it should happen. Rare does not mean I endorse the execution of bad raids. Rare means rare.

Meplat
01-01-2009, 2:52 PM
One of the problems I see with "dynamic entry" is that what is considered the biggest "mistake" is getting the wrong house. In the first thread it was even alluded that if you are a LAC (law abiding citizen) you should feel free to fire on someone who is breaking down your door because it wont be the police. I have a problem with that. I know there is the real world and then there is the theoretical world and "innocent until proven guilty" is in the theoretical world. But, damn, shouldn't we try to get it back into the real world? I mean, is "we thought he was a scumbag drug dealer," really a valid argument? Should we not all enjoy the same equal protection under law? I mean, we are using this argument to try to get shall issue. But we are ready to deny it to others.

As pointed out above, the LAC is more likely to fire on a DE team than a scumbag. Is it worth losing an LEO OR a LAC to prevent a little dope from going down the drain?

Meplat
01-01-2009, 2:55 PM
It sounds to me that you are putting words into my mouth. Please show where I stated or implied that bad raids are acceptable. You cannot, as I did neither. I do not find them acceptable at all. Thankfully, they are rare.

Please read my post before making asinine accusations. Thank you.

Warning: Cheap shot.

We need to make DE, safe legal and rare.:rofl2:

jrsportssupply
01-01-2009, 3:35 PM
There is an old saying that if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem begins to look like a nail. If a department has invested heavily in a SWAT team (and the tools alone can't be cheap!), then the department has to get use out of their investment. That's problem number 1 in my book.

The claim I hear repeatedly is that DE is used when delivering a warrant the "normal" way might endanger the officer. OK. How about LE using the robots that are currently deployed in Iraq that search for IEDs? An officer can deliver the warrant from the safety of a remote location, watching the action from a TV screen. No shots fired, no lives endangered.

Smokeybehr
01-01-2009, 3:55 PM
My question is simple: Why does every single LE agency need a "SWAT" team? In my home county, there are 3 LE agencies (2 PD and SO) with SWAT teams, that are rarely used. The next county over, there's 8 LE agencies (7 PD and SO) and each has their own little SWAT team.

Why can't they combine their resources and have a single SWAT team for the entire county? Fresno County has "MAGEC", the Multi-Agency Gang Enforcement Consortium, which has officers from every LE agency in the county, including the DA, CHP, CaDOJ, FBI, ATF, and several other state and federal three-letter agencies. When they do raids and gang sweeps, officers/deputies/agents/etc. are all involved, making a far larger force than the individual agency can field.

tyrist
01-01-2009, 4:01 PM
My question is simple: Why does every single LE agency need a "SWAT" team? In my home county, there are 3 LE agencies (2 PD and SO) with SWAT teams, that are rarely used. The next county over, there's 8 LE agencies (7 PD and SO) and each has their own little SWAT team.

Why can't they combine their resources and have a single SWAT team for the entire county? Fresno County has "MAGEC", the Multi-Agency Gang Enforcement Consortium, which has officers from every LE agency in the county, including the DA, CHP, CaDOJ, FBI, ATF, and several other state and federal three-letter agencies. When they do raids and gang sweeps, officers/deputies/agents/etc. are all involved, making a far larger force than the individual agency can field.

Very few agencies have full time SWAT teams unless they are large metropolitan areas or Counties. Most have part time SWAT team which is basically just a patrol Officer who just carries additional gear and responds to "SWAT" calls in the field. Not having people in each agency able to respond would be disasterous....SWAT call outs take forever...over an hour...if you had to mobilize additional agencies it would take even longer.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 4:05 PM
How about LE using...robotsvery intriguing

tyrist
01-01-2009, 4:05 PM
There is an old saying that if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem begins to look like a nail. If a department has invested heavily in a SWAT team (and the tools alone can't be cheap!), then the department has to get use out of their investment. That's problem number 1 in my book.

The claim I hear repeatedly is that DE is used when delivering a warrant the "normal" way might endanger the officer. OK. How about LE using the robots that are currently deployed in Iraq that search for IEDs? An officer can deliver the warrant from the safety of a remote location, watching the action from a TV screen. No shots fired, no lives endangered.

You are looking at one job a SWAT team fullfills which is "high risk" warrant service. Normal warrant service is done but other Officers and does not reach the level of a SWAT call out. Swat teams in my agency tend to only serve warrant where their is knowledge of a violent/armed offender. Narcotics warrants and such are delivered by their respective investigating Officers. It would be very helpful I think for everyone here to actually find out what their LEA policy is on such things. A swat team does not do all warrant service.

BitterVoter
01-01-2009, 4:10 PM
Maybe we should just have no-knock warrants authorized by the grand jury instead of a judge. . . Or maybe just an appointed civilian oversight. Not to justify the warrant, just the use of no-knock...

I am sure it isn't the best idea, but there should be some sort of unbiased oversight.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 4:14 PM
Hmmm, I wonder if that's what the feds will say after they've confiscated our weapons under the new administration? "We're sorry. We were just following orders." Yes, I think that's exactly what they will say.

I'd find it difficult to believe under any circumstances, that someone with the seniority and training required of a SWAT officer, didn't have the individual input during briefs to maybe suggest that what they were planning might not be such a good idea. Perhaps you've never been in the military? LE agencies' command structure often strictly adhere to the chain of command in the old school sense. It depends on your supervisor...but, the SWAT commander at my previous agency was NOT open to suggestions or criticism. If you wanted to stay on SWAT...you shut up and do as you're told. That is not true of all supes...but you know how that goes.

Isn't your first priority to defend and protect the Constitution of the US of A? That's mine...is it every cop's first priority??...don't be naive.

I mean, in some circles, no-knocks might be considered an infringement of several personal protections. That's how I'm feeling.

Or are SWAT teams a microcosm of society in general? A bunch of sheep blindly following command/control directives?Unfortunately, I think that is true of some SWAT members, and some SWAT commanders. It may be time to start taking some botched entries to SCOTUS for some changes to SWAT policy.

SkyStorm82
01-01-2009, 4:15 PM
Maybe we should just have no-knock warrants authorized by the grand jury instead of a judge. . . Or maybe just an appointed civilian oversight. Not to justify the warrant, just the use of no-knock..

We got that covered. After all, cops are civilians...we'll handle the oversight.:43:

ghideon
01-01-2009, 4:15 PM
For no-knocks against LACs that went badly (loss of life, either LEO or LAC), I have to imagine the brass and the local gov were looking hard to settle with the families. I cannot see those political animals wanting a court case, gaining more attention and possibly having legal restrictions placed on no-knocks.

aileron
01-01-2009, 4:17 PM
I would also bet that you are one of those people who say "What do I care, I am not breaking the law". My reply to that has always been, "Ok, but what about tomorrow when they change the law".



Bob, this is not what we need... attacking the person, or making an assumption about them with no knowledge of who they are is not going to help. Then you argument gets lost and thats not fair to your opinion or their person.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 4:19 PM
You do catch your pray unawares and generally unarmed if it is done quickly. I like the more subtle approach of using surveillance and taking someone once they leave their home (BWO was taken in a T-stop - really Matt, I wasn't involved) or by using some kind of ruse.

Spoke once with a federal agent who used a staged collision with the suspect's parked car to get him out of his house!That's what I'm talking about. I'm comfortable participating in those kinds of arrests. I am not comfortable participating in dynamic entries for any reason other than the immediate protection of life.

BitterVoter
01-01-2009, 4:27 PM
That's what I'm talking about. I'm comfortable participating in those kinds of arrests. I am not comfortable participating in dynamic entries for any reason other than the immediate protection of life.

I thought that a DE no-knock was to provide immediate protection of life...the officers? Isn't that the argument? If they were to knock it would pose a threat to officer safety!

CalCop
01-01-2009, 4:32 PM
I thought that a DE no-knock was to provide immediate protection of life...the officers? Isn't that the argument? If they were to knock it would pose a threat to officer safety!I don't like knock warrants because they tip the bad guy off and let him get his gun. I don't like no-knocks because of the confusion of who is at the door...good guy or bad guy? If you read the post you are quoting me from, you'll see that the kinds of arrests I referred to that I would be comfortable participatin in...are the kind that use a ruse to take the bad guy when he's away from his home. The immediate protection of life that I am talking about...if an innocent is in a home with a bad guy, and their life is threatened...then DE is necessary...otherwise...I don't like it.

ViPER395
01-01-2009, 4:38 PM
Newbs.

Get used to it.

BigDogatPlay
01-01-2009, 4:53 PM
I've always felt that dynamic entry was a last resort tactic, not a first option. If the warrant target is known from the investigation or the pre-service surveillance to be armed and willing to engage, then that raises the stakes and puts dynamic entry into the playbook. Otherwise my opinion is that it does not belong in the playbook period. I've been on more than a few warrant services and never once have I participated in a dynamic entry.

Staging a car crash to bring the target out... I love that.

This next part is not intended as LEO bashing of any form but one of the things to take into account in the argument is the SWAT mindset. In the large agencies with full time teams, the officers who are recruited are the hardest chargers. They are the committed and highly trained type A officers who will fight hard and fight to win if without question if it comes to it. As the model for the smaller agencies that have part time teams, that mindset flows downward and it becomes, in some ways, a part of the culture and a part of the mystique.

As has been seen in some cases (Waco most notably) that culture and mystique can backfire with tragic consequences.

BitterVoter
01-01-2009, 5:05 PM
I don't like knock warrants because they tip the bad guy off and let him get his gun. I don't like no-knocks because of the confusion of who is at the door...good guy or bad guy? If you read the post you are quoting me from, you'll see that the kinds of arrests I referred to that I would be comfortable participatin in...are the kind that use a ruse to take the bad guy when he's away from his home. The immediate protection of life that I am talking about...if an innocent is in a home with a bad guy, and their life is threatened...then DE is necessary...otherwise...I don't like it.

It was said with sarcasm. I understood what you were getting at.

Newbs.

Get used to it.

:laugh:

BobB35
01-01-2009, 6:47 PM
eta34 - I apologize if I offended, I mistook you for someone else in the comment chain. Glad to hear that you think bad raid are not "acceptable collateral damage.


You make assumptions about me without any evidence. Perhaps you should read some of my post history here. I realize that it is much easier to make baseless accusations rather than do actual research. I don't break the law. However, as a 2a advocate, I clearly see that the laws can abruptly and drastically change, making a once-legal act illegal. I am not sure how you were able to make any character evaluations about me based on this thread.

Since it seems difficult for you to understand, I will make it clear. I believe that even one bad raid is "significant." If by the "estimates" (again, not actual evidence) one bad raid occurs in the U.S. per week, it would still be a rarity when compared to the total number of search warrants served during a year's period. Again, rare does not mean it should happen. Rare does not mean I endorse the execution of bad raids. Rare means rare.

anthonyca
01-01-2009, 7:07 PM
Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the mob mentality can take people by storm. No pun intended. When given the power to break down doors and get the adrenaline pumping and break the monotony of traffic stops and reports many people would and do jump at the opportunity to break down a door. When you tell yourself "this is a criminal" it makes it really easy.

I was in the ARMY and there was never any talk I could remember about defending the constitution except when I was sworn in. MOST people I served with would just fallow orders and not hesitate to P*** on the constitution if they were order to. Our founders knew this that is why they wrote that amazing and simple document that is the law of the land. Too bad we don't use it.

Bad Voodoo
01-01-2009, 7:19 PM
CalCop, thanks for the open mind and objective debate. It's not often I've seen a LEO engage in an intellectually honest discussion about tactics and intent. I'm saddened that a certain majority in your community forget about the oath to protect and defend shortly after their academy graduations.

nick
01-01-2009, 7:48 PM
For no-knocks against LACs that went badly (loss of life, either LEO or LAC), I have to imagine the brass and the local gov were looking hard to settle with the families. I cannot see those political animals wanting a court case, gaining more attention and possibly having legal restrictions placed on no-knocks.

Well, it's the common problem - settlements, which don't usually resolve anything.

Harrison_Bergeron
01-01-2009, 7:53 PM
For no-knocks against LACs that went badly (loss of life, either LEO or LAC), I have to imagine the brass and the local gov were looking hard to settle with the families. I cannot see those political animals wanting a court case, gaining more attention and possibly having legal restrictions placed on no-knocks.

That isn't always true, when a law abiding citizen shoots through the door during a no knock they get charged, when LE does it and kills someone they have to pay money, but no one gets charged.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 7:53 PM
CalCop, thanks for the open mind and objective debate. It's not often I've seen a LEO engage in an intellectually honest discussion about tactics and intent. I'm saddened that a certain majority in your community forget about the oath to protect and defend shortly after their academy graduations.I would hesitate to say a majority. I think much of the honesty and re-thinking comes from maturity regardless of profession. Problem is, ALOT of the cops on the street are youngsters. Many intelligent, mature cops promote or get special assignments like detective gigs. Problem is...that leaves many less-mature, non-seasoned officers out there face to face with Joe Public. These youngsters may not have yet reached a point in their world view where they question the status quo.

Baby boomer retirements equals a major problem in recruiting for LE agencies at the present. Background investigation standards have necessarily been lowered to fill the ranks with new blood.

Feeding into the problem is the fact that cops are taught that they have the right to make "discretionary decisions." Well, that's all fine and good when the cops lets the injured man out of a speeding ticket while on his way to the hospital. It becomes a problem if an overzealous individual decides to use his "discretionary decision making" power on the opposite side of reason.

Sadly, I really think that the answer now is to take this to the courts. We need something equivalent to Miranda which tells cops EXACTLY when and how it is okay to forcibly enter a home. I think the search warrant procedure at the present is flawed. I think a completely honest and strictly conscientious officer who weighs public safety carefully when writing his warrants probably does fine with the current system. But, obviously the current system has allowed some major errors and violations of the constitutional rights of citizens.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 7:54 PM
That isn't always true, when a law abiding citizen shoots through the door during a no knock they get charged, when LE does it and kills someone they have to pay money, but no one gets charged.Well, it's the common problem - settlements, which don't usually resolve anything.Like I said...time to go to SCOTUS to get dynamic entry reasonableness more clearly defined.

And, thanks everybody for the respectful thread...this is what I had hoped for the first time around. I was also hoping some of the LEOs would give me their points of view...or maybe where they think I might not be considering everything.

ghideon
01-01-2009, 8:05 PM
That isn't always true, when a law abiding citizen shoots through the door during a no knock they get charged, when LE does it and kills someone they have to pay money, but no one gets charged.

Sorry, my original thought was half completed.

One day there's going to be a bad raid (think wrong house or something), and an innocent citizen is gonna be injured/die (possibly the officers as well). That person will be pretty much unassailable, both legally and media wise (pastor, father of 4 or some such). I think then we'll see a case come up through the courts, and things will change. Until then, the local govs will settle out of court.

The other alternative involves a liability calculation on the PDs/local gov side. But the legal solution seems more binding (and long term).

CalCop
01-01-2009, 8:10 PM
One day there's going to be a bad raid (think wrong house or something), and an innocent citizen is gonna be injured/die (possibly the officers as well). That person will be pretty much unassailable, both legally and media wise (pastor, father of 4 or some such). I think then we'll see a case come up through the courts, and things will change.I'm sure that's happened already. For some reason it hasn't made its way to SCOTUS.

nick
01-01-2009, 8:15 PM
Well, my problem is not just with the tactics (and yes, I realize that DE might be necessary at some points, and have no problem with it being used then, but it shouldn't be a primary solution, as many here have stated before). My problem is with the liability and consequences.

This may be the wrong approach to reasoning the problems of state, but I gave some thought to what such a situation would be like from my personal perspective.

I'm a guy who's done with adventures and prefers them to be somewhere else and happen to someone else. All I want at this point is a quiet life, raise kids at some point, etc. etc. The closest I've ever been to breaking the law was receiving traffic tickets.

So, with all that, I quite enjoy my life and think defending it and those of my family is worth it. So to that in my home, which is the place I retreat to to BE at home, I have a handgun in my nightstand, and some other similar protection elsewhere in the apartment. I also have military training, combat experience, and good reaction time. I wake up and get up in a second, which amuses my girlfriend no end.

So, if my door is broken in at night (or during the day, for that matter), I don't think it'll take me more than a few (very few) seconds to be ready to fire, except for in very unfavorable circumstances, such as taking a shower, for example.

So, in this situation I'm looking at all odds being stacked against me. If it's the criminals, I ought to start firing the moment they come in and I acquire the target, or else I might become a target. If it's the police, and I identify them as such, I'd hold my fire and, being a man with a gun at the ready, am likely to become a target still. So the only life-preserving way for me is to shoot whomever breaks in. However, if these do turn out to be law enforcement officers, I'm looking at either death for holding my fire, or some serious charges resulting in either serious financial burden (or ruin, justice was quite expensive the last I checked), or in my imprisonment for a very long time, or potentially even death penalty. This is not mentioning that I'll have to live with shooting police officers for the rest of my life, and to me it means shooting my people (I'm not a LEO, but I'm one of those people who separate the world into "my people" and "everyone else", and police officers, as well as most Americans, are there with "my people"). Of course, in all of the above I presume that I've committed no crime, and the DE is a mistake.

So, shouldn't there be any protection for people in a situation like this? Or do we continue insisting on screwing up our innocent compatriots for no other reason that someone else made a mistake or was maliciously targeted (think of the guy whose house got raided because his neighbor looked into his house and called the police because he "had too many guns". The thread is out there on Calguns).

If you think about it, the situation with DE isn't dissimilar from the situation with "gun control". Gun control really just targets the law-abiding citizens and does little to deal with criminals (short of making life safer for them, that is). DE needlessly endangers law-abiding citizens, puts them in a crappy situation with no good options, while only being necessary when you know for sure you're dealing with a well-known criminal from whom you expect active armed resistance. For everything else, as someone here said, "How much cocaine is your life worth?"

nick
01-01-2009, 8:26 PM
Hmm, I do overuse "so's", don't I? :)

To the original poster - I appreciate you restarting this topic, thank you. I read the original one, and it went downhill quickly, which is why, I think, it got banned. Yeah, it's not very pro-1st Amendment, but from I've noticed, this site has a specific agenda, and it has more to do with the 2A than 1A. Unfortunately, in our days we don't believe that regular people (as in non-criminals) can have faults, and so I think they're policing this site to remove any appearance of impropriety in order to be able to advance their cause, and to remain online, rather than being branded the nest of extremism and lose credibility with the regular people.

Harrison_Bergeron
01-01-2009, 8:27 PM
My reference to a LEO shooting through the door was in reference to Peyton Strickland.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1419/story/522546.html

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


Sorry, my original thought was half completed.

One day there's going to be a bad raid (think wrong house or something), and an innocent citizen is gonna be injured/die (possibly the officers as well). That person will be pretty much unassailable, both legally and media wise (pastor, father of 4 or some such). I think then we'll see a case come up through the courts, and things will change. Until then, the local govs will settle out of court.

The other alternative involves a liability calculation on the PDs/local gov side. But the legal solution seems more binding (and long term).

Bad Voodoo
01-01-2009, 8:28 PM
If it's the criminals, I ought to start firing the moment they come in and I acquire the target, or else I might become a target. If it's the police, and I identify them as such, I'd hold my fire and, being a man with a gun at the ready, am likely to become a target still.

And that's the crux of this particular issue for me, wrapped nice as you please. We have no real personal protections or liberties in our current police state. Regardless what the 2/4A imply, there is simply no protection once you're in jail, broke, and/or dead. There are several active topics indicating as much.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 8:34 PM
Unfortunately, I think a "perfect" death is going to have to take place for the fourth amendment to clash with a bad dynamic entry...AND it will have to have the right circumstances to make it to SCOTUS.

Either...
A preacher is gonna have to mistakenly kill a cop...and the judge will say, "It's not reasonable for a law abiding citizen to lose his right to self-protection simply because he hears the word, "POLICE!!"

Or...
A cop is gonna have to kill a law abiding citizen at the wrong house.

THEN the cards will have to fall properly at SCOTUS.

CalCop
01-01-2009, 8:45 PM
For everything else, as someone here said, "How much cocaine is your life worth?"Or, in Peyton Strickland's case...how many Play Stations?

nick
01-01-2009, 8:49 PM
Or, in Peyton Strickland's case...how many Play Stations?

None, I do my gaming on a PC, when I do it at all. Now, if we're talking a good Alienware laptop here (well, it's Dell now)... :)

pizzatorte
01-01-2009, 8:56 PM
Any discussion of prosecution of criminal acts during violent warrant service by the police is moot as long as prosecutors at the local, state, and federal level refuse to press charges against fellow law enforcement officers. Taking a civil case to the supreme court would be meaningless.

Some stats gleaned from the Cato botched raid map (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/):


Of the 16 violent home invasions noted in 2008, 15 were for drug warrants; one was for child pornography.
Of the 91 violent home invasions for all reported years which resulted in someone dying, the justification in each case was suspicion of:


81 drug offenses
3 murder
2 robbery
2 gambling
1 firearms violation
1 report of an injured person
1 report of a depressed person

CalCop
01-01-2009, 9:05 PM
Any discussion of prosecution of criminal acts during violent warrant service by the police is moot as long as prosecutors at the local, state, and federal level refuse to press charges against fellow law enforcement officers.The cop who shot Peyton Strickland is being criminally investigated.

But, you're right, probably not likely on the cop doing the shooting...and getting charged...going to SCOTUS. More likely the preacher who shot the cop getting prosecuted for murder of a peace officer, like I said earlier:

A preacher is gonna have to mistakenly kill a cop (cops went to wrong house)...and the judge will say, "It's not reasonable for a law abiding citizen to lose his right to self-protection simply because he hears the word, "POLICE!!"

So, it will be the law abiding citizen fighting his murder charge that sets the precedent.

nick
01-01-2009, 9:12 PM
Well, that's going to cost some serious money. The kind of money most such citizens don't have.

Harrison_Bergeron
01-01-2009, 9:13 PM
The cop who shot Peyton Strickland is being criminally investigated.

Grand jury decided not to prosecute.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/strickland/story/637722.html

CalCop
01-01-2009, 9:19 PM
Grand jury decided not to prosecute.And it shouldn't have just been the cop investigated...it should have been all circumstances which led up to the search....what will it take. Even the grand jury, law abiding citizens, let this one go.

AKman
01-01-2009, 9:41 PM
I'm just a lowly, tax-paying "LAC." There is no valid reason to break down my door. None. Nada. Zip. OK, I do use a lot of water and electricity, which could be assumed to be a pot growing operation. However, the big ponds in the back yard and jungle landscaping answer that question. So, its 4 AM and I hear "Alert Zone 1" or "Alert Zone 2." I know I have company, and at 4 AM, most definitely unwanted. I have seconds to act before whoever set off the motion detectors reaches the house; its dark, I'm tired, probably had a glass or two of wine with dinner, and I know I have done absolutely nothing wrong that would warrant a police raid. The only reasonable assumption is that I face an imminent threat. Could it be a LE mistake? No, my neighbors are all LACs too, so its not a case of the wrong house. The local LE know who I am and I've been through their citizen's academy. It wouldn't be them. I'm upstairs, so I have plenty of time to arm myself (and my wife) and we have the ability to cover all entrances to the house in a cross-fire pattern. Someone breaks down the door; is it that guy I fired years ago that said he wanted to kill me, or is it my whacked ex-brother-in-law? I'm a LAC, I'm tired, its dark and I'm scared...and I'm armed with high-powered hunting rifles.

I'm glad I'm not A LEO...

Californio
01-02-2009, 8:57 AM
CalCop

Thanks for your service and discussing this issue. When I read my local Police Blotter most of the arrests are people already on probation. The Judicial System seems to have a revolving door of repeat offenders. We also have a Trillion $$ worldwide trade in narcotics. Gangs are enriched by profits made by selling drugs and gang members are becoming more violent. In my town 20 somethings that have done time come back and are decision makers for younger and younger recruits. In the last 12 months three 13-15 year old kids have been killed with knives, gang on gang. Many more beaten and robbed; in the North County firearms have been used but thankfully we have not seen it yet here. We have some very rabid young teens that have no problem killing.

Police have militarized in my lifetime because of the increase of gang/drug violence and of course our jails are overflowing resulting in way too much probation being handed out by the courts.

Police Officer raids that I have seen have an 8 to 1 or better ratio in favor of the Police, as it should be but militarization also has its down side, the DE issue being discussed.

Police do need the odds in their favor, to be able to go home safety to their loved ones at night also.

I agree that DE rules need to be corrected and better controlled but the major issues that got us to DE in the first place are not being addressed.

Drugs have become such major profit centers, in my County 365K pot plants were recovered last year, that it is becoming unsafe to hike in parts of the National Forest, pot grows that are being run by illegals.

The DE tactic has evolved because of the above. I think we as a society need to look at the root of why more and more DE is used and go to the root of the problem.

Violent Criminal Gangs run on $$$, somehow we have to take the $$$ out of their equation.

If someone breaks down my door at night it will be a mess, my dogs will respond, I will respond to protect wife, children and myself, I certainly don’t want to be on the wrong end of a DE mistake. AKman I hear you.

MP301
01-02-2009, 9:04 AM
Great input CalCop. Its hard to do the balancing act that LE's have to do. Some fail miserably and some (like yourself) dont. I appreciate your ability not to let the stupid stuff bother you.

Many years ago, a guy got snagged by the CRACKNET (Combined county/city drug unit). He had 5 pounds of Pot.

LE figured he would have more drugs and evidence at his residence, and determined where he lived by his drivers lic. I dont remember if he said he lived there as well.

So, They got a search warrant and decided to raid the house in the wee hours of the morning. The Policy of this particular agency is to use the SWAT team for all search warrants due the death of a detective (son of a the chief of police at the time).

A friend of mine, on the SWAT team, was the first to enter after the knock and announcement, in English and Spanish (The suspect was hispanic). When my friend entered the bedroom, the occupant just waking from all the commotion, grabbed a .357 on his nightstand. Both the occupant and my friend fired simultaenously resulting in both of their deaths.

Turned out that the guy originally arrested was just using that address to get mail with the permission of the real residents. Nothing illegal in the house.

Were these deaths worth it over 5 lbs of pot? Scary to think that this kinda stuff happens..... Scary to think of what you would do if you were raided in the wee hours of the morning.... If you defend yourself and its the police, they will most likely kill you...if you dont and its a home invasion...they will most likely kill you.....

nick
01-02-2009, 9:22 AM
CalCop

Thanks for your service and discussing this issue. When I read my local Police Blotter most of the arrests are people already on probation. The Judicial System seems to have a revolving door of repeat offenders. We also have a Trillion $$ worldwide trade in narcotics. Gangs are enriched by profits made by selling drugs and gang members are becoming more violent. In my town 20 somethings that have done time come back and are decision makers for younger and younger recruits. In the last 12 months three 13-15 year old kids have been killed with knives, gang on gang. Many more beaten and robbed; in the North County firearms have been used but thankfully we have not seen it yet here. We have some very rabid young teens that have no problem killing.

Police have militarized in my lifetime because of the increase of gang/drug violence and of course our jails are overflowing resulting in way too much probation being handed out by the courts.

Police Officer raids that I have seen have an 8 to 1 or better ratio in favor of the Police, as it should be but militarization also has its down side, the DE issue being discussed.

Police do need the odds in their favor, to be able to go home safety to their loved ones at night also.

I agree that DE rules need to be corrected and better controlled but the major issues that got us to DE in the first place are not being addressed.

Drugs have become such major profit centers, in my County 365K pot plants were recovered last year, that it is becoming unsafe to hike in parts of the National Forest, pot grows that are being run by illegals.

The DE tactic has evolved because of the above. I think we as a society need to look at the root of why more and more DE is used and go to the root of the problem.

Violent Criminal Gangs run on $$$, somehow we have to take the $$$ out of their equation.

If someone breaks down my door at night it will be a mess, my dogs will respond, I will respond to protect wife, children and myself, I certainly don’t want to be on the wrong end of a DE mistake. AKman I hear you.

Funny that you mention it. My girlfriend and I once (or twice, or maybe a few more times :)) sat down and tried to take a look at the problems our society is facing, and the root cause of those problems. After all, one has to know the root cause before trying to fix the problem, if one's to fix the problem at all, right? So, the root cause, in most, if not all cases wasn't economical or political, but cultural. It all basically got back to the cultural issues.Either it's a cultural shift that makes us tolerate something we wouldn't tolerate before, that makes many things acceptable by the society now, or it's the introduction of different cultural traits into our society, or it's the shift in societal goals, whatever problems we could think of returned to those and other cultural issues. One of the main cultural issues it got back to was that we forgot that we have a distinct culture. As such, anything goes, as it may not be acceptable in what used to be our culture, but it may be acceptable in some other culture, and who are we to impose our culture upom other people, etc. etc. Anyway, the rant is off, but it's something consider. Especially since, contrary to the popular media belief, there is such thing as a distinct American culture.

AKman
01-02-2009, 9:29 AM
Any discussion of prosecution of criminal acts during violent warrant service by the police is moot as long as prosecutors at the local, state, and federal level refuse to press charges against fellow law enforcement officers. Taking a civil case to the supreme court would be meaningless.

Some stats gleaned from the Cato botched raid map (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/):


Of the 16 violent home invasions noted in 2008, 15 were for drug warrants; one was for child pornography.
Of the 91 violent home invasions for all reported years which resulted in someone dying, the justification in each case was suspicion of:


81 drug offenses
3 murder
2 robbery
2 gambling
1 firearms violation
1 report of an injured person
1 report of a depressed person

Everyone would be safer if the "war on drugs" used some common sense. While I think drugs are a complete waste of time and money, people's lives can be devastated just because they smoke pot. 90+ percent of people shown in the the "crime stoppers" section of the newspaper are wanted for "UI Drugs". Clearly major threats to society, but only in terms of their lack of productivity and failure to earn money, be good consumers and pay taxes. Remove drugs from the above list and the probability of a botched raid goes down significantly. At least the laws were changed related to property seizures for drug crimes. The case of Donald P. Scott was particularly embarrassing for LE and only cost LA County and the US Government $5 million. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jan/12/local/me-53217

Harrison_Bergeron
01-02-2009, 11:27 AM
Funny that you mention it. My girlfriend and I once (or twice, or maybe a few more times :)) sat down and tried to take a look at the problems our society is facing, and the root cause of those problems. After all, one has to know the root cause before trying to fix the problem, if one's to fix the problem at all, right? So, the root cause, in most, if not all cases wasn't economical or political, but cultural. It all basically got back to the cultural issues.Either it's a cultural shift that makes us tolerate something we wouldn't tolerate before, that makes many things acceptable by the society now, or it's the introduction of different cultural traits into our society, or it's the shift in societal goals, whatever problems we could think of returned to those and other cultural issues. One of the main cultural issues it got back to was that we forgot that we have a distinct culture. As such, anything goes, as it may not be acceptable in what used to be our culture, but it may be acceptable in some other culture, and who are we to impose our culture upom other people, etc. etc. Anyway, the rant is off, but it's something consider. Especially since, contrary to the popular media belief, there is such thing as a distinct American culture.

Is this a reference to drug use/sale or militarization of LE?

nick
01-02-2009, 11:33 AM
Is this a reference to drug use/sale or militarization of LE?

The acceptance of the drug culture, and, well, not so much the militarization of the LE (it simply responds to the new threat levels), but the change in LE and justice system culture (generally accepted by the citizenry) which allows for DE, throwing charges at innocent citizens in retaliation, etc.

Harrison_Bergeron
01-02-2009, 11:36 AM
How would moonshine and Nascar, and the failure of prohibition to stick all together work in to your theory that the acceptance of drugs is due to the influence of those from outside the U.S.?

tyrist
01-02-2009, 11:42 AM
Everyone would be safer if the "war on drugs" used some common sense. While I think drugs are a complete waste of time and money, people's lives can be devastated just because they smoke pot. 90+ percent of people shown in the the "crime stoppers" section of the newspaper are wanted for "UI Drugs". Clearly major threats to society, but only in terms of their lack of productivity and failure to earn money, be good consumers and pay taxes. Remove drugs from the above list and the probability of a botched raid goes down significantly. At least the laws were changed related to property seizures for drug crimes. The case of Donald P. Scott was particularly embarrassing for LE and only cost LA County and the US Government $5 million. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jan/12/local/me-53217

Most of the property crimes and violent crimes revolve around the drug trade...why is it when we scoop up all the baseheads all of a sudden burglaries and robberies drop...hmm I wonder.

nick
01-02-2009, 11:54 AM
How would moonshine and Nascar, and the failure of prohibition to stick all together work in to your theory that the acceptance of drugs is due to the influence of those from outside the U.S.?


I didn't say the influence from outside the US is chiefly responsible for this. I said that we worked hard to lose our identity from the 1960's on, and our acceptance of the drug culture is one of the resulting issues.

Additionally, drugs weren't really a part of our culture the way alcohol was.

nick
01-02-2009, 11:54 AM
Most of the property crimes and violent crimes revolve around the drug trade...why is it when we scoop up all the baseheads all of a sudden burglaries and robberies drop...hmm I wonder.

Coincidence :)

pizzatorte
01-02-2009, 12:04 PM
Most of the property crimes and violent crimes revolve around the drug trade...why is it when we scoop up all the baseheads all of a sudden burglaries and robberies drop...hmm I wonder.

This obviously does not demonstrate that drugs cause other crimes.

fullrearview
01-02-2009, 12:33 PM
There were some inappropriate cop-hater comments, I get that. But there was also some very good discussion going on. Cops have an inherently dangerous job. But, is it really necessary to storm the house, kill the mayors dogs, and cuff his wife because of some pot? I am putting myself in the situation of the homeowner of the botched entry. If someone yelled police and rammed in my door, am I really supposed to lay down and take it? If it is the bad man, now I will have to watch as my wife and children are raped? Screw that. Just because the cops got the wrong house does not mean that the citizen has no right to defend himself. I am glad I am not on the SWAT team...very dangerous...they are just following orders...don't get to pick whose house they search. My assignment does sometimes entail writing search warrants. Really careful about what I decide my partners' lives are worth...and the collateral damage to the relationship with the community should things go wrong. The castle doctrine should be broader and stronger. A man's home should be considered more sacred than it is at this time. Any other LEOs want to chime in and tell me why I'm wrong...feel free...I'm open to it. This is just some more recent critical thinking I have been doing on how and why we do what we do as cops.

I agree to an extent......good police work would eliminate the need most of the time, but they are useful in some situations.

GuyW
01-02-2009, 12:59 PM
How about LE using the robots that are currently deployed in Iraq that search for IEDs? An officer can deliver the warrant from the safety of a remote location, watching the action from a TV screen.

?...because it would morph into using robots for unConstitutional no-knock warrants??
.

nobody_special
01-02-2009, 1:14 PM
Most of the property crimes and violent crimes revolve around the drug trade...why is it when we scoop up all the baseheads all of a sudden burglaries and robberies drop...hmm I wonder.
The usual counter-argument is that the crime is not a result of the drugs per se, but rather a result of the criminalization of drugs.

I'm not sure, but I suspect decriminalization would solve a lot of problems.

RoninSarge
01-02-2009, 1:26 PM
Here is another link for anyone who thinks bad raids only occur "Rarely"

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

38 occurrences in California from March 1985 through August of 2007. That averages to approximately 1.7 per year.

Nationwide, 333 occurrences during the same time period, or approximately 15.1 per year.

Depending on your definition of rarely (Webster defines it as, not often: SELDOM"; which is then translated as, in few instances).

Considering the amount of search & arrest warrants served each year by ALL (the 333 occurrences includes NATIONWIDE incidents) law enforcement agencies, I could say it happens rarely.

It would be nice for this NEVER to happen. But, anytime humans are involved in the process, mistakes will happen. And for the cynics out there, if you have never experienced a mistake at the hands of another, then great for you! Consider yourself blessed.

fullrearview
01-02-2009, 1:44 PM
The usual counter-argument is that the crime is not a result of the drugs per se, but rather a result of the criminalization of drugs.

I'm not sure, but I suspect decriminalization would solve a lot of problems.

that's a load of crap! decriminalize drugs and this country will go down the toilet even faster!

RoninSarge
01-02-2009, 2:26 PM
Unfortunately, I think a "perfect" death is going to have to take place for the fourth amendment to clash with a bad dynamic entry...AND it will have to have the right circumstances to make it to SCOTUS.

Either...
A preacher is gonna have to mistakenly kill a cop...and the judge will say, "It's not reasonable for a law abiding citizen to lose his right to self-protection simply because he hears the word, "POLICE!!"

Or...
A cop is gonna have to kill a law abiding citizen at the wrong house.

THEN the cards will have to fall properly at SCOTUS.

The 4th Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Dynamic Entry has nothing to do with a violation of the 4th Amendment. DE is a tactic. If the officer who wrote the warrant falsifies the probable cause, then I would agree that officer should be criminally charged (civil suits can almost be a certainty). Therefore, the SCOTUS will have no oversight into such a matter. Not to say that it can't happen!!!

Some legislator will broaden their interpretation as to what was originally written by our forefathers. That is for a whole different topic of discussion!

And for those who think that the "War on drugs" is not necessary and that common sense enforcement should be used on a victimless crime. Look at Tijuana and the slaughters that are occurring there and the associated organized crime. The same organized crime that is also responsible for human trafficking, slavery, prostitution (of both children & adults), murders and the list can go on.

CalCop
01-02-2009, 2:36 PM
The 4th Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Dynamic Entry has nothing to do with a violation of the 4th Amendment. DE is a tactic. I respectfully disagree. I think that a search warrant for drugs can be reasonable. But a dynamic entry to search for drugs is an unreasonable search because it goes beyond the kind of search that is reasonable under the circumstances.

Californio
01-02-2009, 2:39 PM
I picked this out of LA Times, the war on drugs is made that much more complicated when the Judicial Branch of Government does not get with the program. Bet they were illegally in the US to boot.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-drugbust2-2009jan02,0,5056633.story

From the Los Angeles Times
MEXICO UNDER SIEGE
Covina arrests mystify a neighborhood
After two Mexican federal agents and two others were arrested in July on drug-related charges, little has emerged about the case and residents are puzzled.
By Paul Pringle

January 2, 2009

The residents of North Monte Verde Drive, a stretch of oak-shaded suburban calm in the Covina area, normally would feel safe knowing that two off-duty police officers were visiting the neighborhood.

Not this time. These officers were far from home -- agents of the Mexican federal police -- and they ended up on the wrong side of a bust, with a fortune in cash that prosecutors say was tied to narcotics trafficking.

The raid in July raised the specter that the often-brutal workings of the Mexican drug trade have reached deep into Southern California. But five months later, the fuller background of the case remains a mystery.

"We all just sort of went, 'Yikes!' " Susan Wood, a longtime Monte Verde resident, said of the possible link between her neighborhood and the mayhem a country away. "This isn't a drug-trafficky area at all."

No connections to Mexican drug syndicates have been alleged in the Covina case, and defense attorneys say there are none. But speculation has been fueled by the fact that authorities have been unusually tight-lipped about the circumstances surrounding the arrests and the direction of their investigation.

One of the Mexican suspects, a federal police commander based in the border city of Mexicali, is believed to have been the target of an assassination attempt there last summer, when gunmen shot up his car and killed two of his aides.

The commander, Carlos Cedano Filippini, 35, was not in the vehicle at the time. Mexican media reported that Cedano abandoned his job after the shooting.

He was the second Mexican federal officer arrested in a Southern California drug probe in three weeks. Earlier in July, agents from the state Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement arrested Omar Lugo and another man in Riverside County on suspicion of transporting 154 pounds of cocaine in their car. A judge later ordered the two suspects released, ruling in favor of defense attorneys who said officers had lacked probable cause to search the car, said Orlando Lopez, a special agent in charge for the bureau. That ruling is under appeal and an investigation is continuing, Lopez said.

Narcotics-related violence in Mexico claimed more than 5,000 lives last year, as rival drug cartels battle over smuggling routes and beleaguered government forces press a crackdown. The spoils of the carnage are narcotics bound for the United States -- Southern California is a top trans-shipment point -- but there have been few outward signs here of cartel operations and attendant bloodshed.

Like Wood, other Monte Verde residents said they know nothing about the case beyond what they had learned in news reports, and very little about the occupants of the spacious home where the Mexicans were taken into custody. Some residents were fearful of being quoted by name.

"It's like a TV show," a neighbor said of the case.

Arrested along with the agents were two U.S. citizens, siblings Hector and Julissa Lopez. Their parents, who live in the 4,800-square-foot house at the end of a long driveway, have not been implicated, authorities say.

Julissa Lopez, 36, is the common-law wife of Cedano, the commander from Mexico's Federal Investigative Agency, that nation's equivalent of the FBI. Also charged is one of Cedano's officers, Victor M. Juarez, 36.

The four have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court on charges of possessing more than $630,000 as part of an alleged drug transaction. If convicted, they face a maximum of four years in prison.

A stakeout team of narcotics investigators stormed the house and spotted the defendants walking out of a bedroom, according to prosecutors. Seized along with the suitcase full of cash were a money-counting machine, other bundles of currency, heat-sealable packets for the bills, and lists of payments and debts for narcotics, authorities say. Defense attorneys have said the lists were innocent jottings of family activities.

No drugs were found, but a police dog trained to sniff out narcotics residue showed a positive response to the suitcase and to other items in the bedroom, investigators say.

A preliminary hearing provided scant insight into the probe, with testimony focusing mainly on details of the surveillance and search of the house.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Oscar Plascencia, who is prosecuting the case, declined to comment, as did officials of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the Los Angeles Police Department, which are conducting the investigation. Shortly after the arrests, a DEA spokeswoman said the stakeout team had not expected to encounter Mexican agents at the house, but she did not elaborate.

Mexican authorities did not return phone calls.

The court record already could fill a wheelbarrow. Defense attorneys have filed lengthy motions seeking to dismiss the charges on grounds that there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. They also challenged the bail amounts -- originally $2 million -- and got them reduced.

In addition, the defense has filed a writ with the state appeals court asking that the case be thrown out because investigators have refused to answer questions about what led them to the house and why they had concluded that drug dealing was involved.

"Their case is based on guesswork, not evidence," said Mark Werksman, an attorney for Julissa Lopez. "All they've got is a bunch of money. They're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill."

Investigators say they saw Hector Lopez and Juarez arrive at the home with bags of what appeared to be bricks of drugs or cash.

Later, they say, they stopped a woman who drove away from the house with a suspicious parcel -- she has not been charged -- and they discovered that it contained only meat, which Werksman said was for a restaurant the Lopez family owns. The investigators say they then entered the house to make the arrests.

To date, Hector Lopez, 33, is the lone defendant to be released on bail. Attempts to reach him for comment were unsuccessful, and his attorney did not return calls.

A friend of Julissa Lopez, Heidy Gallegos, submitted a letter to the court as a character reference. In an interview, she said Lopez's arrest was "very shocking. . . . It's scary."

Gallegos, a nurse, said she did not believe Lopez could do anything illegal. She said Lopez helped out at her father's tire business but otherwise spent all of her time with the three children she has with Cedano.

"She's your typical soccer mom -- very loving. Her priority is her kids," said Gallegos, adding that she met Lopez when she was her patient more than a year ago.

Lopez would talk about the strain of having a husband who worked across the border, Gallegos recounted.

"All she would tell me is that she would miss him, because he had to travel back and forth with his job," Gallegos said. "I remember the kids saying how much they missed their dad, how much they loved their dad."

Gallegos also recalled the day that Lopez told her about the attempt on Cedano's life: "I thought, 'Wow!' I was amazed."

An attorney for Cedano has said his client had to flee to the United States to escape the would-be assassins. It is not clear what prompted the shooting in Mexicali.

Neighbors on Monte Verde, which runs along the Covina-West Covina line, told of having no inkling of trouble at the Lopez home, whose wrought-iron driveway gate has been adorned with Christmas decorations.

"Everybody was surprised," said one neighbor who resides on the same side of the street, where old horse corrals share sprawling lots with newer homes. "We have no problems here."

Virginia Yeager lives in a house that her husband's family built in 1932. She said the neighborhood had changed a lot over the decades, with newcomers from Latin America and Asia moving in. She said burglaries are a worry, but there has been nothing to suggest the faintest echo of a distant drug war.

"I haven't heard about that up here," Yeager said. "You just kind of keep in your own little enclave."

paul.pringle@latimes.com

Californio
01-02-2009, 2:50 PM
Like any War, you either play to win or go home. 98% of the worlds heroin comes from where? I say napalm the fields. The war on drugs is being fought like Nam, one hand tied behind our back, it cannot be won in this fashion, its a loose loose. Either play to win or decriminalize it and deprive the criminals of the profits just like ending Prohibition did, also make UI laws tougher for all forms of UI.

RoninSarge
01-02-2009, 3:26 PM
I respectfully disagree. I think that a search warrant for drugs can be reasonable. But a dynamic entry to search for drugs is an unreasonable search because it goes beyond the kind of search that is reasonable under the circumstances.

:)

Ah, you are thinking outside of the box. But, I think you are going in the wrong direction. You are associating Dynamic ENTRY tactics as part of the search. An entry is not a search. Remember DE can be used for a variety of circumstances (i.e. ARREST warrants & Hostage Rescue).

The SCOTUS has made rulings regarding Unreasonable Searches as it relates to the Fourth Amendment (Katz v. United States (the Katz test ruling), Rakas v. Illinois, Minnesota v. Carter, to name a few).

"The landmark case Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." Under this “new” analysis of the Fourth Amendment, privacy expectations deemed unreasonable by society cannot be validated by any steps taken by the defendant to shield the area from view."

Obtained from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Nothing there indicates that the tactics/method used to enter are considered part of the search.

pnkssbtz
01-02-2009, 3:27 PM
I don't like knock warrants because they tip the bad guy off and let him get his gun. I don't like no-knocks because of the confusion of who is at the door...good guy or bad guy? If you read the post you are quoting me from, you'll see that the kinds of arrests I referred to that I would be comfortable participatin in...are the kind that use a ruse to take the bad guy when he's away from his home. The immediate protection of life that I am talking about...if an innocent is in a home with a bad guy, and their life is threatened...then DE is necessary...otherwise...I don't like it.Sounds like you are a damn SMART cop! :thumbsup:

Why can't more understand what you clearly do? That is exactly the way you should execute an arrest.


My objection with DE no-knocks is that there is a very very restricted purview in which they are justified. But with the over abundance SWAT teams and cool gear LEO's are just itching to use, that when this overzealousness is combined with incomplete intelligence the true atrocities occur.

That is, how the police's cover up and other post-botched raid actions. Such as criminally charging the guy who was innocent and not the subject of the warrant for defending himself. Or taking a shotgun at point blank range to a 14 year old boys head, blowing it all over the place, whom had nothing to the crime itself except to be the son of th person they were going after. The father of which they had no real evidence on, nor did they gain any in the raid.



Could someone in favor of DE no-knocks could kindly explain to me the justification for SWAT teams to be used in a robbery case involving teenagers and a PS3, or why SWAT team members are needed to execute a warrant that is the result of unpaid parking tickets, etc?

eta34
01-02-2009, 3:32 PM
Perhaps you could give more details about the PS3 robbery. Was it an armed robbery? Were any weapons used?

Regarding the unpaid parking tickets, is there an actual event associated with this or is this a hypothetical scenario? I am not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to get the facts before I chime in.

1,000th post by the way! Guess I am a true loser :)

pnkssbtz
01-02-2009, 3:36 PM
I respectfully disagree. I think that a search warrant for drugs can be reasonable. But a dynamic entry to search for drugs is an unreasonable search because it goes beyond the kind of search that is reasonable under the circumstances.While I must agree with your assessment of reasonable, I must point out the caveat of such arbitrary evaluations that can result in the loss of someone's constitutional rights.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

pizzatorte
01-02-2009, 3:40 PM
Just to be clear "dynamic entry" is a bald-faced euphemism. The reality is multiple armed men, usually with automatic weapons and face masks, bash in someone's front door and swarm through the house screaming and pointing loaded weapons at everyone inside. If someone has a less sugar coated expression, I'd love to use it. "Violent home invasion" is the closest I can conjour, but that's as antagonistic as dynamic entry is deceptive.

The rationale for this violent tactic is 1) officer safety and 2) precluding the destruction of evidence. Given the number of police killed during both legal and illegal no-knock warrant service, reason dictates a serious reexamination of the effectiveness of the tactic in serving the first point. Pretty much the only evidence that anyone seems to be worried about losing is the prohibited drug stash that might go down the toilet. Even if the goal of preserving banned substance evidence is justified, the threat and use of deadly force must be equally justified in balance with this goal. I fear anyone who thinks seizing drugs are worth jeopardizing a human life.

pnkssbtz
01-02-2009, 3:44 PM
Perhaps you could give more details about the PS3 robbery. Was it an armed robbery? Were any weapons used?

Regarding the unpaid parking tickets, is there an actual event associated with this or is this a hypothetical scenario? I am not trying to stir up trouble, just trying to get the facts before I chime in.

1,000th post by the way! Guess I am a true loser :)In the case of the PS3 incident, A group of teens fraudulently set up a craigslist purchase of a PS3 from a guy who drove 2 miles to a remote gas station at in the early AM in San Diego to do the transaction/exchange. The perpetrators used mace to subdue the victim and steal the PS3.

Craigslist complied and divulged the information on the assailants to the police who then found an address. The police found the suspects myspace page where the suspect had pictures of *guess what!!!* him shooting a shotgun/rifle whatever. (Sound familiar?) Based on that evidence they were able to obtain a dynamic-entry warrant for arrest.

When the SWAT team went to arrest the kid, the kid's family had a frosted glass front door. A LEO with an MP5 was covering the door while another swat team member was going to use a battering ram to break the door. The suspect upon hearing a door bell went to the front door still holding the wireless PS3 controller as he had paused the game and went to investigate the doorbell.

As the suspect was approaching the front door, the LEO with the battering ram struck the door, the LEO with the MP5 seeing a "dark object in the kids hand" yet was seeing through frosted glass, HEARING the "battering ram" opened fire on the kid through the door, killing him. The LEO with the MP5 later "claimed" to have heard "gunshots". Which was proven false. The only sound that he heard was the sound of the door breaking by the LEO next to him.


As to the Parking Ticket case, I can't remember the specific incident, but I remember a video of a swat team van pulling over a guy and taking him into custody at gun point and a news article about the guy having a warrant for unpaid parking tickets.

Bad Voodoo
01-02-2009, 4:03 PM
The LEO with the MP5 later "claimed" to have heard "gunshots".

"Your eyes are glassy and red."
"I smell a distinct odor of alcohol."

Ahhh, ok, now things are starting to sound a bit more familiar.

nick
01-02-2009, 4:09 PM
:)

Ah, you are thinking outside of the box. But, I think you are going in the wrong direction. You are associating Dynamic ENTRY tactics as part of the search. An entry is not a search. Remember DE can be used for a variety of circumstances (i.e. ARREST warrants & Hostage Rescue).

The SCOTUS has made rulings regarding Unreasonable Searches as it relates to the Fourth Amendment (Katz v. United States (the Katz test ruling), Rakas v. Illinois, Minnesota v. Carter, to name a few).

"The landmark case Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." Under this “new” analysis of the Fourth Amendment, privacy expectations deemed unreasonable by society cannot be validated by any steps taken by the defendant to shield the area from view."

Obtained from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Nothing there indicates that the tactics/method used to enter are considered part of the search.

I think, this threat isn't about the legality of DE, but about whether it's something the society should accept or not. If something is passed as a law, it doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, moral, or just plain right. Just look at the number of laws ruled unconstitutional. The Constitution supposedly encompasses the values our society was built upon, however, the interpretations of its rather plain language go wild.

nick
01-02-2009, 4:12 PM
1,000th post by the way! Guess I am a true loser :)

1000th post since Oct 2006, who are you to talk :p

N6ATF
01-02-2009, 4:32 PM
The usual counter-argument is that the crime is not a result of the drugs per se, but rather a result of the criminalization of drugs.

I'm not sure, but I suspect decriminalization would solve a lot of problems.

I don't. Decriminalization will not make drugs any more affordable. UI and addicted douchebags without decent, or any, employment will continue to not be able to afford the drugs, and will continue to need to commit primarily burglaries (home, commercial, and vehicle) to find stuff to steal, fence, and then pay for the drugs. God help any violent crime (rape, ADW, murder) that they divert into committing because someone was around.

If you watch the crime video shows, what's the second most common thing to be taken in a convenience store robbery? 1=money 2=cigarettes 3=alcohol. And the medical marijuana dispensaries have been getting robbed of their pot. Current legal drugs are no less related to crime.

Drug dealing gangs will continue to have turf wars because supply and demand will continue to exist and they have already demonstrated they have no care for the law in regards to non-drug offenses (weapons possession, ADW, murder...)

Growers will continue to use remote public lands to grow on and will not allow their profit to go to waste because of outdoor enthusiasts either reporting public lands being used for taxless private enterprise, or harvesting and taking the product away themselves.

Organized crime and terrorism will still be supported by drugs whether they are illegal or not. Why give up a major revenue stream just because it's legalized?

The drug war is more like a cold war. Until I start seeing massive bombing and casualties on the opposing side, I consider it a failure. We will never win the drug war as long as they're killing more through outright violence or drug-induced deaths than we are. Surrender through legalization leading to sanctioned anarchy is the opposite direction we need to go.

GuyW
01-02-2009, 4:38 PM
:)
Nothing there indicates that the tactics/method used to enter are considered part of the search.

? I thought no-knock warrants required additional judicial scrutiny? (I almost made myself laugh there...)
.

pizzatorte
01-02-2009, 4:56 PM
I don't. Decriminalization will not make drugs any more affordable. UI and addicted douchebags without decent, or any, employment will continue to not be able to afford the drugs, and will continue to need to commit primarily burglaries (home, commercial, and vehicle) to find stuff to steal, fence, and then pay for the drugs. God help any violent crime (rape, ADW, murder) that they divert into committing because someone was around.

If you watch the crime video shows, what's the second most common thing to be taken in a convenience store robbery? 1=money 2=cigarettes 3=alcohol. And the medical marijuana dispensaries have been getting robbed of their pot. Current legal drugs are no less related to crime.

Drug dealing gangs will continue to have turf wars because supply and demand will continue to exist and they have already demonstrated they have no care for the law in regards to non-drug offenses (weapons possession, ADW, murder...)

Growers will continue to use remote public lands to grow on and will not allow their profit to go to waste because of outdoor enthusiasts either reporting public lands being used for taxless private enterprise, or harvesting and taking the product away themselves.

Organized crime and terrorism will still be supported by drugs whether they are illegal or not. Why give up a major revenue stream just because it's legalized?

The drug war is more like a cold war. Until I start seeing massive bombing and casualties on the opposing side, I consider it a failure. We will never win the drug war as long as they're killing more through outright violence or drug-induced deaths than we are. Surrender through legalization leading to sanctioned anarchy is the opposite direction we need to go.

Please compare and contrast with the violence during alcohol prohibition in the US. I'd like to understand how the two are any different, other than us thinking today that one is stupid and the other is worth billions of dollars, overflowing prisons, and an enormous body count.

N6ATF
01-02-2009, 5:30 PM
I wasn't alive then. Sorry. :rolleyes:

nobody_special
01-02-2009, 5:40 PM
that's a load of crap! decriminalize drugs and this country will go down the toilet even faster!
Oh, what an eloquent and persuasive argument... I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

nobody_special
01-02-2009, 5:48 PM
I don't. Decriminalization will not make drugs any more affordable. UI and addicted douchebags without decent, or any, employment will continue to not be able to afford the drugs, and will continue to need to commit primarily burglaries (home, commercial, and vehicle) to find stuff to steal, fence, and then pay for the drugs. God help any violent crime (rape, ADW, murder) that they divert into committing because someone was around.

If you watch the crime video shows, what's the second most common thing to be taken in a convenience store robbery? 1=money 2=cigarettes 3=alcohol. And the medical marijuana dispensaries have been getting robbed of their pot. Current legal drugs are no less related to crime.

Drug dealing gangs will continue to have turf wars because supply and demand will continue to exist and they have already demonstrated they have no care for the law in regards to non-drug offenses (weapons possession, ADW, murder...)

Growers will continue to use remote public lands to grow on and will not allow their profit to go to waste because of outdoor enthusiasts either reporting public lands being used for taxless private enterprise, or harvesting and taking the product away themselves.

Organized crime and terrorism will still be supported by drugs whether they are illegal or not. Why give up a major revenue stream just because it's legalized?

The drug war is more like a cold war. Until I start seeing massive bombing and casualties on the opposing side, I consider it a failure. We will never win the drug war as long as they're killing more through outright violence or drug-induced deaths than we are. Surrender through legalization leading to sanctioned anarchy is the opposite direction we need to go.
That's a lot of supposition without much basis in economics. The current war on drugs is analogous to Prohibition of the 1920's, which caused a massive increase in crime (the Buerau of Prohibition enforcement costs alone increased by a factor of about 6 from 1920 to 1930) and the price of alcohol (by a factor of 2-3).

Kid Stanislaus
01-02-2009, 6:03 PM
Violent criminals have used "Police search warrant!" to gain an advantage.


Its my impression that its the standard practice when a home invasion takes place. Could be wrong, I was once before!;)

N6ATF
01-02-2009, 6:08 PM
I don't see the analogy. Prohibition stopped legitimate businesses, and legitimate businesses came back after the repeal. Though moonshiners are still subject to police raids, as of a few days ago. The last people to run a legitimate business before drug criminalization started are probably dead. So you're basically asking all the existing infrastructure of criminals to suddenly legitimize their activities. Even with amnesty, do you really expect them to suddenly become model citizens, business owners and workers? I don't.

SkatinJJ
01-02-2009, 6:21 PM
I don't see the analogy. Prohibition stopped legitimate businesses, and legitimate businesses came back after the repeal. Though moonshiners are still subject to police raids, as of a few days ago. The last people to run a legitimate business before drug criminalization started are probably dead. So you're basically asking all the existing infrastructure of criminals to suddenly legitimize their activities. Even with amnesty, do you really expect them to suddenly become model citizens, business owners and workers? I don't.

The Drug Cartels benefit from the prohibition on drugs. It keeps the prices high and there's always the possibility of taking over someone else's market through murder.

They could be granted amnesty for the drugs and the trafficking, but not for any murder. This is unrelated to the drugs as a specific crime...With no statute of limitations, this will be a no-go for the drug cartels.

Kid Stanislaus
01-02-2009, 6:24 PM
Well, it's the common problem - settlements, which don't usually resolve anything.

WHAT? You mean that right after the settlement is signed innocent lives lost don't suddenly spring to life? I'm ASTOUNDED!!

Kid Stanislaus
01-02-2009, 6:26 PM
"Background investigation standards have necessarily been lowered to fill the ranks with new blood."

What more need be said?

nobody_special
01-02-2009, 6:54 PM
I don't see the analogy. Prohibition stopped legitimate businesses, and legitimate businesses came back after the repeal. Though moonshiners are still subject to police raids, as of a few days ago. The last people to run a legitimate business before drug criminalization started are probably dead. So you're basically asking all the existing infrastructure of criminals to suddenly legitimize their activities. Even with amnesty, do you really expect them to suddenly become model citizens, business owners and workers? I don't.

The Drug Cartels benefit from the prohibition on drugs. It keeps the prices high and there's always the possibility of taking over someone else's market through murder.

They could be granted amnesty for the drugs and the trafficking, but not for any murder. This is unrelated to the drugs as a specific crime...With no statute of limitations, this will be a no-go for the drug cartels.
Drug prohibition is what led to the formation of the cartels we have now. Legalization would not immediately end the cartels, but legal competition would certainly hurt their bottom line.

Harrison_Bergeron
01-02-2009, 7:09 PM
I think you are mixing two different incidents, the Peyton Strickland incident happened in North Carolina. I have found no mention of mace in any of the articles I've read on the incident. Craigslist also was not part of robbery, they stole from where the guy lived. The pics were of the suspects using someone elses guns. Strickland got up to answer the door, saw them through the window, and stopped(as anyone would do upon seeing masked gun man at the door) the officers took this as refusal to let them in, they hit the door, the cop shot through it upon hearing the battering ram.

Beating someone up over a game console is no small infraction, but it is definitely not worthy of death. That isn't even the most heinous part of the incident though, the important aspect of what happened is that when one of us proles shoots through the door(Ryan Frederick) we are locked up, the cop that shot Strickland was fired, but is free as a bird.

In the case of the PS3 incident, A group of teens fraudulently set up a craigslist purchase of a PS3 from a guy who drove 2 miles to a remote gas station at in the early AM in San Diego to do the transaction/exchange. The perpetrators used mace to subdue the victim and steal the PS3.

Craigslist complied and divulged the information on the assailants to the police who then found an address. The police found the suspects myspace page where the suspect had pictures of *guess what!!!* him shooting a shotgun/rifle whatever. (Sound familiar?) Based on that evidence they were able to obtain a dynamic-entry warrant for arrest.

When the SWAT team went to arrest the kid, the kid's family had a frosted glass front door. A LEO with an MP5 was covering the door while another swat team member was going to use a battering ram to break the door. The suspect upon hearing a door bell went to the front door still holding the wireless PS3 controller as he had paused the game and went to investigate the doorbell.

As the suspect was approaching the front door, the LEO with the battering ram struck the door, the LEO with the MP5 seeing a "dark object in the kids hand" yet was seeing through frosted glass, HEARING the "battering ram" opened fire on the kid through the door, killing him. The LEO with the MP5 later "claimed" to have heard "gunshots". Which was proven false. The only sound that he heard was the sound of the door breaking by the LEO next to him.


As to the Parking Ticket case, I can't remember the specific incident, but I remember a video of a swat team van pulling over a guy and taking him into custody at gun point and a news article about the guy having a warrant for unpaid parking tickets.

SkatinJJ
01-02-2009, 7:12 PM
Drug prohibition is what led to the formation of the cartels we have now. Legalization would not immediately end the cartels, but legal competition would certainly hurt their bottom line.

They can't go legit owing to the murder charges, they can't be part of the supply chain. They need not just the supply chain, but the distribution to the major inputs.

Contraposed to this is you and I go into the now legit drug business. We begin to grow our home grown "Jen and Berry's" handrolled chronic...:o

We're up against RJ Reynolds and the other big tobac growers, but we have a niche market among handrollin' specialists. We pay our taxes, have our EIS to grow in the national parks, and of course can't carry concealed in our place of business, Yosemite.

The drug cartels from yon south see us and the big Tobac as competition that they can't beat. So hen you can't beat them, or torture them, you kill them.

They'll run up a body count like Schwarzeneggar in a bad action film to try get the prohibition back, or just kill the competition.

AKman
01-02-2009, 9:26 PM
Most of the property crimes and violent crimes revolve around the drug trade...why is it when we scoop up all the baseheads all of a sudden burglaries and robberies drop...hmm I wonder.

My point was that not all drug users commit other crimes. I do not believe in victimless crimes like simple drug use. However, if someone commits a crime to support their drug habit, I support very harsh treatment (preferably death). During prohibition, most violent crime revolved around illegal alcohol operations. I suspect that the crime rate amongst medical marijuana users is virtually non-existent.

Seesm
01-02-2009, 10:04 PM
I wish I understood completely why they on here delete sh*t.. (in another thread) I had a nice bit of info on cops commending my buddy for not shooting a home intruder and keeping him alive at gun point and how they would have blasted him if it was them... BAM it was gone within a few hrs... WTF? Can someone PM me and explain why this... And yeah I guess delete this too? I have had LOTS of stuff deleted that I have typed up... Why is this?

I was enjoying that old forced entry thread kinda a bummer...

aileron
01-02-2009, 10:33 PM
The 4th Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Dynamic Entry has nothing to do with a violation of the 4th Amendment. DE is a tactic. If the officer who wrote the warrant falsifies the probable cause, then I would agree that officer should be criminally charged (civil suits can almost be a certainty). Therefore, the SCOTUS will have no oversight into such a matter. Not to say that it can't happen!!!

Some legislator will broaden their interpretation as to what was originally written by our forefathers. That is for a whole different topic of discussion!



Keep in mind that the enumerated rights are not all the rights, that they did not want to get into a discussion about what are the rights that the people have. Because they would leave out rights, and they knew it, which would bar people access to all their rights. They enumerated restrictions of government infringement on some rights. The ninth spells out that they're far more rights than those they mention.

So the 9th basically is at odds with prohibition. How can you say that someone cannot put something in their own bodies? That's where you get into where does the government get the power to regulate what people can do to themselves?

It wasn't spelled out that the government could. Cannabis was legal, now its not; from what I remember about that story, it had to do with hemp growers competing with the cotton industry. So here we are now, after the wedge was stuck in for profit long ago, and now people think its should remain illegal. Because as far as we're concerned its always been that way.

There is no perfect solution, but black markets make for dangerous streets. I would much prefer to spend tax money on rehab than war.

I do believe the dynamic entry stuff is created through prohibition and does violate the 4th because its served with force and leaves no solution for the innocent. The founders went through this with the Red Coats; its how we got the 4th.

Meplat
01-02-2009, 10:39 PM
So you're basically asking all the existing infrastructure of criminals to suddenly legitimize their activities. Even with amnesty, do you really expect them to suddenly become model citizens, business owners and workers? I don't.

No. I expect model citizens and business owners to put them out of business because their products are cheaper and legal.:p

N6ATF
01-02-2009, 11:29 PM
I suspect that the crime rate amongst medical marijuana users is virtually non-existent.

That's a very specific demographic. Expand it to crime rate related to "medical" marijuana. If I, who rarely watches the news or reads it, hears about robberies and after-hours burglaries of dispensaries without even wanting to, I wouldn't call that virtually non-existent. Sorry but if I have the misfortune to have a dispensary move in next to my business, I'm naturally going to raise my own security level but in no way will I assist them.

No. I expect model citizens and business owners to put them out of business because their products are cheaper and legal.:p

That's a poor model I care not to associate with.

Meplat
01-02-2009, 11:32 PM
We can rehash this till the cows come home. My question is what do we do to stop it. My take is that the asinine judges that issue these warrants are the problem not LE.

I have read warrant requests that are obvious hokum. LEOs sometimes are not that familiar with firearms, their hole card is that judges are even more ignorant. They make up something that sounds scary, and then embellish it with outright falsehoods. Read the Waco warrant sometime. That one got nearly 100 people killed. Judges think that if LE wants it they must have a good reason so they routinely issue on shaky or made up crap. All have heard of the old saw that you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich. Well, I think in today’s world you could get a search warrant for the domicile of Jesus Christ. And there is no after the fact accountability. The agent who requested the Waco warrant obviously lied. As far as I know not even any administrative action was ever taken against him. What can we do about this BS?:mad:

JDay
01-03-2009, 2:05 AM
that's a load of crap! decriminalize drugs and this country will go down the toilet even faster!

Did you know that until drugs were made illegal their use was much more rare, cost more and the purity was much lower? Also, did you know that the war on drugs is mostly racist? Here's some facts for you to look at.

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/mj_outlawed.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/opiates_outlawed.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/basicfax2.htm

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/basicfax3.htmhttp://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/basicfax3.htm


FYI, prescription drugs kill twice as many people per year as all illegal drugs combined.

JDay
01-03-2009, 2:09 AM
And for those who think that the "War on drugs" is not necessary and that common sense enforcement should be used on a victimless crime. Look at Tijuana and the slaughters that are occurring there and the associated organized crime. The same organized crime that is also responsible for human trafficking, slavery, prostitution (of both children & adults), murders and the list can go on.

If it wasn't for the "war on drugs" these people wouldn't have a financial incentive, its a well known fact in South America that the "war on drugs" is the cause of much violence down there, the kicker is that the people down there don't even use the drugs.

JDay
01-03-2009, 2:17 AM
In the case of the PS3 incident, A group of teens fraudulently set up a craigslist purchase of a PS3 from a guy who drove 2 miles to a remote gas station at in the early AM in San Diego to do the transaction/exchange. The perpetrators used mace to subdue the victim and steal the PS3.

Craigslist complied and divulged the information on the assailants to the police who then found an address. The police found the suspects myspace page where the suspect had pictures of *guess what!!!* him shooting a shotgun/rifle whatever. (Sound familiar?) Based on that evidence they were able to obtain a dynamic-entry warrant for arrest.

The myspace page they went to was the other suspects who didn't live in the same house.

JDay
01-03-2009, 2:23 AM
Organized crime and terrorism will still be supported by drugs whether they are illegal or not. Why give up a major revenue stream just because it's legalized?

Don't you think that they will just open up a legal shop? After all why would anyone buy from a seedy street dealer when they can just go to the local shop and not have to worry about getting ripped off? And the users that you claim will keep stealing to support their habits will have a new profession they can legally begin. You also seem to forget about prohibition and what happened over night when it was ended (crime rate dropped big time).

JDay
01-03-2009, 2:25 AM
I don't see the analogy. Prohibition stopped legitimate businesses, and legitimate businesses came back after the repeal.

You could legally buy drugs in many places before the drug war, infact there used to be opium dens in the US.

Sgt Raven
01-03-2009, 11:38 AM
I wasn't alive then. Sorry. :rolleyes:


“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” :rolleyes:

BitterVoter
01-03-2009, 12:47 PM
“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it” :rolleyes:

History doesn't repeat itself, but men often do.

Certainly if you cease to make something illegal, then crime will reduce. The question is if the crime reduced only in relation to the substance or crime that was made legal, or if the ancillary crime associated (murder, robberies, etc.) also decreased due to the legalization?

If the later is the case then the argument is sound. Illegal immigration would immediately reduce if we made it easier to legally immigrate into the US. . . because then they wouldn't be entering illegally.

Californio
01-03-2009, 1:18 PM
Man I did not intend to see this go off track.

I just wanted to look at the conditions under which DE has become SOP for LE and in my opinion it has its roots in the economics and violence of the illegal drug trade.

Drugs are anti-society in every way, lets keep Pot out of it and talk about all the other drugs including prescription abuse. When I used to visit a relative in the hospital for Alzheimer's the ward right next to it was stocked with young people whose minds were melted by todays modern chemicals.

Many of ours Constitutional Rights have been bent in todays world because the failure of our Legislators to address the world wide drug trade. Either our Legislators want to win the war on drugs or they don't, no middle ground. The way I see it they don't, when the Poppy fields of Afghanistan produce the majority of the worlds opiates. We should be paying those farmers in cash for their crop and burning every field but we don't.

Only 545 people;

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

LE have developed the DE tactic in an attempt to deal with what the cowardly Legislators will not.

Ok back to ideas on how to restrict and control the proper use of DE so it does not cause pain and suffering on the innocent.

motorhead
01-03-2009, 1:33 PM
the truly scary part for me is the ease in obtaining a search warrant these days. all that;s required in many cases is an anonymous crimestoppers tip. i have seen this, up close and personal.
the l.e. bashing here is indicative of a larger problem. it's becoming more of an us vs them when l.e. is involved, especially in a state where somthing becomes illegal every month. this is further excerbated by a general attitude of most of the leo's i've had contact with in recent times, that they are to be obeyed, unquestioningly. the look on their faces when told NO (or f.o.) is truly priceless. my favorite is "you don't mind if i search". they usually don't even try to make it a question. when i do have contact with a decent or frienly cop, i feel truly blessed as it usually is the opposite around here.

RoninSarge
01-03-2009, 1:45 PM
I think, this threat isn't about the legality of DE, but about whether it's something the society should accept or not. If something is passed as a law, it doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, moral, or just plain right. Just look at the number of laws ruled unconstitutional. The Constitution supposedly encompasses the values our society was built upon, however, the interpretations of its rather plain language go wild.

I'm not sure what part of my post you are addressing and what you have identified something as a threat. I mean this sincerely and not just for the purpose of argument. I was responding to a statement made by CalCop. You may have taken my statement slightly out of context.

From what I understand, & of course I may be wrong, your are addressing the use of the dynamic entry tactic, is this correct? If so, no where is Dynamic Entry addressed as part of written law. It may have been addressed in part of an argument, however, DE, as the primary focus, has not been presented before the SCOTUS.

"If something is passed as a law, it doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, moral, or just plain right."

I agree with you 100%. But we have to look at the statement from several view points.
1- What one person considers moral, another may consider it immoral. Therefore, who decides? For example Prop. 8
2- What is right? This is just too broad. What is right? What is wrong?
3- What is legal? This is the foundation, for what I believe you are responding to. For example: California citizenry have voted to enact legislation. It is put to vote and wins. As long as it does not violate the US Constitution, it is enacted as law.

"The Constitution supposedly encompasses the values our society was built upon, however, the interpretations of its rather plain language go wild."

At the time it was written, yes it did. Your statement indicates some opposition as to it's relevancy to contemporary times? If you are fully committed to modern support of the 2nd Amendment as an absolute right to bear arms, I caution you before you agree with the question I asked. We, the citizens of the United States, can not pick and choose which Amendment we would like to adhere to and eliminate those which we no longer find applicable to contemporary customs or beliefs!

It is my belief, that our forefathers used plain terms, TO KEEP THINGS SIMPLE! You are exactly right when you state, "...the interpretations of its rather plain language go wild."

Peoples OPINIONS, based on what they value, influence what they will support.

RoninSarge
01-03-2009, 1:48 PM
? I thought no-knock warrants required additional judicial scrutiny? (I almost made myself laugh there...)
.


No, how the warrant will be served is not of concern to the judge (no law regulates this).

HOWEVER, time of service is! Justification must be presented to the judge to serve a warrant during what is considered off hours (prior to 6AM and after 11PM).

nick
01-03-2009, 4:24 PM
I'm not sure what part of my post you are addressing and what you have identified something as a threat. I mean this sincerely and not just for the purpose of argument. I was responding to a statement made by CalCop. You may have taken my statement slightly out of context.

From what I understand, & of course I may be wrong, your are addressing the use of the dynamic entry tactic, is this correct? If so, no where is Dynamic Entry addressed as part of written law. It may have been addressed in part of an argument, however, DE, as the primary focus, has not been presented before the SCOTUS.

"If something is passed as a law, it doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, moral, or just plain right."

I agree with you 100%. But we have to look at the statement from several view points.
1- What one person considers moral, another may consider it immoral. Therefore, who decides? For example Prop. 8
2- What is right? This is just too broad. What is right? What is wrong?
3- What is legal? This is the foundation, for what I believe you are responding to. For example: California citizenry have voted to enact legislation. It is put to vote and wins. As long as it does not violate the US Constitution, it is enacted as law.

"The Constitution supposedly encompasses the values our society was built upon, however, the interpretations of its rather plain language go wild."

At the time it was written, yes it did. Your statement indicates some opposition as to it's relevancy to contemporary times? If you are fully committed to modern support of the 2nd Amendment as an absolute right to bear arms, I caution you before you agree with the question I asked. We, the citizens of the United States, can not pick and choose which Amendment we would like to adhere to and eliminate those which we no longer find applicable to contemporary customs or beliefs!

It is my belief, that our forefathers used plain terms, TO KEEP THINGS SIMPLE! You are exactly right when you state, "...the interpretations of its rather plain language go wild."

Peoples OPINIONS, based on what they value, influence what they will support.


I meant to write 'thread', not 'threat', it was a typo :)

retired
01-03-2009, 4:27 PM
"Your eyes are glassy and red."
"I smell a distinct odor of alcohol."

Ahhh, ok, now things are starting to sound a bit more familiar.

Bad Voodoo, it is not, "I smell a distinct odor of alcohol," but rather, I smell a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from your breath and person.";)

nick
01-03-2009, 4:50 PM
"If something is passed as a law, it doesn't necessarily mean it's legal, moral, or just plain right."

I agree with you 100%. But we have to look at the statement from several view points.
1- What one person considers moral, another may consider it immoral. Therefore, who decides? For example Prop. 8
2- What is right? This is just too broad. What is right? What is wrong?
3- What is legal? This is the foundation, for what I believe you are responding to. For example: California citizenry have voted to enact legislation. It is put to vote and wins. As long as it does not violate the US Constitution, it is enacted as law.

That's correct, and I wasn't too happy about my argument myself. The point I was trying to make was that, while our society was built on a specific set of values (in large part encompassed by the Constitution), we currently enjoy a large number of laws and government behavior contrary to those values. I attribute that to cultural changes and decades (or centuries) of dishonesty on the part of the Supreme court.


"The Constitution supposedly encompasses the values our society was built upon, however, the interpretations of its rather plain language go wild."

At the time it was written, yes it did. Your statement indicates some opposition as to it's relevancy to contemporary times? If you are fully committed to modern support of the 2nd Amendment as an absolute right to bear arms, I caution you before you agree with the question I asked. We, the citizens of the United States, can not pick and choose which Amendment we would like to adhere to and eliminate those which we no longer find applicable to contemporary customs or beliefs!

"Supposedly" referred to the fact that the Constitution was quite frrely interpreted over the years. It's all the more interesting since its language is very plain (if one's familiar with the English language, that is), and the interpretation of the intent behind each artcile and amendment is quite easy, as well, as the people who wrote it, who voted for it, and who suggested and pushed through the amendments over the centuries left plenty of works where they clearly explained exactly what they meant, leaving very little ambiguity on the subject. Somehow (and probably due to the fact that the ignorance is widespread in our society, and ignorant masses can be fed pretty much anything, provided it's done through the boob tube to their satisfaction) it was still very creatively interpreted.

As I said above, my post was obviously unclear. Not sure what I was thinking at the time, but now that I re-read it, I'm glad I wasn't making any life and death decisions at that time :)

As to the COnstitution's relevancy in modern time, I think that it's more relevant than ever today. If at the time of its inception many of its provisions simply enumerated something people took for granted (and many were novel, of course), it's all the more important today when we've considerably deviated from the values the Constitution encompasses, and not in a good direction (in my opinion). As such, the Constitution, being still the law of the land, is one of the few things that make the restoration of those values (and thus the preservation of this country as anything but a third-world cesspool) possible without a complete ruin and rebuilding of this country from the scratch.

To reiterate, I think the our Constitution is a rare and wonderful document (and I don't normally use superlatives, even though I'm from California). History has been my main hobby since I was 7, and I'm actually planning to teach History when I retire (I'm working on a degree in it these days, gotta add to the collection). In my studies of History I have rarely seen a group of statesmen with such intellectual honesty, integrity, and foresight as the people who wrote and passed it, i.e. our Founding Fathers. As men they were far from perfect, but it was that intellectual honesty, integrity, and foresight that made them the example of statesmen we'll have to go a long way to match. We haven't succeeded in electing many people to match them, sadly, and none in the recent half a century or so. Anyway, before I digress even further, I don't believe that as a citizen of the United States I'm entitled to pick and choose which provisions of the Constitution I'll obey and which ones I will not. I may disagree with some of them (interestingly enough, most of those amendments are relatively recent, and one was already abolished. Guess which one), but I think that the potential and perceived benefits of changing the Constitution from the way it is don't even come close to the dangers of doing so, as, in my opinion, it's one of those rare documents that's just fine the way it is, as long as it's interpreted (honestly, what's there to interpret?) the way it was intended, and no "chipping away" at it with various disgusting laws occurs.

It is my belief, that our forefathers used plain terms, TO KEEP THINGS SIMPLE! You are exactly right when you state, "...the interpretations of its rather plain language go wild."

Peoples OPINIONS, based on what they value, influence what they will support.

Nothing to add here.

nick
01-03-2009, 4:51 PM
Bad Voodoo, it is not, "I smell a distinct odor of alcohol," but rather, I smell a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from your breath and person.";)

Stickler! :)

nick
01-03-2009, 4:56 PM
You could legally buy drugs in many places before the drug war, infact there used to be opium dens in the US.

Yep, and their denizens were generally despised, not put on display as modern day heroes. As such, most people would either hide their addiction by all means possible, or avoid having it in order to avoid being ostracized by the society. Both of which is fine with me. But then, I'm not a great believer in universal acceptance, in all enemies being friends we haven't met yet, all people being the same and only wearing different clothes, and the pressing need to be understanding towards pretty much anyone. Understanding is fine and is generally necessary. It does not equal to liking.

pizzatorte
01-03-2009, 5:08 PM
Ok back to ideas on how to restrict and control the proper use of DE so it does not cause pain and suffering on the innocent.

Criminal charges for all criminal acts that take place during them.

Many of these no-knock warrants are approved based upon lies told by informants and police--jail both for the amount of time required by law. Murders which take place during these violent raids should be treated as such, and not as administrative issues. Career-ending consequences for prosecutors and judges which violate civil rights by abusing no-knock warrant issuance.

If the bar were high enough, and the consequences for abuse severe enough, the judges, district attorneys, and cops involved in the business of no-knock warrants would self-regulate, as a matter of self-preservation.

There would be nothing to discuss, if the laws were being fairly and consistently applied to all people, regardless of their employer. Fix that civilization-threatening problem, and this edge case would become moot.

tyrist
01-03-2009, 8:22 PM
The usual counter-argument is that the crime is not a result of the drugs per se, but rather a result of the criminalization of drugs.

I'm not sure, but I suspect decriminalization would solve a lot of problems.

While the gangs make their money to purchase guns inorder to commit violent offense by selling drugs and the de crimminalization would prevent the gangs from making their money; the users themselves would still steal inorder to pay for a habit. It's not like you can be a hardcore user and manage to keep a job.

tyrist
01-03-2009, 8:52 PM
Stickler! :)

It makes a huge difference when you are giving testimoney. It could be rubbing alcohol and don't believe the defense attorney will not hammer you for it.

nick
01-03-2009, 10:31 PM
It makes a huge difference when you are giving testimoney. It could be rubbing alcohol and don't believe the defense attorney will not hammer you for it.

Stickler! :)

That being said, I just made the same point on another thread a couple of days ago. It's not the alcohol that smells, but the impurities in it.

MP301
01-05-2009, 1:49 AM
I was posting on another subject (The Castle Doctrine), when both subjects collided.

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/09/no-knock-meets-the-castle-doctrine-man-shot-five-times-by-police-no-drugs-found-arkansas-man-charged-with-assaulting-officers/

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=68509828-1566-472d-9a68-79f43b522950