Murder Charges for Man Who Defended His Home

[Elmar]

No knock warrants don't serve a purpose except to endanger the lives and liberties of civilians and officers. The only purpose they serve is to make people more and more afraid of standing up to the State, to bow our people down on their knees to the altar of random and reckless authority.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Elmar

No knock warrants don't serve a purpose except to endanger the lives and liberties of civilians and officers. The only purpose they serve is to make people more and more afraid of standing up to the State, to bow our people down on their knees to the altar of random and reckless authority.

See I think this is just as extreme as saying there should be no oversight of no-knock warrents. In the post about the old lady the "knock" is really not an issue since the police announced themselves before entering. The "knock" is just that. They only have to knock on the door and say "police! search warrant" and they can bust in. So if we really make an issue and say all warrents need to be "knock" warrants it's easy to get around that. Not that, that makes it right, but that's just how it is.

Now I think they do serve a purpose in defined instances. One such instance would be with credible info (like a buy is made and the home is rigged with defensive positions and visible firearms. Such a situation could increase the likelihood of violence and danger to LEO and civilians in the area.

I think they have gotten out of hand and there should be consequences for invistgators, judges, and command personell when one is granted outside of specific circumstances or if there is a SNAFU and they bust into the wrong house. There needs to be more oversight and repercusions, but I don't think it would be the right move to eliminate them totally.

[widearea]

Originally Posted by adymond

but I don't think it would be the right move to eliminate them totally.

I honestly think it would be a step in the right direction if they were abolished.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by widearea

I honestly think it would be a step in the right direction if they were abolished.

I just use the example of a hardened home that has been proven to be a location narcotics or another illegal activity has been shown to be occuring in with inhabitants who are armed would be a place for a no knock warrant. What happens if the police walk up to the door and knock and say "Police, open up" and wait for a response? I would propose that the inhabitants will quickly take up defensive positions and prepare for a shoot out. This poses an additional amount of danger to the police as well as citizens in surrounding homes. Would that instance warrant putting that additional risk in place? Or would it make more sense to limit no knock warrants to situations like the one I just outlined?

[widearea]

Originally Posted by adymond

I just use the example of a hardened home that has been proven to be a location narcotics or another illegal activity has been shown to be occuring in with inhabitants who are armed would be a place for a no knock warrant. What happens if the police walk up to the door and knock and say "Police, open up" and wait for a response? I would propose that the inhabitants will quickly take up defensive positions and prepare for a shoot out. This poses an additional amount of danger to the police as well as citizens in surrounding homes. Would that instance warrant putting that additional risk in place? Or would it make more sense to limit no knock warrants to situations like the one I just outlined?

If No knocks were limited to only this type of position..we would be better off..but there is more than one way to skin a cat..How about observation..getting good intelligence...waiting for the primary suspect to leave the house and making the arrest when they are most vulnerable..In the situation you describe where there are several armed men...knock or no knock..people are getting shot...The bad guys don't unload their weapons and store them in a gun vault for the night..

[pex]

A fucking no-knock warrant for growing marijuana?

Try this:

As a merchandiser for a soda company, he must wake up at 4 a.m. to be at stores by 5.

He's going to leave his house for work. Nab him down the street.

For ultra-hardened installations, you do the same thing, nab them elsewhere. Otherwise, if you're trying to less the 'danger to the community' you also lessen the danger to your unit.

Bust-in warrants are a sham because anyone can 'execute' one...there is no time for the citizen to verify that the police are actually the police, that the police are not corrupt and did not fake the warrant, etc.
Anyone who does that in the middle of their 'warrant' will be dead or looted by then, or harassed by the police, or there already would have been evidence gathered that will be used against someone...anyone...upon any judge they can get it past. Tack on the virtual rarity of penalties for real police who execute 'warrants'.

"Don't fuck with us" and "Look, we're doing something" helps to meet two agendas for public relations.

[adymond]

I want to be clear here. I wasn't saying this was an acceptable case of no-knock. I was saying I can think of some specific instances where no-knocks would be useful. Of course they don't store their guns, but if the door can be busted in and some flash bangs deployed while the BGs are sleeping they won't be using their weapons. Trying to grab anyone with a hardened home will undoubtedly be complicated in the general public as that person will likely have at least another accomplice and both will likely be in possession of a weapon. So that would not necessarilly lessen the danger.

[Elmar]

Originally Posted by adymond

See I think this is just as extreme as saying there should be no oversight of no-knock warrents. In the post about the old lady the "knock" is really not an issue since the police announced themselves before entering. The "knock" is just that. They only have to knock on the door and say "police! search warrant" and they can bust in. So if we really make an issue and say all warrents need to be "knock" warrants it's easy to get around that. Not that, that makes it right, but that's just how it is.

Now I think they do serve a purpose in defined instances. One such instance would be with credible info (like a buy is made and the home is rigged with defensive positions and visible firearms. Such a situation could increase the likelihood of violence and danger to LEO and civilians in the area.

I think they have gotten out of hand and there should be consequences for invistgators, judges, and command personell when one is granted outside of specific circumstances or if there is a SNAFU and they bust into the wrong house. There needs to be more oversight and repercusions, but I don't think it would be the right move to eliminate them totally.

I know several officers in departments around the state who won't ever use a no knock warrant because of the danger to community relations and to the officers themselves that are much more frequent occurrence with no knock warrants than without.

Of course the result is the secondary reason, the primary reason to oppose them is that they are immoral and regulate citizens more to the role of servants than as members in a shared system of equitable governing.

[P-11 shooter]

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

Wow, that's a tough case...sucks for all involved. I guess the lesson here is don't smoke pot at all.

I think the lesson here is if you bust down somebodys door in the middle of the night you just might get shot!




That's the best crime prevention we have in this country. That's how it SHOULD be. If I was a cop running into someones house in the middle of the night you better believe i'd be yelling POLICE! This has happened enough times you'd thnk they would have learned their lesson.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by adymond

I want to be clear here. I wasn't saying this was an acceptable case of no-knock. I was saying I can think of some specific instances where no-knocks would be useful. Of course they don't store their guns, but if the door can be busted in and some flash bangs deployed while the BGs are sleeping they won't be using their weapons. Trying to grab anyone with a hardened home will undoubtedly be complicated in the general public as that person will likely have at least another accomplice and both will likely be in possession of a weapon. So that would not necessarilly lessen the danger.

That situation is seemingly so rare that it's almost pointless to decide that no-knocks are useful based on it. No-knocks are primarily there for one reason only, to preserve evidence so drugs don't get flushed. In a situation of a bunker/hardened installation where you already have evidence to arrest, you surround the property, make your presence known, cut the power and utilities and wait the perpetrators out. Does it cost more? That depends, how much do these special tactics units pay for gear and training? Does it cost a cop or an innocent their lives? Not regularly, no.