A No Knock Warrant Death


PDA






chipperi
January 26, 2008, 01:18 PM
No Knock warrant costs a cop his life over small amount of weed. If you storm into a home unidentified after hours do you seriously not expect to get shot?


source page (http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/aunt-says-frederick-was-protecting-himself-when-officer-was-shot)

By John Hopkins
The Virginian-Pilot
© January 24, 2008

CHESAPEAKE

Ryan Frederick, the Chesapeake resident accused of killing a police officer, is a hard-working man who believed he was protecting himself the night the officer came to his door and tried to serve a search warrant, Frederick’s aunt said today.

“He’s not a killer,” said Sheryl Morales of Chesapeake. “He knew someone was in his house and he shot.’’

Frederick, 28, is being held in jail without bond for the shooting of police detective Jarrod Shivers.

Shivers, an eight-year veteran of the force and father of three, was shot Jan. 17 while executing the search warrant at 932 Redstart Ave. in the Portlock section of Chesapeake. Police have said Shivers was trying to enter the home when shots were fired from inside and hit him.

Morales said the tragedy could have been avoided.

“What would you do in that situation? If they had've knocked on the door and got a response, he would have let them in,’’ she said, crying during an interview with The Virginian-Pilot this morning at her home in her South Norfolk neighborhood.

Frederick faces charges of first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. His arraignment is scheduled for Jan. 30 in Chesapeake General District Court.

The medical examiner’s office said Shivers died from a single gunshot wound to his arm and chest. He was wearing body armor and a badge when he executed the search warrant, police said. Police also wore helmets marked “POLICE’’ when they came to the house.

Morales said she wanted to attend a candlelight vigil Sunday in honor of the officer but worried that it would create more problems. Today she offered the family’s condolences to Shivers’ wife and family.

“I’m just so sorry for her loss and her kids’ loss,” she said. “We all offer our condolences. We’ve all prayed for them.’’

Morales said Frederick purchased a gun as protection for his home and he practiced at firing ranges to learn how to use it. A couple of days before the shooting, someone attempted to break into the house, she said.

At about 120 pounds, Frederick would have been no match for an intruder, she said. “Ryan never hurt anyone in his life,’’ she said. “He had nothing more than a speeding ticket on his record.”

She said if police found marijuana in the house, it would have been only a small amount for personal use. According to a search warrant, police found an unspecified amount of marijuana, smoking devices and other paraphernalia in Frederick’s home.

If you enjoyed reading about "A No Knock Warrant Death" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
General Geoff
January 26, 2008, 01:22 PM
Eventually, the cops (or more accurately, their superiours) will wise up. There's a lot more armed citizens than there are police officers in this country, and if they continue to do no-knock entries, more police will continue to die.


I hope this gentleman has all charges dropped against him. If it comes to a trial, he stands a decent chance of winning, especially with the attempted break-in that occurred a few days before the incident.


edit; on the flip side, however, had I been in said situation, I'd have waited for the door to burst open, so I could at least identify my target visually before taking a shot.

bensdad
January 26, 2008, 01:25 PM
Horrible situation for all involved. He'll be judged by 12. They will get more information than we will.

General Geoff
January 26, 2008, 01:30 PM
They will get more information than we will.

But they'll be allowed to use *less* of that information during their deliberations, technically. All they would be allowed to judge upon (in order to determine intent) is what the man knew when he pulled the trigger, nothing afterwards. That's why I think he might be exonerated; He was not privy to the fact that the guy outside his door was a police officer. However, he also did not know for a fact whether the man was armed, or what his intentions were. This is where castle doctrine law usually kicks in, with the legal assumption that someone uninvited who is attempting to break into your house *is* trying to do you physical harm.

Officers'Wife
January 26, 2008, 01:31 PM
He who acts like a home invader gets shot like one. The guy deserves a medal for protecting his children, not a jail sentence because the intruder turned out to be a 'good guy.'

Trouble with the ends justifying the means is the people in the middle can't tell who is playing what. What a pity.

Selena

Just Jim
January 26, 2008, 01:32 PM
I am afraid that if someone comes to my house un anounced and begins to break down my door that I too will go to jail.

Sad for the officer and his family and a poor decision for the powers to be that gets good men like this killed. Why didn't they wait till he left home to arrest him and use the search warrant then??? To assualt a home where people are armed when you can easily catch them outside the home doesn't make any sense.

jj

Justin
January 26, 2008, 01:33 PM
Yet another unintended consequence of the war on drugs.

Nobody's life, cop or citizen, is worth ending over a bag of pot.

mgregg85
January 26, 2008, 01:33 PM
It seems that under the castle doctrine, if you heard someone trying to break into your house you would have the right to shoot them.

It also seems that an assailant could knock down your door and yell "police!" pretty easily, if you have no way of knowing whether or not the guy charging you yelling "police!" is actually a cop, would you shoot?

Wasn't there a case recently where a guy shot a cop that stormed his house mistakenly? I seem to recall that the cops went into this guy's house by mistake and he shot one of them thinking they were intruders.

I really can't blame this guy for shooting but I imagine its tearing him up inside and he's gotta be afraid of the jail time.

DENALI
January 26, 2008, 01:45 PM
:banghead: I think there gonna hang this guy. Police officers are extra-special people, and extra special people have extra special rights, at least the government see's it that way.....:barf:

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 01:47 PM
Off topic, I know, but I feel compelled to mention L.E.A.P.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php)

You don't have to be current or former LEO to join, either. They welcome concerned citizens to join as well.

sacp81170a
January 26, 2008, 01:48 PM
if police found marijuana in the house, it would have been only a small amount for personal use.

I'm not commenting on Mr. Frederick's actions or the actions of the officers serving the warrant. I am, however, pointing out circumstances that could have led up to the confrontation.

#1.

Mr. Frederick was in possession of marijuana according to the police report to the press. Taking that assertion as a fact at face value:

Where did Mr. Frederick get the marijuana? (Hint, not from a law-abiding citizen.)

Given the fact that he would necessarily have had a business relationship with people we would all agree were willing to break the law for profit (regardless of the morality or constitutionality of that law), would it be a reasonable assumption that those people would have "sold Mr. Frederick down the river"? In other words, if they caught the dealer that Mr. Frederick obtained his marijuana from and pressured him for names, could he have given them Mr. Frederick's name rather than someone higher up his chain of supply?

The reason I bring this up is to point out that Mr. Frederick's circumstances, while tragic, may have been brought about by his own behavior. He violated John Farnam's basic rules for the warrior: Don't go stupid places and don't hang out with stupid people.

I hate that he finds himself in such a tragic situation. I hate that a brother officer was killed needlessly in the performance of his job. I, for one, believe that no-knock warrants have a troubling tendency to be over-used.

I make no moral judgements on the system or the players involved, but merely observe that those who associate with known criminals and who break the law themselves are far more likely to end up in this type of encounter than those who do not. Here endeth the lesson.

Sage of Seattle
January 26, 2008, 01:52 PM
And some people still think that no-knock warrants aren't easy to get and often used for trivial things?

I now am for the enactment of strict guidelines of when ANY no-knock warrant shall be issued. Guidelines such as a minimum of let's say two independent witnesses who put some form of identification on the warrant itself, or perhaps that the person who is at the residence has at least one felony conviction on record (or even several misdemeanor violence convictions) or SOMETHING.

Folks, I know I'm preaching to the choir on this, but what the cops are doing now AIN'T WORKING.

Just Jim
January 26, 2008, 01:58 PM
Where did Mr. Frederick get the marijuana? (Hint, not from a law-abiding citizen.)

Maybe he was able to grow his own so he didn't have to deal with criminals??

It would be nice to know all that facts before judgement is passed. It is very dangerous to break in to peoples homes unanounced though.

jj

Seems alot of this drug use would stop if they closed the border where most of it comes from. How many lives would it save to do the right thing??

vis-à-vis
January 26, 2008, 02:02 PM
From what I read right now, if I were a juror, I'd be leaning toward a not guilty vote.

ilbob
January 26, 2008, 02:04 PM
I feel bad for the dead guy's family. I feel bad for the guy who is now in jail for merely defending his home against unknown invaders.

According to a search warrant, police found an unspecified amount of marijuana, smoking devices and other paraphernalia in Frederick’s home.
All over probably a baggie of pot, maybe some pipes, and a dieter's scale. Is the failed war on drugs really worth it? How many more people have to die and lives ruined before we call a truce?

eliphalet
January 26, 2008, 02:06 PM
Understanding why our borders are left open but "no knock warrants" are used on the populace escapes me.

fletcher
January 26, 2008, 02:07 PM
The medical examiner’s office said Shivers died from a single gunshot wound to his arm and chest. He was wearing body armor and a badge when he executed the search warrant, police said. Police also wore helmets marked “POLICE’’ when they came to the house.

You probably can't see those very well at night, and the words on their helmet would probably be the last thing to worry about if your door gets kicked down.

DENALI
January 26, 2008, 02:12 PM
:fire: The whole sorry episode is just another tiny chapter in Uncle Sam's ongoing essay on criminalizing one segment of society after another and then lowering them to the position of dungeon-class, and of course always expanding the para-militaries rights and privlidges to combat them in the name of protecting the middle-class they just removed them from.:uhoh: Just who is the predator? :(

Just Jim
January 26, 2008, 02:13 PM
Understanding why our borders are left open but "no knock warrants" are used on the populace escapes me.

We could slow down the drug trade alot if we closed the border. 80% of all meth comes across our southern border. No Knock warrants wouldn't be needed if the crap is not here to sell.

jj

Spreadfire Arms
January 26, 2008, 02:14 PM
im not seeing anywhere in this story where it was a "no knock" warrant? can someone please point it out?

the only thing i see even remotely close is:

“What would you do in that situation? If they had've knocked on the door and got a response, he would have let them in,’’ she said, crying during an interview with The Virginian-Pilot this morning at her home in her South Norfolk neighborhood.

it doesn't appear that the aunt, who is quoted above, was there when the warrant was executed, because she later says:

She said if police found marijuana in the house, it would have been only a small amount for personal use.

had she been there she'd have probably known what the police claim to have found.

so, can someone show where it was a "no knock" warrant? or are we just assuming at this point?

thans.

tallpaul
January 26, 2008, 02:16 PM
I am of the - ya better knock or call first club... I am not a criminal and ANYONE- with a hat or vest that can say pilice etc does not mean anything to me. They sell those items on ebay every day- well online anyhow... You do not come into my house un announced or uninvited by me unless ya are willing to die- PERIOD! I have had that discussion with quite a few LE and they usually get pissed off royal... they do feel they are truly special... they would be the first to arrest us if we went to a house based on a bad invite or iflormation. They also feel that if they goto the wrong house based on bad info they should not be prosecuted.... its BS I also know several "officers" that brag even with a knock warrant they only wisper...

I hope the dude gets let off as he should. I don't think the right of protecting your home is not done away with for committing a misdemeanor is it? Heck its not even done away with if ya are a felon - maybe not with a gun but ya still have the right AND DUTY to protect your family/home- God knows LE don't save ya from home invasions and the supreme court already ruled its NOT the responsibility of the LE community to protect us as individuals...

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2008, 02:18 PM
This is several weeks old which is a shame. There aren't many details coming out immediately which is suspicious. The interesting parts are the new developments. According to Radley Balko who spoke to one of the reporters...there is some information that did not make it to the news articles.
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/01/25/more-from-cheseapeake/
He told me a couple of interesting things that didn’t appear in the paper’s interview with Frederick. First, Frederick told the reporter that as the police were taking him out of the house in handcuffs, he told them he was sorry, and that he was scared because his house had been burglarized earlier in the week. According to the reporter, Frederick says the police arresting him then told him they not only knew about the burglary, they knew who had done it. Neither the reporter nor Frederick made the connection at the time that the person who broke in could well also be the informant.


Apparently the owner was a gardener with Japanese Maples and grow lamps so these can possibly be mistaken for pot. Tomato plants have been mistaken as pot plants in the past. Young Japanese Maple leaves look somewhat like pot leaves before they turn that mature red. http://www.soulofthegarden.com/Images/April06JapaneseMapleLeavesCU.jpg



Don't forget that no-knocks are being used a little too readily on non-violent offenses with information given by "informants" which are often less-than-reliable. You're getting the same type of highly dynamic raids on things like poker games which absolutely aren't justified. Judicious use of force is a high risk decision. Just several months earlier, a similar raid resulted in one dead single mother and a 1-year old child shot AFTER the suspect had been arrested.

On recent scandals with drug informants, there is a big stink about a DEA informant that worked with a DEA agent in over 21 false convictions which have put innocent people away.
http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/1200994350273790.xml&coll=2

Geneva France walked out of federal prison with $68 and a bus ticket home. That's all the government had to offer a woman who had served 16 months of a decade-long prison sentence for a crime she didn't commit.

Federal prosecutors in Cleveland charged France and 25 others from Mansfield in 2005, based on the work of informant Jerrell Bray and DEA agent Lee Lucas.

Lucas and Bray identified her from a photo Mansfield authorities provided.

"As soon as [a sheriff's deputy] showed me the picture, I said, That's the girl I bought from,' " Lucas testified at France's trial Feb. 14, 2006.

The picture was France -- her sixth-grade class picture, taken 13 years earlier.

No surveillance photos, which are standard in tracking drug dealers, were taken in France's case.

It was her word against Lucas'.


A lot of critical mistakes are being made lately.

Spreadfire Arms
January 26, 2008, 02:21 PM
cesiumsponge,

thanks for the information, i too agree that no-knocks are very dangerous for all parties involved. no different than other undercover drug buys where the dope dealers have no idea the buyer is an undercover cop, or vice versa.

in relation to this particular incident did Balko or anyone else specify if this was a no-knock warrant? i dont see it anywhere.

Spreadfire Arms
January 26, 2008, 02:25 PM
ok i just found a linked news story:
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/all-officers-were-wearing-body-armor-during-shivers-shooting

part of the article says:

Officers were wearing body armor and helmets marked “POLICE” when they climbed the three brick steps at 932 Redstart Ave. last week to serve a narcotics warrant, a department spokeswoman says.

According to Christi Golden, officers did a “knock and announce” – in which they approach the door and declare their presence before entering.


a neighbor said:

“I heard a bam,” but no warnings from police, McReynolds said. “There was no police sirens, nothing.”

looks like it wasn't a "no-knock" warrant, whether they did knock and announce then is more of the issue. did they or didn't they?

DENALI
January 26, 2008, 02:29 PM
:eek: Hey there eliphalet. In answer to your question, just think "Hotel **********"....:banghead:

frankie_the_yankee
January 26, 2008, 02:34 PM
No knock warrants make no sense.

If the subject(s) are thought to have a lot of dope, there's no way they could get rid of it quickly enough to justify a no knock warrant.

If they are thought to have only a small amount of dope, the offense doesn't rise to the level that would justify such an offense to the 4th Amendment as is posed by a no knock warrant.

If the subjects are thought to be heavily armed, violent, and likely to resist arrest with deadly force, maybe, just maybe a no knock warrant could be justified. But LE should have to present strong evidence as to both the threat posed by the subjects and why an arrest couldn't be accomplished in some other, less intrusive way.

I'm thinking of something like Waco here (even though that wasn't strictly a no knock raid). If they wanted to bust Koresh, they could have just waited until he came into town and taken him down there. And maybe THEN executed a search warrant at the compound. Violent resistance would be much less likely with the leader in custody, IMO.

Getting a no knock warrant in a case where all the guy has is a small bag of pot shows clear abuse of the system IMO, or total incompetence on the part of LE.

Take your pick.

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 02:37 PM
We could slow down the drug trade alot if we closed the border.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick on an individual and I'm not trying to get personal, but this idea is silly to me. It sounds quite a bit like "Ban all handguns and they will disappear." If we only do this one thing our problems will be solved.

I really don't get the disconnect between guns and drugs. Prohibition does not work. Whether it's alcohol, guns, or drugs. Prohibition. Does. Not. Work.

The idea that you should go to jail for buying speed on the street, but hey, your doctor can prescribe it to your 9-year-old (in the form of Ritalin) for being figity. What a mess...

There are drugs in Maximum Security prisons. Exactly how will a border fence stop drugs? Great Britain virtually banned handguns, and they're an island, and they still have problems...

Maybe someone can explain to me why it is gun-folk bash the "anti's" for thinking prohibiting guns will make them go away, while at the same time gun-folks say prohibiting drugs will make them go away...

We need to be real careful to not become that which we loathe.

EDIT to add:

looks like it wasn't a "no-knock" warrant,
One of the things I learned from my local PD while I was an Explorer was that apparently the noise made by the ram hitting the door counts as the "knock." So the "knock" is the door being kicked in, then before you set foot on the other side of the doorway you say or yell "Police," and that's your "announce." So you do not have to go up, rap on the door with your knuckles and call out "Police."

At least that's what I recall...

Sage of Seattle
January 26, 2008, 02:42 PM
looks like it wasn't a "no-knock" warrant, whether they did knock and announce then is more of the issue. did they or didn't they?

Looks like you just answered your own question with the quote from the neighbor. "I heard a bam, but no warnings from the police." Yes, we don't know whether or not the warrant issued was in fact, no knock. I, personally, made that conclusion based on the article, so I could be wrong. However, if they had a regular warrant, how come no announcement was heard? If there was an announcement made, then I would imagine it would have gone something like this:

"POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!" *WHAM WHAM WHAM*

*BLAM*

As opposed to:

*WHAM WHAM WHAM*

*BLAM*

The first example I made doesn't make sense to me if that's the way it really happened. Some marijuana and paraphanalia was found, but the guy apparently had no priors or anything and seemed verifiably jittery after having been broken into so soon before.

Erik
January 26, 2008, 02:53 PM
This is incorrect:

"One of the things I learned from my local PD while I was an Explorer was that apparently the noise made by the ram hitting the door counts as the "knock." So the "knock" is the door being kicked in, then before you set foot on the other side of the doorway you say or yell "Police," and that's your "announce." So you do not have to go up, rap on the door with your knuckles and call out "Police."

You just described a no-knock.

---

This is correct. The time line between the "whams" and the "blam" must be reasonable. Reasonable is generally considered to be the time it would take the average person to respond to the door. It is a relatively short period of time, not measured in minutes.

"POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!" *WHAM WHAM WHAM*

*BLAM*

Repeat announcement loudly and often as you go.

---

This is incorrect. There are no "whams" in a no-knock entry.

As opposed to:

*WHAM WHAM WHAM*

*BLAM*

---

This is correct for the no-knock:

*BLAM*

"POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!" Repeat loudly and often as you go.

Erik
January 26, 2008, 02:57 PM
That said, and with little information, it appears a standard warrant was served, and that the police allowed sufficient time for the bad guy, and that's what he appears to be, to arm himself and shoot a member of the warrant service team.

Which is of course the argument FOR no-knocks in the first place.

Note no reference to a bullet fest. That speaks to the professionalism of the entry team.

But perhaps more information will come to light swaying thigs one way or the other.

---

No-knock, high-risk warrants are statistically safer than standard, low-risk ones for both sides of the law, by the way. It is one of the reasons they are so prevalent and a strong counter argument to arguments to abolish them.

primer
January 26, 2008, 02:57 PM
From what I've read the guy fired before visually identifying his target. Every gun forum I see says the same thing "know what you are shooting before you shoot". Could have been one of his buddies messing around with him. He didn't verify before firing. Do I think he was wrong? I don't know because I wasn't there and don't know exactly what happened. I do know that I don't walk around my home with my sidearm on, so I would have to hear the noise then get up and grab my weapon and then IDENTIFY my target and decide weather or not to fire. Ok, If the cop did not identify himself. Yes he was partly to blame for the incedent. I've thought about the same situation at my home. No, I'm not a criminal. But people make mistakes every day and my address could be given to a cop by mistake, so yes I have thought about it. I feel that I would identify my target before firing. Bassically, he should have identified before firing. If he did identify first, that brings with it a whole new set of consequences. The way I see it your more likly to hit your target if you see it anyway. Don't just go shooting your weapon without knowing. That's the kind of things the polititions use to fuel their anti-gun campains. I'm sure some of you will disagree with me, but thats how I feel about it. He should have known what he was shooting first. If he did know.....

huff.jeremy
January 26, 2008, 02:59 PM
im not seeing anywhere in this story where it was a "no knock" warrant

A warrant doesn't have to be expressly issued as "no knock". If the officers have a reasonable belief that knocking would increase the chance for violence, or give the suspect an opportinity to destroy the evidence, the failure to announce their presence will be over-looked based on common law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-and-announce. I know this is only wiki... but it references valid law and common law still used today.

Depends completely on information which we don't have... but it doesn't sound "reasonable" to me, especially since this guy apparently has no record of violence. Unless they had a tip that the drugs were sitting by the toilet ready for disposal... I would hope the jury found that the police were in the wrong.

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 03:05 PM
As to the "identify the target;" I normally agree. However, in this situation if the homeowner had waited to identify the target he would be dead. If a cop comes through the door and sees someone pointing a gun at him, he'll shoot first, right? So either way there's at least one dead guy at the scene. Bad situation any way you cut it.

ilbob
January 26, 2008, 03:06 PM
This is correct. The time line between the "whams" and the "blam" must be reasonable. Reasonable is generally considered to be the time it would take the average person to respond to the door.

so 3 to 5 minutes would be the standard?

I don't watch it all that much but virtually every reality TV cop show I have seen the announcement knock and door crashing in happen within a few seconds of each other.

the reality is that no one inside can probably understand the incoherent shouting going on outside.

ilbob
January 26, 2008, 03:09 PM
From what I've read the guy fired before visually identifying his target.Do you really need to visually identify a target that is crashing through your front door? That's home invasion. Its a felony in every state of the union. If it was not the cops coming through the door no one would have questioned the shooting, and in most states he would be clean, legally.

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2008, 03:09 PM
One of the most upsetting things is that creation and usage of SWAT or paramilitary-style tactical teams are an increasing trend. They used to be for extremely high risk situations. Now they're being applied to all these non-violent offenders...even consentual crimes like poker. Seriously...why do you need a SWAT or paramilitary raid on a poker game being held by the Veterans of Foreign Wars? I think a lot of people in Dallas would like to know why such a thing occurred at VFW Post 1837.

There are new SWAT teams being formed in small cities. Towns like Paradise, CA with a population of 26k people got their own team last year. Unicoi County in Tennessee got an armored vehicle to keep their 17,703 residents safe.

A SWAT team that exists needs to be used to justify its existence by being used, so you have a positive feedback loop where dynamic entries are being needlessly used, putting everyones' lives in danger. Then we can say "Another successful SWAT raid" to justify it's existence. You start finding reasons to justify using SWAT teams where it isn't justified...to justify it's very existence.

I'm not anti-SWAT or anti-police or such, but I think I make a valid criticism. Everything has it's place, but I think the judicious use of such tactics for such minuscule violations of the law are ridiculous. We just spent countless tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on doing months of undercover and investigative work in San Mateo County, only to do a police raid on a poker game where it was illegal to rake an extra $5 by the house to pay for pizza and beer. I think those months of investigative hours would be well spent on more pressing matters.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7967925?nclick_check=1
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_7996181
http://ksnydersj.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/reno-911-the-home-game/

ilbob
January 26, 2008, 03:17 PM
There are good reasons for every department to have a SWAT type team. The problem is that the same as with the guy who has the hammer and thinks every problem is a nail. Police administrators feel the need to use them regularly or they will have to explain why they spent all that money on new toys that never get used.

Personally, I think most departments would be better off disbanding the specialized units of dubious effectiveness and putting uniformed officers back on the street. many departments have well over half the force engaged in dubious activities like DARE, SWAT, plainclothes, and other units that have never shown any real success. I'd even say most detectives need to go back to the streets. Thats where the crooks are. Put the cops there to catch them.

primer
January 26, 2008, 03:34 PM
I understand it could be concidered a home invasion. I also know that the police know that if they knock on the door and wait for a responce, more than likely the whole time they are waiting the people inside could be arming themselves or flushing evidence down the toilet. This is the whole reason for these types of entries. Kind of a shock and awe type deal. Now, if this guy was your next door neighbor and has been running pot out of his house and possibly selling it to the neigborhood kids or YOUR kids. Would you want him caught? I understand that he had a clean record. A lot of people do when they first start messing around with drugs. But, they had to have a reason to be there. Either they saw him purchase drugs or saw him selling drugs or got a tip from an informant, ect. Knock, knock!! Who's there? The police! OH!! OK, be there in a minute "flush, flush" load, load. I'm coming! Boom!!! I don't like the possibility of my home being invaded any more than most of you do. So, I don't do any stupid stuff to give them a reason to. I still feel that I would have identified before shooting. If someone was kicking your door in and you didn't know who it was, would you stand out in the open and start shooting? Or would you get behind some type of cover. I would take cover and find out who was knocking my door in. By doing that you also have more time to drop your gun if it's the cops, because you have more time before they can target you. Of course that's if I wasn't breaking the law by having pot in my house. A little pot is still pot. It is against the law. Cops don't always have the option to sit there and say, Well it's just a little pot so we can let it slide.

DENALI
January 26, 2008, 03:39 PM
War on terror, War on drugs, War on the middle class it all equates to a thing called concept Warfare, and that equates to making some folks very, very wealthy...........

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 03:40 PM
So, I don't do any stupid stuff to give them a reason to.

So if you being a gun owner were to become reason enough for them to kick down your door to round up all those evil guns, it's ok?

Cops don't always have the option to sit there and say, Well it's just a little pot so we can let it slide.

You're right, the law is the law. It is bad law, though. And we need to change the bad policy here. Alcohol prohibition did decades of harm to America and the "Drug War" is too. We changed one bad policy, we can change this one.

doc2rn
January 26, 2008, 03:50 PM
If the amount of pot was so meniscule as to be dumped down the toilet, then SWAT was actually doing a home invasion and are in the wrong. If they had knowledge of a previous crime at the residence and did not act on it they are in the wrong. If they did a no-knock warrant, they are in the wrong. Why do police get such latitude and the civilians get the bill for door, lawyer, court, and ammo. The little guy who is supposed to be getting the protection in these instances is becoming the victim.

primer
January 26, 2008, 03:54 PM
Oh, So when I was sixteen and was so high that I couldn't feel my legs it was ok that I was driving a car with the possibility that I could have killed an innocent family. I don't claim to be perfect, I know that what I did when I was younger was stupid. I just admitted that. I think drug laws are important. I don't think that bringing a person to jail for a little pot is stupid. I think it should be done. It's a law. If laws were a perfect solution there would be no problems today. Are you going to feel that way if some idiot gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone you love. I concider my right to carry a gun a right that our fore fathers secured for us. That's a little different than the right to drive under the influence. It doesn't exist. I'll tell you what. I'll contact my aunt and let her get on here. You can tell her that or drug laws and alcohol laws are stupid. BTW, Her niece was killed by a soldier who was home on leave and decided to get drunk. While he was drunk, he drove his car into a crowd of people. He spent 6 months in jail.

QUICK_DRAW_McGRAW
January 26, 2008, 03:58 PM
im sorry and i feel for both parties involved. BUT i would have done the same thing. if my place was broken into a week prior i would be on edge for quite a while like normal people be. i would have my 12 gauge next to me at all times as well as my hand gun on me. and if i herd someone trying to kick in my door unannounced i would yell for themt o leave and if they kept comming i would shoot.

but then again when your adrenalin in pumping you dont think you are scared from previous things a week prior and would just shoot as fredrick did. its just too bad that they didn't anounce who they where before entering. i think no knocks are asking for trouble. i would rather them know im comming and run then me run in and get shot by mistake.

DENALI
January 26, 2008, 04:01 PM
Why we have more then our share of para-militaries right here on THR, how about it? Just doing the job are we? After all any amount of dope is illegal dope under the rules of the war on drugs. And we musn't forget the CI's can we now, yes CI's were definitely involved with this operation weren't they? So we've got men just doing there jobs(Hey there kids gotta eat to) and men willing to rat each other out to the men just doing there jobs, and we have rules of engagement that let the men just doing there jobs kick in doors unannounced at any time of the day or night and tear your home apart, shoot you or your family or perhaps your dog and then haul anybody they want off to the dungeon and interrogate them further and generate more ratting out of men by men to the men just doing there jobs....I'm just old enough to remember other wars like this one............

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 04:19 PM
Ok primer, let me tell you my thoughts on this:

The crime you did was not "getting high," the crime was endangering others when you drove. The crime of the soldier wasn't "getting drunk" the crime was murder and assault.

If you got so high you couldn't feel your legs but sat on the couch all night until you were straight again, as far as I'm concerned you committed no crime because you endangered nobody else. I don't care if you get so drunk you spend the following week puking, as long as you don't endanger others when you do so.

I also believe in personal responsibility. A person under the influence is just as responsible for their actions as a sober person. The crime isn't in ingesting the drug of choice, the crime is endangering or harming others. I've known plenty of people who make sure that if they're going to get high or drunk they do so in a place where they can stay until they get sober. That's the responsible thing to do and I have no problem with it.

Similarly, gun ownership or possession should not be the crime, the crime should be in threatening or harming others.

I don't care what you do as long as nobody gets hurt. But if you threaten someone or hurt someone you're going to be in trouble.

Aguila Blanca
January 26, 2008, 04:19 PM
looks like it wasn't a "no-knock" warrant, whether they did knock and announce then is more of the issue. did they or didn't they?
There is VERY little functional difference between a "knock & announce" and a "no knock" these days. The courts have determined that a "reasonable" length of time for the police to wait after knocking is 20 to 30 seconds. Think about that. It's 3:00 a.m. You worked until 9:00 p.m., came home exhausted, grabbed a hamburger and fell into bed. More than likely, if you sleep in an upstaris bedroom as I do, you can't even hear a normal knock on the front door, and even if the police were down there pounding on the door with their fists -- would you realistically be able to wake up, focus, realize that the noise is someone pounding on the front door, find your bedroom slippers, and go answer the door all within 20 to 30 seconds?

I couldn't. I'd still be asleep when they came up the stairs.

No knocks are bad news, but so are the ridiculously short wait times allowed by the courts. The premise of a search "warrant" is that the person is supposed to be allowed to see, read, and understand the warrant BEFORE admitting the officers into the house. Once they've busted in and handcuffed the victim subject, who is going to be watching to ensure that they limit their search to what and where is specified in the warrant?

The system stinks and needs to be drastically curtailed. We need to get nack to knocking on the door in broad daylight, handing the resident a copy of the warrant and letting them read it, and THEN entering. Force is appropriate only if the resident refuses to honor a legitimate warrant, or in the case of searching for a violent fugitive. Never for a few leaves of cannabis.

primer
January 26, 2008, 04:23 PM
Yeah, I guess I see your point. Cops shouldn't be allowed to kick down your doors even if you have drugs in your home. Just because you have drugs, doesn't mean you would sell them or anything. I'm sure 100% of Americans are responsible enough not to do drugs in their own home them drive to the store when they get the munchies. And I know that no drug dealers use their home as a drug distribution point. That would just be stupid, so I guess we could do away with drug raids. The cops, in an effort to stop all the accidental killing should just call and make an appointment, so that it wouldn't turn into a gun battle. I know I'm getting sick and tired of all of the reports I've been hearing about cops slaying whole families. I mean where do they get off doing a drug raid when the dealers family is still at home. Don't they have the responsibility to not let the drug dealer have the drugs around their families. All these people keep saying that it's the drug dealers responsibility to take care of his own family and not get them involved in a drug raid. Where do they get off putting that on the dealers. They should just leave the dealers alone so that they can sell their drugs and not worry about finding the dealers source. I mean, they need to be able to support their dealers so that they can get their next shipment to America and into the hands of my children as fast as possible. I'm getting tired of all these nights of sleeping perfectly fine. My son needs to hurry up and have his next overdose. You starting to get my point, Yet?

Aguila Blanca
January 26, 2008, 04:23 PM
One of the things I learned from my local PD while I was an Explorer was that apparently the noise made by the ram hitting the door counts as the "knock." So the "knock" is the door being kicked in, then before you set foot on the other side of the doorway you say or yell "Police," and that's your "announce." So you do not have to go up, rap on the door with your knuckles and call out "Police."

At least that's what I recall...
Either you recall incorrectly, or your local PD isn't big on playing by the rules. Smashing in the door before making any announcement is a "no knock," not a "knock & announce." The courts have clearly established that in a knock & announce, the police MUST wait a "reasonable" time before effecting a forced entry.

Of course, what the same courts have determined to be a "reasonable" time is anything but reasonable, but it isn't instantaneous.

Aguila Blanca
January 26, 2008, 04:30 PM
Cops don't always have the option to sit there and say, Well it's just a little pot so we can let it slide.
You're right, the law is the law. It is bad law, though. And we need to change the bad policy here. Alcohol prohibition did decades of harm to America and the "Drug War" is too. We changed one bad policy, we can change this one.
But the police DO have the option of deciding to seek a no knock warrant. And they DO have the option of choosing to serve any search warrant in daylight rather than smashing in the door in the middle of the night.

In other words, they have a choice between choosing to act like professional law enforcement officers, or acting like home invaders. Unfortunately, they are regularly (and increasingly) choosing the latter.

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 04:32 PM
Primer, you are using the same old emotional argument tactics that anti-gun folks use. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Let me ask you, how many people are killed over cigarettes these days? How many raids are done on homes illegally making and distributing alcohol?

Under prohibition it is easier for your kid to get drugs than it is to get tobacco or alcohol. Think about this for a second, please. I don't want your kids doing drugs any more than you do. That's why I want them legally regulated.

How easy is it for your child to get cigarettes? How easy is it for your child to get alcohol? I couldn't get either when I was in high school. But I could have had any illicit drug of my choice if I wanted to and had the money.

pbearperry
January 26, 2008, 04:33 PM
It's a shame that this forum cannot stay focused on firearms and related issues.I am sure there is a wealth of knowledge here seeing as we all own different types of guns.Watching Police dramas on TV does not make anyone a Police expert,nor does knowing a cop make you informed enough to second guess everything Police Departments do.Drug raids are very dangerous and can be very volatile.People on both sides of the door are usually apprehensive and mistakes can be made.
The fellow who heard a bang on the door and fired through the door killing a Cop could just as easily shot a friend,family member or Pizza delivery guy.What he did is inexcusable.Now if the cops fired through the door without being fired at,I could understand concerns of everyone including members of THR.If I had my way in this world,I would stop raids looking for drugs altogether.Why have cops endangering their lives while all our courts have a revolving door policy in place?Until the Judges grow some balls,the cops should sit back and let all the druggies take as much of the stuff they want and maybe hopefully OD and do the world a favor.

Grizzly Adams
January 26, 2008, 04:34 PM
I don't know all the facts about this so I'm not going to try to debate any one on what or who was right or wrong. I will say that I do believe that there is a place for "no-knocks" but that they like all tools must be used properly and in the correct instances.

I will also say that if someone came to my house and knocked the door in I'd shot them in a heart beat. One big difference between me and Fredericks though, I would not have illegal drugs in my house!

By the way, my son is a LEO.

primer
January 26, 2008, 04:39 PM
It is a strategy used to catch a criminal offguard. Get in before the subject has time to arm himself so that there is less of a chance that they have to kill him. And before he has a chance to destroy evidence that could convict him and keep him off of the streets so that he can't put drugs into the hand of our young people. The same young people who could in turn start dealing and repeating the process. If the cops just wanted to kill everyone in the house they could just use a grenade or go in there and shoot everything that moves. If they would have wanted to kill this guy he would be dead. He shot a cop. That's all that would be said.

Sage of Seattle
January 26, 2008, 04:41 PM
I think drug laws are important. I don't think that bringing a person to jail for a little pot is stupid. I think it should be done. It's a law. If laws were a perfect solution there would be no problems today. Are you going to feel that way if some idiot gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone you love.

Well, you know that would never happen anyway because there's already a law against it.

You starting to get my point, Yet?

I, for one, still can't see your point.



And +1 to average shooter's post above (#45).

RP88
January 26, 2008, 04:46 PM
no-knocks are very unnecessary unless the person is an eminent danger, and can still be excessive. As said before, spying and waiting for them to come out and simply taking them then when they cant preemptively shoot is so much safer (at least on paper)

The news said 'unspecified amount' of pot, so the charges will depend on how much was found. If he had enough to be a dealer, then he's gonna fry; if he was just a pothead, and they rule that he was acting reasonably without knowledge of cops, then he still runs the risk of getting hit with lower charges just because it was a cop he shot.

I think it sounds like an accident, because if he intended on shooting out with the police, then he'd be in a body bag instead of a jail cell.

JWarren
January 26, 2008, 04:47 PM
He shot a cop. That's all that would be said.


Hardly.


I suppose that the elderly lady in Atlanta SHOULD have been charged with assaulting a Police Officer (well, if they hadn't killed her) when she shot at the cops bursting down her door with a wrong address?

I seem to remember some rather intersting stories of police corruption in your home state of LA. Something about a murder of witnesses by a NO police officer a bit back? Would the woman he killed have been permitted to shoot in self defense?

No... I am afraid there is MUCH more that should be said.


-- John

primer
January 26, 2008, 04:50 PM
Yes, there is a law against it. But it still happens. Does that mean that our government should just say oh well that didn't work and just let everyone do as they wish. I agree, the tactics that are used are not always successful. But what about the times that are. You don't hear about all of the successful drug raids because there is nothing juicy about them for the press to exploit. But you will hear about the unsuccessful ones that end in tragedy because the press use it as a tool for ratings. Just like the issue of guns. You don't hear about everytime a gun saves a citizens life, but you do hear about it when a citizen kills a cop.

primer
January 26, 2008, 04:57 PM
Who shot first? Would she be shot if she would have verified who she was shooting at? I'm not saying that you shouldn't shoot someone invading your home. I'm just going to know who I'm shooting at before I fire.

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 04:59 PM
Peter Christ is a member and speaker for LEAP. He retired a Captain. Law Enforcement was his career.

Please watch these short videos and look for more on him and LEAP:
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfAro9-OejU

Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XlP5yrEmhvw&feature=user

These are just small bits from his speech. I had the opportunity to listen to him speak and talk to him afterwards just a couple weeks ago. He knows what he is talking about.

Edit to add: Here is a video from LEAP talking about what they do and why they do it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc

Sage of Seattle
January 26, 2008, 05:07 PM
primer, I try to operate on the principle of "no prior restraint." That means, in this case, that mere possession of an item doesn't warrant such a forceful response. Period. When this EXACT thing was tried in our history, called Prohibition, and it failed miserably and was finally repealed, our government decided that it would be even more effective this time around! Yay for the good guys, boo for the bad guys!

But this time they decided to ignore the pesky annoyance of a constitutional amendment and just say that the individual police agencies could set up their own rules of how they could prosecute this new war on drugs. Strange that they had to have a constitutional amendment to combat alcohol, but none to combat marijuana which has been proven by the government to have actual health benefits for some people and so far, there has never been one case on record of anyone dying of a marijuana overdose; the dangers of dying of alcohol are well-known and heavily documented.

But that's just me.

Just Jim
January 26, 2008, 05:07 PM
I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick on an individual and I'm not trying to get personal, but this idea is silly to me. It sounds quite a bit like "Ban all handguns and they will disappear." If we only do this one thing our problems will be solved.

I really don't get the disconnect between guns and drugs. Prohibition does not work. Whether it's alcohol, guns, or drugs. Prohibition. Does. Not. Work.

So why have any laws at all, people just break them:scrutiny: Closing the border makes it more difficult to get drugs here. Yes there will allways be people who break the laws of the land but to slow it down and get better control of the border is a good step.

I think you might not see the connection between guns and drugs and prohibition. Do you want criminals to have guns? Should we make it easy for them to get guns or slow it down and make it hard?

Do you think we all should just get rid of criminal charges for drugs? How about to your kids? There is a strong relationship between guns and drugs and it is criminal behavior. Criminals missuse guns and shouldn't be allowed to own one. There are criminal uses of drugs too.

jj

Sage of Seattle
January 26, 2008, 05:09 PM
Actually, on second thought, I'm going to re-edit my doube-tap here and respond to jj above:

I know you weren't talking to me, but I felt the need to respond to this:

Do you want criminals to have guns? Should we make it easy for them to get guns or slow it down and make it hard?

So, by your very statement, the criminal will, fast or slow, get a gun if he/she wants it. So tell me why all of the non-criminals must be treated the same way and make it harder for them to obtain legal firearms.

Do you think we all should just get rid of criminal charges for drugs?

Yup.

Mere possession and use of a substance or item should not, in and of itself be prohibited.

How about to your kids?

Newp. My kids are legally and morally my responsibility; once they reach 18, no matter how I may dislike it, if they choose to ingest drugs (even alcohol) then that is their choice and I have no say. But, in this case, shouldn't there first be some kind of evidence or something that shows that this man was a terrible drug pusher and corrupter of children? If it's true that he had some marijuana for personal consumption, again, how does that justify the warrant service in that manner?


There is a strong relationship between guns and drugs and it is criminal behavior.

There is? How about all of those tens of thousands of people who use prescribed narcotics? How about the unknown number of legitimate medical-marijuana users in the (I think) ten states where it is legal? I guess since the feds still prohibit marijuana even for medical purposes, then I guess you're right -- they're criminals too.

R.W.Dale
January 26, 2008, 05:17 PM
keep him off of the streets so that he can't put drugs into the hand of our young people.


I'm sorry but you don't actually believe that crap do you? Aside from the legal pushers in white lab coats I doubt there's a single addict in this country that had their addiction forced apoun them. People CHOOSE to do drugs on their own.

That would be akin to someone catching an STD from a prostitute and saying it wasn't their fault.

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 05:20 PM
So why have any laws at all, people just break them

I have no problems with laws that serve to punish those endangering or harming others. Doing drugs only hurts the individual. However, if a "high" individual assaults someone else, the assault is what hurts the other person, not the drugs. And assault is already illegal and I'm fine with that.

Please folks, at least watch the third video I listed above. Take the time to really understand the position.

R.W.Dale
January 26, 2008, 05:22 PM
keep him off of the streets so that he can't put drugs into the hand of our young people.


I'm sorry but you don't actually believe that crap do you? Aside from the legal pushers in white lab coats I doubt there's a single addict in this country that had their addiction forced apoun them. People CHOOSE to do drugs on their own.

That would be akin to someone catching an STD from a prostitute and saying it wasn't their fault.

Blackfork
January 26, 2008, 05:27 PM
Police tactics like this either ARE reducing the level of illegal drugs found in America or they AREN'T. Which is it? If they are NOT drastically and radically reducing the level, why are they still being done?

No word yet on the mother and baby they shot in Lima, Ohio? Drugs still available and cheap? Criminals still getting rich? Think doing MORE of this will help? Think repealing the Bill of Rights will do it?

Time for a new approach. One that works. This approach is dangerously and tragically flawed.

primer
January 26, 2008, 05:30 PM
I said "put". Not "push". And no I don't think that every person with a drug habit has a full comprehention of what drugs can do to them. My children know drugs are bad, but I'm not sure they realize the full scope of what it is to be addicted.

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 05:35 PM
Addiction is a medical issue, not a legal issue. Addiction can happen to anyone, being addicted to anything.

There are people addicted to alcohol, should we throw them in jail for it? There are people addicted to computer games, sex, glue, the list is virtually endless.

The best way to deal with addiction is treatment in a medical facility, not being locked away and forgotten about.

primer
January 26, 2008, 05:50 PM
Thanks for the definition. But it's not the issue. The issue is weather or not he should have shot. I feel that he should have known what he was shooting at. I googled the topic. He admitted not knowing who he was shooting at. I know you feel that police home invasions shouldn't be conducted. Point taken. But the guy shot through a door that wasn't even open yet. I simply feel that I would find out who I was shooting first.

jakeswensonmt
January 26, 2008, 06:21 PM
He who acts like a home invader gets shot like one.
Amen.
As far as I'm concerned, that cop committed citizen-assisted suicide.
I'm a home invasion survivor. When your door gets kicked in, shoot to kill.

Ready2Defend
January 26, 2008, 06:28 PM
The best reason for police SWAT teams is resolving/extracting a barricaded and armed suspect. So most police forces do need to have them in place as having a barricaded suspect can happen in any town. But using tactics of extracting a barricaded suspect to carryout a search warrant is using the wrong tool for the job. It really puts both sides at incredible risk. From the LEO side how do you sort out a true belligerent threat from a child with a plastic toy gun? Upon a fast entry into a home how many are threats and how many are innocent bystanders? This can make the LEO hesitate and it could cost him his life. The risk to the innocent residents has already been well discussed (And except in the case of escaped convicts they are ALL INNOCENT untill proven guilty). In the barricaded suspect situation both sides have better knowledge of who they are facing. Those on the inside know they are facing law enforcement officers. Those on the outside know that anyone inside still holding a weapon is a threat.

Bazooka Joe71
January 26, 2008, 06:33 PM
Frederick faces charges of first-degree murder

I guess I am not all that familiar with how people get charged/what they get charged with, but 1st degree murder= premeditated murder...Since when is shooting somebody for kicking in your door premeditated?

I guess it is because cops are more special then us? I don't understand.

primer
January 26, 2008, 06:45 PM
From what I read,the swat team wasn't the ones who was busting the door in. They didn't arrive until after the officer was shot. Let me make sure my stance on this is clear. I do not think this guy meant to shoot a cop. I do think he has the right to shoot an invader. I don't think it was pre-meditated.I also think he should have at least seen who he was shooting at. But like I said, I wasn't there. I don't truely know everything that led to the shooting. For the record, I'm very surprised to see that the other cops didn't open fire once fired on. I quess they wanted to see who they were shooting at.

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2008, 06:50 PM
He said intruders were pushing through the bottom panels of the four-panel door, he said. The lighting in the house was dim. Frederick said he didn’t hear anyone say “police” or see identification.

“I was like, 'Oh, God, if I don’t shoot, then he’s going to kill me’ … I think I shot twice. I can’t remember. It happened so fast. All I know is the gun jammed.”

Frederick said he then went back to the bedroom to get a telephone. When he realized police were outside, he walked out of the house and surrendered.

From the guy's account, it sounds like it was impossible to see who was coming in. However the method of entry, if accurate, does not scream "a friend,family member or Pizza delivery guy.". Keep in mind he was burglarized a few days earlier.

Text from this (http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/im-not-murderer-they-make-me-out-be)

Erik
January 26, 2008, 06:54 PM
"so 3 to 5 minutes would be the standard?"

Uh, negative. Usually something more like 30 seconds to a minute.

It can be longer, or shorter than that, or as mentioned, waived altogether depending on the circumstances.

primer
January 26, 2008, 06:58 PM
Ok, keep that in mind. They were pushing through the bottom panels of a four panel door. How long would it have taken him to shout on the top of his lungs "who is it" I have a gun. The door wasn't open. Again, I don't think this guy it a hardened criminal. But a split second could have saved a life.

fireflyfather
January 26, 2008, 07:02 PM
Now, if this guy was your next door neighbor and has been running pot out of his house and possibly selling it to the neigborhood kids or YOUR kids. Would you want him caught?

Caught? Sure. Dynamic entry? No effing way!. Going in locked and loaded, without residents having a few seconds to mentally catch up and figure out what's going on? That's a recipe for gunfire next door to my home. I NEVER want a dynamic entry to happen next door to me. And NEITHER DO YOU.

As for the dynamic entries saving officer's lives, that's a bunch of macho BS. Unless we are talking about people who already have a history of **violent** crime, a dynamic entry is MORE likely to cause violence than alerting those inside that a police raid is about to occur.

As for dynamic entries to preserve evidence, is it worth it to risk people's lives to preserve evidence? If we're talking about anything so dangerous that it is vital that the evidence be preserved (large stash of weapons, explosives, drugs), then it can't be destroyed quickly. End of story.

Bazooka Joe71
January 26, 2008, 07:03 PM
Ok, keep that in mind. They were pushing through the bottom panels of a four panel door. How long would it have taken him to shout on the top of his lungs "who is it" I have a gun. The door wasn't open.


I agree...He might have had time to yell.

But if I am a bad guy, and I am busting in your door and you shout at the top of your lungs and say "who is it," I can tell you I'm Jessica Simpson, but that doesn't make it true.


OK, OK Jessica Simpson is a bad example. . .I have a much prettier voice than she does.:p

yenchisks
January 26, 2008, 07:03 PM
primer said:But the guy shot through a door that wasn't even open yet. I simply feel that I would find out who I was shooting first.
I would'nt care if it was king kong or happy the clown trying to kick in my door ,stop the threat!!!

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2008, 07:04 PM
Primer, its easy to see all the faults of your actions in hindsight. There are a lot of obvious things people don't realize under high stress situations. You also loose a lot of training unless you've repeatedly been thrust under stressful situations. Why do you think so many law enforcement shootouts involve so many stray rounds hitting nothing? You loose fine motor skills and go into a fight or flight mode.

Why do you think we have so many individuals here on THR post their encounters and ask for opinions and if they handled it correctly? Because many obvious things they should have mentally checked off at the time didn't. It is much easier to do a completely thorough analysis without the element of stress, fear, and time working against you. I'm sure many honest mistakes made by law enforcement also could be contributed by these high stress situations.

yenchisks
January 26, 2008, 07:11 PM
primer said:But the guy shot through a door that wasn't even open yet. I simply feel that I would find out who I was shooting first.
I would'nt care if it was king kong or happy the clown trying to kick in my door ,stop the threat!!!:mad:

primer
January 26, 2008, 07:13 PM
No it doesn't make it true. But I would still do it. I would feel that being a responsible gun owner would demand that I try to find out before I shoot. I would hope that if I shouted I have a gun the police would pull back rather than getting shot through a closed door. If they did it would help to control a dangerous situation. I respect each one of your opinions, weather you believe it or not. But that is my opinion.

Spreadfire Arms
January 26, 2008, 07:14 PM
quote:

A warrant doesn't have to be expressly issued as "no knock". If the officers have a reasonable belief that knocking would increase the chance for violence, or give the suspect an opportinity to destroy the evidence, the failure to announce their presence will be over-looked based on common law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-and-announce. I know this is only wiki... but it references valid law and common law still used today.


true, but in this case it doesn't appear that the warrant was a "no-knock" warrant. so that clearly changes the circumstances upon which this discussion has assumed.

just because a neighbor down the street two houses down doesn't hear the knock and announce doesn't mean it didn't happen. the knock and announce was not directed towards him, his house, or his vicinity, so just because a guy came out and said he did not hear it doesn't make it a "no knock" situation.

i think this discussion has made a very poor assumption, with little to no evidence to support that it was a "no knock" warrant.

wheelgunslinger
January 26, 2008, 07:19 PM
I feel bad for the homeowner/shooter just minding his business.
I feel bad for the officer who was shot who was following orders and lost his life for a bag of weed.

I mean, come on! An entire entry team for a guy who has some cannabis?

I'd have been firing at the uninvited guests too.

What an altogether unfortunate situation.

primer
January 26, 2008, 07:35 PM
I agree, I think it is an unfortunate situation. From what I gather the cops were tipped off that there were drugs being grown at the residence. A warrant was issued and served. The cops apparently tried to announce their presence. Given that the guy may have been in a dead sleep and not heard the cops. That together with the dogs barking could have made it hard to hear the cops. The guy woke up startled and remembered that someone had broken into his garage, grabed his gun and ran to the door. Without knowing or asking who was beating his door in he opened fire. A cop died and this guy may go to jail for the rest of his life or lose his life because he didn't verify who was on the other side of the door. So to make a long story short he may still lose his life even though he took the shoot first ask questions later stance. My opinion. It doesn't matter but that's what it is. I the big picture it's one more thing the anti-gun activist can use to take away our guns.

orionengnr
January 26, 2008, 08:04 PM
primer--

Since you are new around here, and about half of your total post count is in this one thread, I'll be brief.

Go read the Constitution. Particularly the 4th Ammendment. Key word: Unreasonable. As opposed to Reasonable.

Next, review a dictionary for the meaning of these terms. Any old one will do.

Then check back, and please post objectively. See you then. :rolleyes:

primer
January 26, 2008, 08:15 PM
I'm not saying that they are indeed right in breaking down the door. What I'm saying is I WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHO I WAS SHOOTING AT or at least tried to find out. If I had my way there wouldn't be cops knocking down doors anywhere, but there also wouldn't be drugs or crime. In my opinion the shoot first way of thinking may have sealed his doom rather than saved his life. And another man lost his in the process. I'm not disputing peoples rights. But what could have been a slap on the wrist may now turn into a death sentence.

makarovnik
January 26, 2008, 08:17 PM
I wonder what the original search warrant was for? I don't like "no knock" warrants especially for petty crimes. Sometimes the cops actually get the address wrong and kick in the wrong door. As for the helmets marked "Police", anyone can get one of those. Just because someone wears a hat marked Police or ATF doesn't mean they are legitimate. I want positive identification and at least a few seconds to analyze the situation. Bummer it happened though. I feel bad for everybody, the shooter, the cop, and both families.

cassandrasdaddy
January 26, 2008, 08:37 PM
"I doubt there's a single addict in this country that had their addiction forced apoun them. "

you would be mistaken in your doubt absolutes are almost non existent in the real world

Spreadfire Arms
January 26, 2008, 09:23 PM
primer wrote:

What I'm saying is I WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHO I WAS SHOOTING AT or at least tried to find out.

i think everyone is responsible for that. that includes the police and the homeowner.

why does the homeowner not have an obligation to have positive target identification?

i think the people would hold the police responsible should they have shot and killed a citizen.

plexreticle
January 26, 2008, 09:24 PM
Two more families ruined by the militarization of local police forces. When will people understand the police are suppose to be working for you?

I will suggest society is in more danger of these no knock tactics then petty drug users.

orionengnr
January 26, 2008, 09:32 PM
i think the people would hold the police responsible should they have shot and killed a citizen.

If only this were so, no-knocks would have been struck down long ago.

Unfortunately, "the people" get the info they are spoon-fed, and most have no idea what is going on. And as has been amply illustrated, most have no idea what the Constitution says, or how it relates to this discussion.

We are doomed. :banghead:

Junkyard Dog
January 26, 2008, 09:39 PM
I saw on Fox News this morning that starting Monday morning in
LA they are going to have marijuana vending machines for those
people with medical prescriptions for pot. You swipe a card put the
money in and your on your way. I guess that it just depends on what
state you are in as to how strictly the war on drugs is enforced.
Why is it ok in one place to sell it openly and in others it claims
someones life, be it leo or otherwise. Never mind I just remembered
how stupid our government is.

Spreadfire Arms
January 26, 2008, 09:42 PM
orionengnr wrote:

Quote:
i think the people would hold the police responsible should they have shot and killed a citizen.

If only this were so, no-knocks would have been struck down long ago.

im not sure what you mean by this. can you explain the correlation between a no-knock warrant and the police not being responsible for who they shoot at?

orionengnr
January 26, 2008, 09:48 PM
Sure.

There are numerous cases of no-knocks gone bad.

There are none, that I know of, where the "responsible" fxxx-ups have been charged, prosecuted and sentenced.

Clear enough?

ArmedBear
January 26, 2008, 09:51 PM
a split second could have saved a life.

I may be a cold bastard, but if the Framers believed it to be a priority that cops should be able to storm into houses unannounced, without consequences, they wouldn't have included the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

Taken together, these amendments don't exactly suggest that a cop who enters a private home unannounced shouldn't expect to be shot, right?

Or do you know little of the history of the nation's founding?

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 09:59 PM
...they wouldn't have included the 2nd and 4th Amendments.


Or the third.
Maybe this is a stretch, but I'd like to look at the third amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I take this as further evidence of the Founders' view that private property is private property, and trespass is trespass.

primer
January 26, 2008, 10:20 PM
I currently have 4 tabs open on my computer. Two are on gun websites, one is on the constitution website and the other is on the story about what happened that night. I can't see how you can see this as such a cut and dry case of this man shooting a simple intruder. Yes, this man has the right to bear arms, 2nd amendment. And the right to defend himself. But the cops felt they had probable cause since they had been watching the home since november. That's what I have read in the reports up to now. They had been watching the house. The rights of the people to be secure in their persons , houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall no 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. 4th amendment. Probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. He was a pot smoker, fact. If the cops have been wathing him that long, they probably saw him buy pot or objects that could be used in the growth of pot. They then have someone inform them or the possibility or the fact that he was growing pot. They had what they considered probable cause. But I'm not trying to argue about his rights. I'm not saying the cops were in the right. I just think he had a moral responsibility to know who he was shooting at when he pulled the trigger. When your dealing with someones life a lot needs to be taken into account that isn't written on paper

primer
January 26, 2008, 10:29 PM
And the simple fact is that no where in any of the statements that he has made has he stated that he tried to identify who he was shooting at.

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 10:35 PM
But the cops felt they had probable cause...

Ah! Here's the thing; you can feel whatever you want, I don't care. What matters are logic and facts. The fact is this guy wasn't a crazed homicidal maniac hostage taker making tactical dynamic entry warranted. Personally, I've never met someone who gets violent after ingesting pot. Though I've known people who get belligerent or borderline violent when they're drunk on perfectly legal alcohol.

...they probably saw him buy pot...

Assumption.

The buying of pot isn't a violent act, and neither is the act of buying glassware with which to imbibe or lights to grow it. This guy wasn't a violent criminal. But now he gets to be labeled as one.

There is at least one other instance I recall in which a police officer decided it was a good idea to go up to houses shining his flashlight into windows. Well one guy, who I believe had been robbed already, saw a flashlight in the window of his back door and saw/heard someone giggling the knob. The homeowner shot and hit the cop. And the homeowner was found to have acted as any other reasonable person would have in that situation.

primer
January 26, 2008, 10:47 PM
Alright Average shooter. Please pay attention. 1st, Nobody here knows all of the facts. Including me. 2nd, I didn't say he was acting violently after using pot in any way. 3rd, I didn't say he was a violent criminal. But I give up. You win. congrats. Shooting someone without knowing who it is is the right move.

average_shooter
January 26, 2008, 10:58 PM
Primer, you yourself have said in other threads that you consider yourself to be "expendable" when it comes to defending your family. I commend that. Apparently this guy felt that way too.

I don't know exactly what the laws are in LA or where this guy's incident occurred, but where I live what matters is what the "victim" believed to be true at the time of the shooting. In this case, what would matter is what the homeowner believed to be true at the time, which was apparently that someone was making forceful entry with intent to do harm.

jaholder1971
January 26, 2008, 11:10 PM
Similar scenario happened in Topeka about 13 years ago.

No-knock warrant on a guy for possession with intent to sell. Guy was drunk, naked and not wearing his glasses when he shot at the cops beating down his door. Caught a cop in the armpit with a .38 slug, passed through both lungs and heart.

Is was 12 hours later before they "found" weed in the house, in a freezer.

Real truth came out during the trial:

Cops claimed they'd been in the house buying dope from the guy 3 times to get the warrant, turns out their snitch bought from his friends, in the house, during a party. Had they'd been in his apartment before they'd have known his apartment door opened outward, which is why their battering ram tore huge chunks out of the door instead of defeating the deadbolt.

Cops claimed they knocked, hollered POLICE and the guy started shooting. Defense had 20 (yes, I said 20) neighbors in the apartment complex tell the jury that they heard the cops beating the door to pieces, shooting then the cops screaming POLICE.

When the trial was over, they found the guy guilty of drug possession but cleared him of murder, royally pissing off the cops. Later, in appeals, it was found that the partner had lied to obtain the warrant.

2 Years ago, many of the same cops who beat down that door are now felons due to a corruption scandal in the narcotics squad.

Just Jim
January 26, 2008, 11:10 PM
So, by your very statement, the criminal will, fast or slow, get a gun if he/she wants it. So tell me why all of the non-criminals must be treated the same way and make it harder for them to obtain legal firearms.

There has to be a way to check for criminal background. In my state that takes about 15 minutes of my time. I don't mind waiting 15 minutes if it keeps the guns out of the hands of criminals. Would you rather they hand the criminals guns so you don't have to wait for yours:uhoh

Yup.
Mere possession and use of a substance or item should not, in and of itself be prohibited.

Really I don't care if you or anyone else uses drugs. Hey have at it. But the problem is too many people miss use drugs to the point they are not only a burden on society but a threat too.

Addicts do anything to keep up with their addiction, we all know that and have seen it.

How about to your kids?

Newp. My kids are legally and morally my responsibility; once they reach 18, no matter how I may dislike it, if they choose to ingest drugs (even alcohol) then that is their choice and I have no say. But, in this case, shouldn't there first be some kind of evidence or something that shows that this man was a terrible drug pusher and corrupter of children? If it's true that he had some marijuana for personal consumption, again, how does that justify the warrant service in that manner?

Who is going to sell drugs to your kids?? Are you there every minute of the day to protect them??

There isn't enough information to say what is with this guy and shooting a cop. The true story may never be known. Simple logic says that the cops made a mistake and got one of their own killed for a bag of pot. Something I wouldn't want to live with.

There is a strong relationship between guns and drugs and it is criminal behavior.

There is? How about all of those tens of thousands of people who use prescribed narcotics? How about the unknown number of legitimate medical-marijuana users in the (I think) ten states where it is legal? I guess since the feds still prohibit marijuana even for medical purposes, then I guess you're right -- they're criminals too.

To recieve drugs by prescription is legal as far as I know and under a doctors care to keep one from being an addict. Medical Marijuana is authorized under state law. The courts will have to figure out if Federal Law supercedes State law in this instance.

Till the law changes, it's the law:D

jj

fireflyfather
January 26, 2008, 11:19 PM
"I doubt there's a single addict in this country that had their addiction forced apoun them. "


Then you are dead wrong. Pimps regularly beat women and force them to take drugs in order to control them. Many of the women have absolutely no intention of becoming prostitutes or drug addicts, but find themselves unlucky enough to be under the control of a criminal. Maybe those victims aren't strong or smart, but they most definitely are not voluntary addicts. There are a LOT of women (and children) in the sex trade who are unwilling addicts. I think it'd be better for you to do a little thinking and a little research before you get so glib about things you don't know the first thing about.

Aguila Blanca
January 26, 2008, 11:24 PM
Yes, there is a law against it. But it still happens. Does that mean that our government should just say oh well that didn't work and just let everyone do as they wish.
They did that with prohibition. Prohibition accomplished nothing other than making Joe Kennedy wealthy. People wanted booze whether or not it was "legal," so there was a black market to supply the demand. Back then the government was smart enough to admit they had messed up, and prohibition was repealed. Our current .gov doesn't have the sense to admit that the "war on drugs" is a losing exercise.

Until the police can guarantee with 100 percent certainty that a no-knock warrant will NEVER be served at an incorrect address, and will NEVER be served based on falsified information, they should ... not ... be ... allowed. Nor should so-called "knock & announce" warrants where the wait time is 20 seconds under circumstances when NO typical person might reasonably be expected to answer the door in 20 seconds.

jaholder1971
January 26, 2008, 11:25 PM
It is a strategy used to catch a criminal offguard. Get in before the subject has time to arm himself so that there is less of a chance that they have to kill him. And before he has a chance to destroy evidence that could convict him and keep him off of the streets so that he can't put drugs into the hand of our young people.

BOVINE SCATOLOGY!!!

No-knock raids and dynamic entry I have no problem with provided the guys they're after are wanted for violent activity or a fast reaction is needed to save a life, say in the case of a kidnapping or hostage situation.

Going after dope? Forget it. Wait the dealers out then hit them when they're not at home then nail the empty house. Then nail the dealer when he gets back from cashing his welfare check or buying chicken and waffles.

So the dope goes down the sewer before the cops get there, BFD. That's still dope off the streets. Since dealers usually work on credit with their distributors it doesn't take too much dope down a drain before the dealer's out of business.

Travis Lee
January 26, 2008, 11:30 PM
No, we do NOT know all the facts.

I'm still waiting to see the photo op of all the drugs confiscated in the raid. I'm still waiting to see the video of the "grow operation" which police were certain they would find.

I'm wondering why a suspect who shot a cop dead, wasn't even charged with the posession of even a misdemenor quantity of pot. Don't they usually pile on every last imaginable charge?

It's been a few days since this story hit the news and I still don't see follow up stories to suggest that this raid was obtained with any good valid evidence to begin with.

No matter how much some of you want to wave your "drugs are bad" flags, don't you want police to have something more than a perjured statement before they bash down YOUR door?

--Travis--

Just Jim
January 26, 2008, 11:31 PM
They did that with prohibition. Prohibition accomplished nothing other than making Joe Kennedy wealthy. People wanted booze whether or not it was "legal," so there was a black market to supply the demand. Back then the government was smart enough to admit they had messed up, and prohibition was repealed. Our current .gov doesn't have the sense to admit that the "war on drugs" is a losing exercise.

Like most of our wars, it was never fought as a real war. Just a police action. A real war would have stopped the flow at the sources. Like most government programs, the war on drugs is pure folly.

jj

TAB
January 26, 2008, 11:31 PM
you know I always have wondered why cops are worried about them flusing dope, I mean a simple pipe ballon in the clean out will catch every thing they send down the drain... sure seems alot simpler to do that then to risk peoples lifes going in.

Aguila Blanca
January 26, 2008, 11:40 PM
The cops apparently tried to announce their presence. Given that the guy may have been in a dead sleep and not heard the cops. That together with the dogs barking could have made it hard to hear the cops. The guy woke up startled and remembered that someone had broken into his garage, grabed his gun and ran to the door. Without knowing or asking who was beating his door in he opened fire. A cop died and this guy may go to jail for the rest of his life or lose his life because he didn't verify who was on the other side of the door.
I saw nothing in the report to suggest that the police "apparently tried to announce their presence." It is clear, however, that it was the middle of the night, when it's reasonable to expect that people in a house will be asleep. Even if the police knocked, how long did they wait after "trying to announce themselves"? 20 seconds? 30 seconds? How long does it take YOU to awaken from a dead sleep, register that there's someone knocking on your door, and get yourself to the door to answer it at 3:00 a.m.? Can YOU do it in 20 to 30 seconds?

Sorry, but despite the fact we're looking at the same facts I am forced to the opposite conclusion of yours. A police officer didn't die because this man didn't verify who was beating in his door at oh-dark-thirty. A police officer died because the police chose to execute a home invasion rather than serving a search warrant at a reasonable time of day and in a civilized manner.

Come on. Supposedly the guy had grow lights in the house. What's he going to do, flush them down the toilet when the cops knock on the door? Grow up.

Vector
January 26, 2008, 11:43 PM
No Knock warrant costs a cop his life over small amount of weed. If you storm into a home unidentified after hours do you seriously not expect to get shot?

According to the excerpt you posted, the police say they were not in the house. So to use the term "stormed into a home" may not be accurate. To me, the case will hinge on that more than anything else.

Playing devils advocate, you can ask this question instead;

If you shoot first and ask questions later and kill a LEO, do you honestly not expect to have the book thrown at you?

ArmedBear
January 26, 2008, 11:44 PM
fireflyfather, that's probably one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen.

While what you said may be true of "drugs", it has nothing to do with pot, any more than it has to do with cigarettes or beer.

ArmedBear
January 26, 2008, 11:46 PM
If you shoot first and asking questions later and kill a LEO, do you honestly not expect to have the book thrown at you?

I wasn't there. If nobody was in the guy's home, then that's true.

However, in my state, if someone breaks down my door, I am well within my specific legal rights to assume that he intends harm to me and/or my family, and I can legally use deadly force in self defense, immediately and without further ascertaining his intent.

That's California.

Aguila Blanca
January 26, 2008, 11:52 PM
But the cops felt they had probable cause since they had been watching the home since november. That's what I have read in the reports up to now. They had been watching the house. ... Probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. He was a pot smoker, fact. If the cops have been wathing him that long, they probably saw him buy pot or objects that could be used in the growth of pot. They then have someone inform them or the possibility or the fact that he was growing pot. They had what they considered probable cause.
Did you actually READ what you just wrote?

The police had been watching him since NOVEMBER. In other words, for a period of months. They could have served their little search warrant at any time. They could have been parked at the curb when he came home from work, and walked up to him as he was putting his key in the door. No way he could destroy evidence, or arm himself, under those circustances, right? Yet ... rather than act like civilized represntatives of a civilized law enforcement agency, they instead elected to execute a forceable entry in the dead of night, thus virtually guaranteeing that the resident wouldn't have any opportunity to figure out what was happening and react reasonably and peacefully.

IMHO I think he was FULLY justified in opening fire through the door, and I wish I could be sitting on his jury if the case goes to trial.

primer
January 27, 2008, 12:00 AM
Wow, I must have been sleeping when every cop on the planet became the bad guys. Like I said a number of times. What the cops did may or may not be right. I wasn't disputing that. And yes I do concider myself expendable when it comes to my family. But like I said before I would know who I was shooting at before I pulled the trigger. All I'm seeing is how the cop are always wrong and that's sad. Cops planted this and that. You are taking a couple of examples of the law not working out of text and using it to make your points. I don't believe all cops are like that. I think that there are still quite a few cop out there that do the job because they enjoy helping people and feel that it's their duty. I'm just amazed how many of you are jumping on the band wagon before knowing all the facts. The law isn't perfect and neither is the way it's implemented. I know it and so do alot of other people.

gunsmith
January 27, 2008, 12:01 AM
I know how to get uniforms, badges ,my old security
guard uniform fooled most LE and 99% of citizens (I invested my own money in the right tools for the job)
I could easily disguise myself as a cop.
There is nothing preventing a bad guy from doing the same.
No knocks and insane drug laws, end both now.

230RN
January 27, 2008, 12:11 AM
Well, time for me to post this 1763 quote from William Pitt in Parliament once again:

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail--its roof may shake--the wind may blow through it--the storm may enter, the rain may enter --but the King of England cannot enter --all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

Times change, huh?

primer
January 27, 2008, 12:16 AM
In the articles that I read it all happened around 10:00pm. But whatever, I can clearly see that the majority of people hear think that the guy was justified in what he did in every way and the cops were totally wrong. I understand that and repect your opinion. It's you rights. Carry on.

One more thing. Mr Blanca, you don't know me and don't know what I've been through in life. Throughout this whole deal I've tried not to get personal. You telling me to grow up wasn't called for. It's called respect for other people even if you don't agree with them.

average_shooter
January 27, 2008, 12:16 AM
Times change, huh?

Well, you know 9/11 changed everything...:rolleyes:

Vector
January 27, 2008, 12:20 AM
Aguila Blanca wrote;

IMHO I think he was FULLY justified in opening fire through the door, and I wish I could be sitting on his jury if the case goes to trial.

While your comments about the LEO's choice of time to arrest him are well taken, I am surprised you feel he was justified in shooting through the door (assuming that is what happened). The end result is that one life is over, and the other might be ruined as well. I doubt he would do the same thing again if he had to do it over again, unless he is crazy.

`

Sage of Seattle
January 27, 2008, 01:19 AM
Not to get too off topic, but:

There has to be a way to check for criminal background. In my state that takes about 15 minutes of my time. I don't mind waiting 15 minutes if it keeps the guns out of the hands of criminals. Would you rather they hand the criminals guns so you don't have to wait for yours:uhoh

Well, for the vast majority of our history, no criminal background checks were necessary, so I still haven't seen a very legitimate reason for the fifteen minute wait in the first place, especially since it does nothing to curb criminals from obtaining the weapons anyway.


Really I don't care if you or anyone else uses drugs. Hey have at it. But the problem is too many people miss use drugs to the point they are not only a burden on society but a threat too.

Addicts do anything to keep up with their addiction, we all know that and have seen it.

Well, it's pretty common knowledge that cigarrettes are highly addictive and alcohol is addictive as well, yet there's very little to no crime involved in obtaining either of those items. Why? Because they are cheap and available and regulated. Opiates were available over the counter a hundred years ago, as well as cocaine (Coca-cola anyone?) yet I'm sure while there were problems, there certainly wasn't the kind of crime associated with the amazingly high profit incentives caused by illegal drugs today.


Who is going to sell drugs to your kids?? Are you there every minute of the day to protect them??

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here. You asked a question and I answered it regarding my children and drugs.

There isn't enough information to say what is with this guy and shooting a cop. The true story may never be known. Simple logic says that the cops made a mistake and got one of their own killed for a bag of pot. Something I wouldn't want to live with.


I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is a tragedy any way you look at it. My only point is that the tragedy could have been more easily solved from the police officer's actions and not the homeowners.


To recieve drugs by prescription is legal as far as I know and under a doctors care to keep one from being an addict. Medical Marijuana is authorized under state law. The courts will have to figure out if Federal Law supercedes State law in this instance.

Huh? You will become physically (if not also psychologically) addicted to opiates if you take oxycodone for pain (for example) for more than a few weeks or so. Just being under a doctor's care does not make one immune and it has been my experience that most doctors really don't know the complexities of addiction when trying to balance it out with pain relief.

Medical marijuana is authorized under a few states' laws. The courts have already figured out if federal law supercedes state law in this instance. The feds continue to prosecute legitimate medical marijuana users across the country. Sad, but true.


Till the law changes, it's the law

Doesn't mean that it's a good law or a just law or an effective law, though does it?

Cesiumsponge
January 27, 2008, 03:05 AM
This is an example of why no-knocks are a huge liability. In the following case, the tables are turned and innocent people are maimed and dead. Primer keeps mentioning a positive ID on your target. I doubt the people involved in the debacle below will face any charges. I find it difficult to justify how definite positive IDs were made in a case that happened last month:

LIMA, Ohio (AP) - The Lima police chief says toys outside alerted officers to the possibility of children inside a home where a SWAT team member shot and killed a woman [single mother]and injured her 1-year-old son.

Police say last night's raid was to serve a search warrant targeting a man who lived at the northwest Ohio home.

Chief Greg Garlock says six children were inside.
Killed was 26-year-old Tarika Wilson. Family members say the boy is Sincere Wilson and he lost a finger and also was shot in a shoulder.

Tarika Wilson's sister says she was upstairs helping her children clean their bedrooms. Her daughter tells family the mother was holding her son and fell over him when she was shot.


So they knew specifically that there were children present inside at the time. That didn't make them reconsider kicking in doors and brandishing machine guns all over the place so now their mother is dead and they've shot a toddler.

http://www.local12.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=ac2aa96c-b217-4090-b8d0-6ded382a0a61
http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=47620

The Lima SWAT police department webpage: http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.htm
They had an animated graphic of a mall ninja shooting you as a greeting. It has since been removed from the HTML but the image is still on their server: http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.gif

LEO'S WIFE
January 27, 2008, 08:03 AM
As I read this thread, it saddens my heart that nearly every one of you has based your opinion on an article from a newspaper which is notorious for its biased, liberal writings. I don't hold it against you because most of you are probably not from around here and do not read the Virginia Pilot, but haven't you learned by now that the media prints what it wants too, they write a story so that it will sell more newspapers. Really, the only people interviewed would be someone who knew the defendant.

Let me fill you in...the entry was not unannounced....they called out 4 TIMES!! And, yes, he did shoot them because someone had broken into his house the week before (it was not an attempted break in, they did break in) but the home invasion was not reported because the only thing that was stolen were drugs - this is by the shooters own admission. If the break in would have been reported it is just possible that the police would have taken an alternative route in serving their warrant.

The young man doing the shooting is very lucky that the police officers exercised caution and a level head and did not shoot back (I guess they know better than to shoot through a closed door, which by the way is what our young shooter did)

Officer Jarrod Shivers, left behind a wife, and 3 children, his youngest was 2 years old, he will never remember rough-housing with his dad, he will never get to go fishing with his dad, he will not ever have the pleasure of discussing cars, girls or how annoying sisters are with his dad...because his dad, died a hero's death. How dare you belittle that!?

This person who shot officer Shivers may not have a record, but every hardened criminal has a first time! At one time they all had a clean record.

Sometimes it is harder to get the real facts than to just jump on the band wagon.

**LEO's Wife

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." ~Kierkegaard

LEO'S WIFE
January 27, 2008, 08:19 AM
oh and by the way, this did not happen in the dead of night...it was around 8pm

cassandrasdaddy
January 27, 2008, 08:48 AM
there you go messing with the fantasies by interjecting facts

poor guy probably thought it was guys coming to take off the dope dealer. pretty safe buisness for bad guys since dope dealer can't go to cops. course if you don't like that kinda thing you might not want to sell dope for a living. in virginia if he was dealing a lil dope had the gun and now hes shot a cop hes toast.and should be. having the gun while dealing dope makes it a felony killing someone during a felony gets you first degree murder. and va it just might get you one last shot of dope and the big sleep. funny how selling pot fot a lil cash seems like such a good idea at first. i've know 4 or 5 guys who've paid the price for it

corncob
January 27, 2008, 09:28 AM
The children of people killed or imprisoned by government employees also grow up without parents.

It's funny to me how people who kill or die for government enterprise are "heros" when they are on the payroll and "criminals" when they aren't. As previous posters have said, SWAT teams need to justify their existence. "Heros" need villains or they don't have a job. In other words, anyone can rough-up their fellow man for fun--it takes an oppressive system of immoral laws that "criminalize" a group of previously normal people to make it profitable.

I am so tired of the War on (some) Drugs. It has made people crazy. No one here would suggest that it would be moral for me to break into my neighbor's house and kidnap him based on what he grows in his garden, or cooks in his basement, or smokes, or injects into his arm, or sells to someone else at a fair, agreed-upon price--especially since I've never actually seen him do it, only heard it from another neighbor who is an admitted home-invader and thief.

But if I pay someone else to do the very same thing it becomes not only moral, but absolutely vital to the safety of our community.

thumbody
January 27, 2008, 09:37 AM
primer

So, I don't do any stupid stuff to give them a reason to.

You mean like over 300 of these victims of No Knock warrants!

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

JWarren
January 27, 2008, 09:40 AM
Thanks for posting that Thumb... I was going to look it up in my Favorites later.

I am not against LEOs, and I am not per se commenting on this case. I *AM* against No-Knock Search Warrants-- or should I say the EASE by which they are issued.

I may feel better when I see evidence that those getting them can repeatedly and reliably use Mapquest.



-- John

MASTEROFMALICE
January 27, 2008, 09:46 AM
Nice try, CornCob, but your logic undermines our ENTIRE system of Government. Laws don't appear out of thin air. Like it or not, flawed or not, our laws come from the people.

Are there rediculous laws on the books? Absolutely! We don't fix those laws by simply selecting what we will obey and what we won't. We fix the laws by changing or eliminating them. By ignoring and breaking laws you do nothing but strengthen them. By breaking the laws you actually prove a NEED for them, after all, we wouldn't need the law if you wen't doing what you were doing.

So what you're saying is. Let's say you're a practicing necrophiliac. Well, hell, no reason NOT to let you dig up corpses and have sex with them, right? After all, who's the victim? Besides, the law is a stupid one and does nothing to serve the interests of mankind. The only thing that law does make criminals out of people who otherwise wouldn't be criminals.

So what say you, CornCob? Are you ready to stand behind my Necrophila Protection Act and get all those rediculous laws repealed which only prevent us from using inanimate objects for our pleasure?

Or perhaps, society needs to draw the line SOMEWHERE. People on both sides will always bitch about where that line is but it needs to be SOMEWHERE.

By the way. What is with you guys? You keep griping about no-knock warrants even though that isn't what happened. It was a "knock and announce" search warrant. Those have been about for two hundred years.

STOP WITH THE "NO-KNOCK" WHINING!!!! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!! STOP MAKING STUFF UP!!! YOU'RE ACTING LIKE DEMOCRATS!!!!

chipperi
January 27, 2008, 09:52 AM
I have personally witnessed a knock and announce warrant where the entry team goes to the door and one officer very lightly taps on the door and looks at another officer and asks "did you hear that?" When the other officer nods his head through the door they go. They were using the law in the grey area as the law where I lived only said they must knock as to be heard. It didn't say heard by who. I think alot of places have closed that loophole though to make it loud enough for occupants to hear.

Eric F
January 27, 2008, 10:32 AM
I live in the area near this event my brother-in law who works for the city of Chesapeake knew this officer
I have not had the time to read every post in this thread but some of you folks really piss me off with stuff like

Officers'Wife
He who acts like a home invader gets shot like one. The guy deserves a medal for protecting his children, not a jail sentence because the intruder turned out to be a 'good guy.'

Trouble with the ends justifying the means is the people in the middle can't tell who is playing what. What a pity.

Selena


whats wrong with you? Do home invaders frequently yell police search warrent? I dont think so. Right wrong or indiffrent had the person not been using drugs he would never of had a warrent served.

JWarren
January 27, 2008, 10:55 AM
Guys... settle down and get the facts straight. It seems that there are a number of seperate issues here that probably should be broken into a couple threads.


First:

THIS actual case. Do we know for certain that the "Knock" warrant was actually heard? That DOES make a difference in what a reaction would be. If someone whispered "Police" at my door and kicked it in while I was in the study, I may come out defending myself. Whose responsibity is that????



Second:

No-Knock Warrants. A lot of people here are commenting on the case assuming that this was a No-Knock Warrant. I have seen a post or two here indicating that it was not.

No-Knock Warrants should have their own thread and not be discussed here IF this was a Knock Warrant.




Now an editorial part from me....


HERE is why many of us are against NO-KNOCK warrants:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=273051&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=275624&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=266064&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=219438&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=193552&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=160869&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=154106&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=54214&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=40942&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=39074&highlight=no-knock

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=24569&highlight=no-knock



And that is just from a quick search.



-- John

Eric F
January 27, 2008, 11:13 AM
Do we know for certain that the "Knock" warrant was actually heard?
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?s=7758590

ArmedBear
January 27, 2008, 11:16 AM
No-Knock Warrants should have their own thread and not be discussed here IF this was a Knock Warrant.


Agreed.

If this was a properly-executed, standard warrant, of course the guy should be up for murder. No question.

WRT the "need" for no-knock warrants for drug cases: if the guy has so little inventory that he can flush it down a toilet in less than a minute, hell, I don't think that it's a tragedy for society if the "bust" doesn't turn out to land the local cops on the front page. This is more about politics for the next election for Police Chief than actually "keeping drugs off the streets." And if the guy is really a big-time dealer, he won't be able to flush down all of his inventory anyway.

I can see the need for no-knock warrants if there's a psycho kidnapper with a young girl tied up in the bathroom, or a violent gang waiting to shoot the cops. But for run-of-the-mill drug busts? Even if you really believe that it should be government's role to keep people from smoking weed (and I don't), do the benefits outweigh the costs of executing no-knock warrants?

But as I said, if the police announced themselves and the guy shot them through the door, he should be up for murder.

wheelgunslinger
January 27, 2008, 11:36 AM
Eric, I saw that video too.

It's a tragedy all around. A nexus of bad decisions resulting in loss for everyone.

This will erode community faith in the police, bolster the ideas that are entrenched behind the blue wall about "citizens", and will effectively take two lives whether the young shooter gets the death penalty or not.

What do people do to ensure this doesn't happen again? What do the police do?

Justin
January 27, 2008, 11:56 AM
This one's run its course.

If you enjoyed reading about "A No Knock Warrant Death" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!