[hammer4nc]

Anyone else following the John Hirko trial in PA? For those unaware, police are named as defendants in this $900 million civil trial, which grew out of a botched drug raid on a drug suspect (Hirko) in 1997. This case seems to contain all the incendiary (pun intended) factors we frequently argue about on this forum, rolled into one...

Quick summary: Questionable warrant. The swat team arrived at the suspects house, broke the front window and threw in a "flash-bang" grenade, and simultaneously shot and killed the suspect. His house caught fire (big surprise)! Police, without any fire extinguishers, left his body inside to burn; his girlfriend escaped the burning house via a second story window. She was chained up for several hours at the PD, denied medical/legal services until being released. At dispute is whether the suspect used a weapon. The shooter/officer claimed Hirko fired first. But, Hirko's revolver was found wrapped in a cloth in the stairwell. The officer apparently had some "agression" issues with past employers. His incident reports were not filed per SOP, and only after he had retained legal cousel. All this over a total of $80 worth of drugs, recovered from the scene.

This case seems to be one of the few that actually threaten to hold officials responsible for their actions, to the tune of $900 million, if found at fault. Many of the discussions on this board regarding no-knock warrants show strong sentiments for and against their use. Perhaps bankrupting a few agencies and officials is what it will take for the tactic to receive serious reconsideration?

Some links, background information:

Hirko on ground when hit by final shots, doctor says. http://www.nj.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1068199678182270.xml

Officer who killed Hirko says he needed lawyer to protect his rights http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1068026701146150.xml

Cop, lawyer clash over raid events http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/106794046587840.xml

Despite training, officer failed to bring extinguisher to raid http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1067681060242870.xml

Defense worries SWAT-uniformed officer could 'inflame' Hirko jury http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1067508261131190.xml

Hirko's fiancée recalls 'nightmare' http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/106742209695690.xml

Fire expert takes city cops to task on drug raid actions http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1067335497298720.xml

Justice worried about warrant http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/106672725441100.xml

Witness: Officers terrified fiancee http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/106629505471240.xml

Multiple warrants questioned http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/106620876530450.xml

Lawsuits raise questions about who's policing the police http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/106603591190280.xml

Judge allows some testimony on cop's history http://www.nj.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1065863078266720.xml

Cop broke Hirko's door in response to warning http://pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1065776798225300.xml

[Steve in PA]

Read several of the links.........sounds like this incident was botched from the get go.

[Pilgrim]

Lindsay PD, in the PDRK, ran a drug raid a couple of weeks ago. When they broke into the locked bathroom they found Jennifer Lynn LeBlanc. One of the officer's thought she had a gun in her hand and shot her to death. She didn't have a gun. So far the media does not know what she had in her hand.

Still waiting for the Tulare County district attorney to report on his investigation.

It seems all it takes to make the shooting victim into a bogeyman is say he or she does drugs, molests children, or has illegal guns.

Pilgrim

[cordex]

Don't see how people can justify "going dynamic" over drugs.

Ubertactical SWAT raids have their place - to stop an active shooter, rescue hostages or otherwise work to preserve lives.

Sending in Commando-Cops to make sure some lowlife doesn't flush his stash? I believe that unnecessarily endangers too many lives (the lives of the Low-Drag-LEOs themselves first and foremost) with no real benefit.

[Smurfslayer]

I know there's probably a rational reason, but, IF the concern in a drug raid is that the suspect is going to flush the drugs...

Why not have the water main shut off ?

:confused:

[mtnbkr]

Why not have the water main shut off

A toilet can flush with the water contained in it's tank and bowl, IIRC. Turning the water off won't stop it from that final flush.

Chris

[Pilgrim]

Toilets store enough water for one flush. Early in the morning after people get up you can expect one flush per occupant. By then the tanks are dry and the raid can begin.

Pilgrim

[tcsd1236]

What we have here is a druggie, a low life, who was going to be arrested if he hadn't been shot. You can criticize the shooting all you want, but as with any shooting, what it comes down to is the belief of the officer at the moment they fired that they were in danger.Thats whats going to determine if this was a valid shooting or not.

If I was that officer, I wouldn't have immediately filed a report either, nor should any officer following a shooting incident, until they seek legal representation.If they are required to file a report immediately, they need to invoke their Garity rights.

I suspect the eventual outcome will be a monetary settlement to make the whole thing "go away", but I don't see a need to make anyone "pay" , as you say you want to see happen.

[cordex]

tcsd1236,
What we have here is a druggie, a low life, who was going to be arrested if he hadn't been shot.
So his life is forfeit?

[Sergeant Bob]

What we have here is a druggie, a low life, who was going to be arrested if he hadn't been shot.
What we have here is a gun owner, a lowlife, who was going to be arrested if he hadn't been shot.

You could be next.

[tcsd1236]

Cordex, bad things happen to bad people. He made his bed by his actions and the lifestyle he chose to lead. I don't have any sympathy for guys like that.

[Beren]

What we have here is a druggie, a low life, who was going to be arrested if he hadn't been shot.

What we have here is a travesty of justice. Possession of drugs should not be a criminal offense in the first place, and certainly not something which warrants the deployment of no-knock commandos. The "War on Drugs" is a Permenant Empowerment Bill for drug kingpins, ranking politicians, and local police departments.

The officer should not have been there in the first place.

"No-knock raids" and SWAT units should be reserved for hostage situations or the rare "man running amok with a lethal weapon" incident. Someone's bag of pot is not worth placing either party's life in danger: the owner of the bag, or the officer enforcing a wrong-headed law.

[AZRickD]

What we have here is a druggie, a low life, who was going to be arrested if he hadn't been shot.
The most dangerous drug in the world is adrenaline coursing through the veins of a gung-ho SWAT-moron. The only low lifes were the cowardly municipal employees who hid behind badges, MP5 submachine guns and the claim "we were only following orders."

You want the war on some drugs to end? I think a $900,000,000 settlement would move us in the direction a fair amount.

...what it comes down to is the belief of the officer at the moment they fired that they were in danger.Thats whats going to determine if this was a valid shooting or not.
Oh, I believe!! I believe!! I hope these SWATstika creeps are in fear of losing their jobs.

From the Declaration of Independence:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

You Drug Warriors, like your boneheaded, corrupt Prohibtionist Bretheren 80 years ago, make me ... :barf:

Rick

[F4GIB]

To get the warrent in most cases, the police have confirmed sales (crimes) with evidence etc. Then they go kill the guy to prevent him flushing $500 worth of unneeded drugs down the toilet.

Why not just arrest him without creating all the danger to civilians (good or bad boys)? "Because it blows our undercover's cover" doesn't, once again, seem like sufficient reason to recklessly disregard the dangers that use of SWAT tactics creates for ALL non-cops.

Maybe you want to go home after your shift so much that you don't care whoever else gets hurt - as long it's someone else. Sound awfully close to reckless indifference to many.

[MicroBalrog]

He made his bed by his actions and the lifestyle he chose to lead.


I don't recall him being convicted of ANY crime at all. At best, he was a suspect.

[tcsd1236]

Micro:
Guys like that dont have single offenses on their records.His death prevented any prosecution, but people that live in the drug culture rarely have just a single offense to their name.
As to the guy who wants to see possession totally drcriminalized, I hope that your fantasyland never comes to pass. Drugs are a HUGE scourge on this country, and society cannot accept the legalization of drugs...if that ever happens, this country is truly lost.

[Grey54956]

I seem to recall alcohol being the scourge of the country. Prohibition was a wonderful thing, wasn't it. Once alcoholic beverages were banned, everybody saw the error of there ways, started attending mass regularily instead of sleeping off the effects of the evil liquor, and crime evaporated like fog on a sunny day.

BS! Prohibition is the problem. Drugs aren't good, but neither is the war on drugs. It leads to the infringment of people's rights, and as in this situation, the unnecessary death of citizens.

Was the guy shooting at the cops? Maybe, maybe not. But, if they didn't go and bust his door in wearing ninja outfits and carrying subguns, then he wouldn't be dead in the first place. If you look at some of the links, you will find that they hosed him down some when he was lying on the floor. This is right out of the movies. Shoot a guy a couple times, then shoot him 25 more times just for good measure. That's not going to look good in court...

This stuff is scary to think about. But, you want to know something even creepier? It could happen to you. Let me tell you a true story.

About a year ago, my brother went to the range for a little practice with his Beretta. That night, he's in his apartment, on the second floor, blinds half closed. He's cleaning his Beretta before he goes to bed, and he's wearing his PJ's and a bathrobe, watching the History Channel. He gets a call on the phone telling him that LEOs are downstairs at his door and that he should go down to meet them. He puts things down, and goes downstairs wondering what they want. When he opens the door, there is no one there. So, he walks out the door a little. There are four LEOs set up in ambush behind various bits of cover, with flashlights and guns drawn and pointed at him. They tell him not to move, look him over, instruct him to turn around, face wall, put hands behind back, etc... They cuff him, ask him if there is anyone else in the apartment, which he replies 'no', and two of them go and search the place, as my brother stands in the snow, with bare feet in his bathrobe. To make a long story short, they eventually go back inside to question him, and he tells them that he was cleaning his pistol watching history channel. They talk a little about his collection of guns, which a couple of the officers admire a little, and eventually uncuff him. Turns out that they got a call from a neighbor woman living across the street, who said that "some crazy person was in the apartment next door, smoking drugs, dancing around naked, and loading guns, and that she was scared." Mind you, there isn't the clearest of views, through two trees, a balcony railing, and the half closed blinds.

I am just glad they acted in such a professional manner and that everything turned out okay. However, this could easily have gone bad. My point is this: Guns + adreneline = trouble. A call from some frightened elderly blue-hair with poor vision and a voyeuristic streak, or an anonymous warning that someone is armed is all it takes to get the adreneline pumping. Where it goes from there is anybody's guess, which we can see by the Hriko incident. Sure, the guy may have been a junkie, but that doesn't mean that he should die for it.

[Steve in PA]

Yeah, they should have just walked up to the door like the FedEx guy delivering a box of cookies. :rolleyes:

[Beren]

As to the guy who wants to see possession totally drcriminalized, I hope that your fantasyland never comes to pass. Drugs are a HUGE scourge on this country, and society cannot accept the legalization of drugs...if that ever happens, this country is truly lost.

That guy would be me, and I'm a guy who doesn't even smoke. I enjoy a glass of wine (a drug "sanctioned" by the Ruling Authorities) with my dinner, and the occasional night out getting smashed so long as there's someone sober to drive me home. I have no interest in smoking pot or shooting herion in my veins, but neither do I care if someone else chooses to do so. I would only care if they would then a) expect me to pay for any medical treatment necessitated by their free choice or b) endanger me by operating a vehicle under the influence of a drug, threatening violence, etc.

Who am I to tell another adult they can't ingest or imbide whatever it is they want to ingest or imbide?

Drugs, like guns, are not in and of themselves a problem in our society.

Drugs, like guns, certainly do pose a problem when they are used irresponsibly.

Unlike guns, there is no explicit constitutional protection for drug use, but it is my belief that drug prohibition has and will continue to harm our liberties far more than the legal use of drugs ever could.

It's a clear case of the "cure" doing more harm than the disease. Anyway, I've probably drawn this thread off-topic, and for that I apologize.

[AZRickD]

but people that live in the drug culture rarely have just a single offense to their name.In a few years I can see some GunWar Cop saying, "but people that live in the gun culture rarely have just a single offense to their name." Actually, Sarah Brady is saying that now.
I hope that your fantasyland never comes to pass. Drugs are a HUGE scourge on this country, and society cannot accept the legalization of drugs...if that ever happens, this country is truly lost.The Harrison Narcotics Act was passed in 1915. The Volstead act was passed in 1920 (after the 18th Amendment). Do you think this "society" was truly lost prior to 1915? And why did the prohibition on alcohol require a constitutional amendment while the Harrrion Narcotics Act not?

TCSD is a true believer. He was hired that way. He was trained that way, just like any good salesmanager knows, he must first indoctrinate his sales staff for them to buy into selling his product.

The billions spent on the War on Drugs each year. The results? About 5-7% of the drugs are confiscated. The price rises. And the Drug Lords get rich. They don't want the WoDrugs to end any more than the cops do. Their livelihood depends on it. Our Bill of Rights be damned.

Rick

[tunaman]

Guys like that dont have single offenses on their records.His death prevented any prosecution, but people that live in the drug culture rarely have just a single offense to their name.

I just so happen to know someone that is a professional psychologist who is very successful in his practice. This person also spent 15 years in the late 70s and 80s experimenting with every drug I can think of. He has never been charged with a crime more serious then a speeding ticket and is also married and has 3 kids. Not your stereotypical druggie eh? How about this one, before you try stereotyping again, why don't you play the "Drug Addict/Rush Limbaugh" game. Every time a Drug Warrior uses the phrase "drug addict" replace with their favorite hero, Rush Limbaugh, and see if they'd still agree with the statement. Here's one from the Republican Drug Warrior Vermont Governor James Douglas, from his budget message speech on January 23, 2003:

As he said it:

"More than anything, these drugs threaten our way of life. All the values that make Vermonters great -our independence, thrift, work ethic and community spirit are endangered when drugs command our bodies. Addicts are not independent; they are dependent; they are not prudent in their finances, only concerned with funding their destructive habits; they are not industrious, but unproductive. When drugs come into our neighborhoods, violence follows and thugs and criminals dominate our streets. This is not the Vermont way."

Translated:

"More than anything, these drugs threaten our way of life. All the values that make Vermonters great -our independence, thrift, work ethic and community spirit are endangered when drugs command our bodies. Rush Limbaugh is not independent; Rush is dependent; Rush is not prudent in his finances, only concerned with funding his destructive habits; Rush is not industrious, Rush is unproductive. When drugs come into our neighborhoods, violence follows and thugs and criminals like Rush Limbaugh dominate our streets. This is not the Vermont way."


There is absolutely no way you can stereotype drug users because drug users are people you meet in every day life. You would never know they were drug users just by looking.

My opinion on this case goes back to the old cliche: "A dead suspect doen't ask questions, or tell any stories." Is it right for the cops to burn a house down and murder someone over a GRAM of heroin? I must ask, what fabulous police work led to such a raid on a building that contained a GRAM of heroin. While I do not condone the use of heroin, I also do not condone gestapo tactics on ordinary citizens with a problem.

[Oleg Volk]

I know numerous habitual users of drugs, both legal and illegal. Without exception (mainly because they are an already select group of people), these people are successful, reliable and dependable. It is my hope that the enforcers of the drug prohibition will be branded by history the same way we branded witch-hunters -- as devious and self-serving or as horribly ignorant and superstitious. The whole concept of hunting heretics, drug users or other non-conformists strikes me as evil and reprehensible.

[makarov1]

I hate to break it to the "holier than thou" types, but everytime you drink a beer with your cold cut sub, you're doing drugs. Yup, you're a drug user. You are all going to hell!! All of you!! Deal with it.

[moa]

Grey54956 brother story is weird to me regarding the police tactic.

Seems to me the LEOs were setting themselves up for a nasty ambush by letting the brother know they where waiting at the entrance. The brother might have exited the building from someplace else and come up behind them. Or, perhaps ambushed them from a window or the roof.

By the way, I mentioned this before, but last year in Balitmore four LEOs conducting a no-knock raid where shot. Six shots fired at them and five hits with a .45. The shooter did not even bother to aim. And, the shooter got away with it too. Pretty much took the fun out of that raid, I would think.

[Grey54956]

Yeah, the tactic confused me a little too, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it makes.

There are only four windows to that apartment, with all of them being easy to cover from one location. There is a balcony, but this is also easily covered along with the windows, along with the door. The place really doesn't make for a good ambush, but it is easily defendable from within.

So, I figure that with officers covering all the possible fire points from below, the biggest danger is that a hooligan might barricade himself inside, containing the situation.

The phone call serves the purpose of determining whether the occupant is indeed a whacko, and/or what his current state of mind and reason is. Having a suspect walk on down into your ambush, even warned that he may be doing so, is better than walking into his.

[yy]

TCSD:

please clarify what you think is meant by "drug decriminalization"

To me, that means any drugs seized off the street will go to some state medical lab for certification for later sale by a pharmacy. Or destroyed if the quality of the seizure is too poor for consumption.

When I hear "decriminalization" I think 1) possession is no longer arrestable. Maybe citable. but not arrestable. Makes planting evidence useless. and 2) user no longer gets arrested. Just cited, gets a case history, and can rot on the street as long as that user commits no felony.

Of course, this also means no FBI or DEA in any drug enforcement actions. any such action will be replaced by a citation at most. say $5 fine.

What's the upshot? We take away the black market that makes illegal drugs so damn profitable. Then organized crime will have to find a real job, and disorganized crime cannot afford good weapons.

I do not support drug decriminalization out of sympathy for the life-long drug addicts. I support drug legalization so that I never have to fear a tiny planted evidence can land me in jail, that my tax dollar won't pay for some addicts rehab, that I don't have to fear my own police could kill me, and that petty criminals don't get such easy money so they take most of themselves outl.

sorry about hte rambling, but TCSD, what's your take on decriminalization that you'd equate it with living with the scourge of the land?

[tcsd1236]

please clarify what you think is meant by "drug decriminalization"
Exactly what it means: making possession/sale/use of that product a lawful event, unchargable by law enforcement. Making something lawful ....taking away the criminal sanctions associated with using or possessing that product..gives societal approval of that substance. Sure, Prohibition didnt work for alcohol. But I am NOT willing tos ee society give its official "OK" by takinga way criminal penalties. Oh, it might, given the trends in this country...but that will be a sad day indeed.

To me, that means any drugs seized off the street will go to some state medical lab for certification for later sale by a pharmacy.

Ummm..nooo..that would never happen..seize a substance, test it and resell it commercially?Do yous ee us reselling the beer we seize from underaged drinkers? Nope.


sorry about the rambling, but TCSD, what's your take on decriminalization that you'd equate it with living with the scourge of the land?

In spite of all the glowing testimonials by people in this thread, drug users tend to be lowlifes. Period. Theres no other way to look at them. You can talk all you want about "addictions" and helping people beat them, but its amazing that the drug users rarely seek that option out until its a convenient tool they can use to get out of their current charges.They inevitably say that life is bad , they have all these excuses why they fell into drug use, that they can't deal with daily life as sober, focused people. I have no sympathy for them. They are weak people and in general are drains on society...not productive members.Bottom line, I don't care to associate with people with that sort of low moral conduct.

[Sergeant Bob]

Contrary to popular belief, most drug users are not drug addicts, and are productive members of society. Drug addicts are addicts in spite of laws criminalizing drug use.

[FedDC]

Just once I wish we could have a discussion that doesn't descend into the drugs are good/bad CRAP! We all have our oppinions and we all have a right to. The point was that the guy got shot and then the body burned during a SWAT Warrant.

Ok, for those that may not have any actual experience with serving warrants, you are MUCH safer being arrested by the SWAT team than by a bunch of guys that were sitting around the station with nothing else to do. SWAT trains constantly to do this...as a team. They are prepared and equipped much better than your average partoll officer and they are able to do a warrant service in a much safer way. I have seen it both ways, SWAT goes in and secures the house in about 30 seconds, very little confusion. As opposed to the group of Blue Jean Comandos in raid jackets that have not done raid training in years...5 minutes later and lots of yelling, confusion, rooms left unsearched, occupants bailing out of windows...etc. SWAT is a life saving unit. They are the most professional police unit at most departments and they do great work. They have to go through the most dangerous doors and into the worst places. For those guys, there is no back up. They are it. I think if folks actually did LE and served some warrants they would see what I am saying. IMHO SWAT is one of the few units that should be allowed to serve warrants. AND just FYI, no knock is much safer for both parties since the suspect is much less likely to have time for a gun grab and the flurry of bullets that will be heading his way as a result.

[Sergeant Bob]

The point was that the guy got shot and then the body burned during a SWAT Warrant.
you are MUCH safer being arrested by the SWAT team
I'm having a little trouble reconciling these two. So's the dead guy.

than by a bunch of guys that were sitting around the station with nothing else to do.
What could they have done worse, just called in an air strike?

The point is, he was killed during a violation of his Constitutional rights.
Don't tell me to show you (collectively) where in the Constitution it says he has the right to use drugs.
It's up to you (collectively) to show me where in the Constitution it says the government has the right to invade and burn his home, and kill him for having them.
So the drugs Constitutional/unConstitutional, good/bad discussion is bound to come up in determining if the SWAT team had any right to conduct the raid in the first place.

[FedDC]

Actually the government had the right to be there bc he was in violation of the law. If you would read the document you seem to quote so often, you would see the part about warrants...magistrates...making sense yet? the cops had the right to be there. He reportedly had a gun and tried to use it on the cops that were there in accordance with the law and the US Constitution. When a person pulls a gun on a cop, they will probably get shot. He found this out the hard way. You can't seem to get past the drug issue, but my point is not drug laws. He reportedly tried to kill a cop and died as a result. That is not shocking. If you are looking for a good place to bash cops and whine about how innocent drug dealers are being mistreated, try www.prisontalk.com I was just over there and I was shocked to find that all of the people in jail are totally innocent! Who knew? It was the evil cops that just had it in for them and were trying to get them put away or killed. Riiiiiiiiiight.

[Publicola]

FedDC,
I disagree. No knock warrants are not safer for anyone involved. & further it shows a distinct prejudice to not only justify the practice, but differeintiate betwixt which cops are better & worse at it.

I admit there are times when a knock shouldn't be required before going into someone's house. But those situations all must have the common factor of someone in said house presenting a direct & immediete physical threat to someone else, either in or out of said house.

But in effect you're arguing that it's much better for us peasants to be arrested by the Gestapo than the Polizei because the Gestapo is better practiced at subduing us.

You're also arguing it's much safer for us peasants if the gestapo &/or Polizei bust down our doors & rush us so we don't have a chance to defend ourselves.

Well, that's BS. It's BS that could have only originated at one place; a meeting where people who perform no knock warrants attempt to justify this particularly immoral behavior as serving some public good.

First of all I don't care how professional or unprofessional someone is about it. When they storm into MY home with guns I can't get without beggin for permission from the feds & magazines that I can't buy new 'cause they have too many rounds in 'em; wearing masks so they can perform their "life saving" work anonymously then they've already screwed up no matter what happens aftewards. In effect they're crossing the last threshold that us peasants have, that being the sanctity of our homes. In effect they're saying that even though it's MY home that I live in & pay to keep they have special powers to come in, order ME around & take whatever or whomever they wish by threat of force. King George wouldn't have tried that in London. That whole "...a man's home is his castle..." deal. But you have the audacity to tell us that it's better that way? it's safer for us to have our private dwellings invaded & our persons ordered about in our own homes by the threat & use of force?

Secondly, I assume you're a cop so here's something I hope you pay attention to; I do not care if someone is yelling "POLICE" at the top of their lungs. If you break into MY house, or others of like mind, they (or at least the first few in the door) will be shot. If for some reason they're not shot, they'll be stabbed. If stabbing isn't an option, they will have objects thrown at them. If that fails, they will be hit, punched, kicked, bit - anything within my power to repel them from my house & nuetralize any threat they represent to me. & if I survive the incident, they can expect a very big figure to be attached to the lawsuit that heads their way, cause I will sue. If I don't survive, my family will sue & they'll be more vicious about it than I would be.

This isn't because I have a hatred of cops or the system or any other political reason: it's simply because I do not know who the hell you are. It's not uncommon for someone to break down someone's door, yell "POLICE", subdue those inside & then rob &/or kill them. & it's not something that you're better off waiting to figure out. For about $50 I (or anyone else)could go into any Army-Navy store & buy the clothes I'd need to impersonate a cop. Then with 2 or 3 buddies similarly clad we could perform "no knock" raids of our own & directly pocket any & everything we confiscate, as well as abuse the occupants of any dwelling we "search" at out discretion.

As long as no knock warrants are a common practice, then criminals will have easy pickin's of most people should they adopt this tactic. Most people will simply comply with anything a person says as long as that person says he/she is a cop & has a firearm. Cops advise people to cooperate; attorneys advise people to cooperate; & judges advise people to cooperate. All threaten punishment if you don't. So most cooperate & are thus easy prey for any criminals who scrapes together the right clothes

But I'm not one of those people. & I know quite a few, albeit still a minority who aren't one of those people either. If a warrant is to be served, the best approach for all concerned is to knock on the door; wait for a response; inform the person that you have a warrant & then allow them to read it & either accept it or point out any errors that render it invalid BEFORE you enter their home.

Yes, you might lose some evidence if it's drugs you're after (although any quantities that could be disposed of by one flush of the toilet would be an even poorer excuse than normal for the warrant). But you avoid the risk (albeit small) of busting into to a house where a person like me lives & figures it's much safer to assume that the masked, armed men who bust in the door are not the good guys & attempts to repel them accordingly. & that's not even considering the political aspects of it.

It's simply not that hard for cops to obtain a warrant. In too many cases I've heard about a no knock warrant being issued when a cop told a judge that an anonymous but trusted informant gave a tip & the suspect may be armed. I've seen warrants with the wrong address, the wrong names (previous occupants were the objects of the warrant, not the current ones), & some with nothing specifically listed to be searched or seized. The judicial oversight on warrants is, despite what you may think, far too lax for it to be a decent practice.

& we also have cases where a person opened fire on the cops thinking they were intruders. Sometimes the occupant of the home was hurt or killed; sometimes the cops. What's really sad is when this happens when the warrant had errors, such as a wrong address. Another problem I have is when cops serve a warrant in error & the occupant is shot yet they suffer no consequences. Or in this case where the warrant may have been correct (even though it seems a flimsy reason to invade someone's home) but the occupant was still shot because of police misconduct. & that misconduct was not in thinking the person may have had a weapon, but in thinking that a piece of paper trumps someone else's Right of Self defense in their own home.

& what really gets me is when an occupant does injure or kill a cop that's serving one of these no knock warrants & then gets prosecuted for it. There's a lady in Indiana who just went through a trial for exactly that. Her & her child were at her boyfriends house when she saw some masked, armed men trying to break into the place. She opened fire & wounded a cop. The prosecutor is trying to make an example out of her. The jury was hung 7-5 in favor of guilty. So now she's gonna have to go through that all over again because the prosecutor still wants ot make her an example. After all, isn't an assault on the King's soldiers an assault on the King?

So without even getting into that silly & dangerous thing known as the War on Libert... er, Drugs, I disagree with damn near everything you said.

But let me ask you this: what is the difference between a no knock warrant & a bill of attainder? & why is a no knock warrant justifiable to you when I assume a bill of attainder wouldn't be? & can you as an LEO (again I assume this) not envision any circumstances where a normally peacable citizen with no criminal record would be justified in using force to repel invaders even if those invaders claimed to be cops? If you can then how can you claim a no knock warrant is safer for all concerned?

[Sergeant Bob]

If you would read the document you seem to quote so often, you would see the part about warrants...magistrates...making sense yet? the cops had the right to be there.
Well, our laws are supposed to be based on "the document I seem to quote so often".
We know alot of judges aren't going to let a little thing like the Constitution get in their way. Which amendment is it that says drugs are prohibited and gives judges the right to order SWAT raids, burn down houses, and kill people?
Reportedly he tried to kill a cop? Another report said the gun was found on the stairwell wrapped in cloth. Depends on who's report you want to believe I guess. If he did, I'd say it would be in self defense.

If you want to bash people who believe in the Constitution, go to www.bashtheconstitution.com . You'll find alot of people over their who think the Constitution is nothing but an obstacle to be overcome. ;)

Edited to add: Yeah! What Publicola said!

[Publicola]

Now that i've just glimpsed some of what happened...

They toss a flash/bang inside a house before entering. Flash bangs tend to affect one's vision & hearing. In other words, those near the grenade probably couldn't see the badges or the word COP on the tactical clothing, & couldn't hear them yelling "POLICE' like they shoudl have if they even bothered to.

& you're gonna tell me the cops had a 'right' to be there???

& the warrant was based on a "confidential informant" that claims the guy had a gun & was shooting up??? Yeah, I'm sure that's what the framers had in mind as an exception when they drafted the 4th & 5th amendments.

& the crack about most guys in prison being innocent... most people in prison are there for non violent offenses. In fact except for the really dramatic cases non violent offenders get more time than violent ones from what I've seen. Have one neighbor beat up his wife & another not file a tax return for a few years in a row. See which one gets the stiffer sentence.
So you're lack of sympathy for people in jail doesn't impress me.

Although you are half way right; it is the evil cops that are the source of the problem. Not because they beat people up when the cameras aren't rolling, but because they mindlessly follow orders like good little Gestapo even when those orders contradict the most basic Rights outlined in the Constitution that they supposedly are supposed to protect. A judge said a no knock warrant to seize a nickel bag wasn't a violation of the Constitution? Well a lot of SS officers told their troops that Jews weren't human so concentration camps were A O K. A lot of communists told the KGB that certain poets were a direct threat to the State so their elimination was hunky dorey. & you're saying that cops busting into a man's house, throwing a grenade & thus making it improbable for him to recognize them as cops, & then shooting him on the basis that he alledgedly attempted to defend himself isn't a slap in the face to the 4th & 9th amendments. See a pattern?

Government, not drug dealers, is the biggest threat this country faces. The man we're discussing should illustrate that, as he died as a result of government violating its own rules.

By the way, do you think that ol' King George had the "right" to tax the colonists without their input, or that he similarly had a "right" to disarm them? Or do you think that King George violated their Rights & thus made treason against the Crown morally justifiable?

Government is not Right; government is force. It acts through force or the threat of force. Having the ability doesn't make it right, nor does having the power to do something mean that it's a Right to do something. The judge & the cops screwed up badly in this one. Sadly they'll all probably walk.

[FedDC]

Publicola-

Why are you so afraid of the cops knocking down your door? Are you a criminal? Do you have outstanding warants? If not, I'd say you are being seriously paranoid and I wouldn't say that stating you intend to kill police officers on a public forum is a good idea. Contrary to you oppinion, we do have better things to do than sit around coming up with ways to hassle you and deprive you of your rights. If you are however violating the law and planning to kill some cops that come to arrest you, that would be great justification for a no knock warrant and a few "velcro ninjas" But since you seem like a good guy and I'm sure that you aren't doing any of that, please try to refrain from threatening to do so. It will get the thread locked.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you are some kind of Atty? If I am right, I will go on to say that I don't need advice from people whose job it is to keep rapists and murderers out of jail.

[Publicola]

FedDC,
So you're telling me as long as I have nothing to hide I'll be cool?

Have you been actually reading my posts? didn't I mention that it's not uncommon for a warrant to have the wrong address? Did I not go over the fact that anonymous tips can be enough to get a warrant?

Further I never said I would kill anybody. What I said was that I would fight kicking & screaming until any threats in my home were either evicted or nuetralized. & I brough it up in the first person to illustrate a point: there are people who don't really care if you think you have a right to bust in their home or not. I happen to be one of those people & I encourage others to take a similar attitude towards protection of their home.

& I don't recall mentioning fear for myself in regards to warrantless searches. I won't tell ya that if a bunch of guys, cops or not, come busting down my door I won't be scared as hell. But I do not see that happening anytime soon. I just prepare for the possibility that a home invasion, cop or criminal, could happen.

& I raise Cain about it because even though the odds are low they're not low enough. this is because people such as yourself disregard the harm, both physical & moral, that no knock warrants cause.

BTW, if y'all (being cops) have better things to do than think of ways to deprive individuals of their Rights - then where did Project Exile come from? Ya know, that program supported & carried out by police officers. The one that attempts to put non-violent people in jail because of prior restraint based gun control laws that fly in the face of the 2nd amendment?

& it does seem like an anonymous tip from someone who claims to have just purchased drugs from someone else is a poor excuse to apply for, let alone get & execute a search warrant. & that is what this whole post was about: the police &/or judicial misconduct that caused a man's death.

& no, I'm not an attorney. But I think you do need advice, since you seem to be more concerned about justifying the misdeeds of those in your profession than actually defending the constitution. Of course if you'd explain to me how the warrant & its execution didn't run afoul of the 4th amendment I'd gladly listen. & also would ya explain to me how arrests for the mere possession of weapons with no obvious &/or immediete criminal intent don't run afoul of the 2nd?

& further, I write about the Right to Arms. I have a blog; I hit several message boards. My writing on the subject is floating all over the internet. I usually leave cops in general alone unless a no knock warrant comes up or some other specific instance where they forsake the constitutional protections afforded citizens for one reason or another. But the BATF is an exception. I write about them constantly & the previous sentence that I wrote is the nicest thing I've ever put in print about them. I don't doubt for one minute that if they start noticing what I do they'll tell a judge they have a "reliable informant" who has seen a fully automatic 1917 Enfield in my possession. The judge will grant the warrant & they will try to do their best impression of the old KGB. It's not very likely, but it's much more possible for me because I write very very critiquely of them than it would be for someone who just hangs out in the Rifle part of this BB.

So don't confuse me with being paranoid. Paranoid is thinking someone or something is out to get ya when it's not. I know there's a possibility that someone or something will be out ot get me. 7 that is purely because I complain about it & critique. That thing is government & to one extent or the other it looms over us all.

Perhaps you honestly believe that the cops in this case were justified. Maybe you actually think it's in everyone's best interest to have unidentified armed men break down doors to secure another persons house. If so then perhaps you're been a cop too long. When you're driving down the road & you see a cruiser pull up behind you, even with it's lights off, do you get a little nervous even though you're not speeding? or do you check the speedometer to make sure you're not speeding even though you know damn well you're not? If you answered no to either of those questions, then perhaps you've forgotten what it's like to be one of us mere peasants. That is part of the problem - when the people in government or parts of it forget that they, too are just like us. They start to justify things that are for the good of the people even though they'd raise all kinda hell if it happened to them. They start to forget what it's like to be at the other end of government. Government is force remember? & there's only two sides of that force you can choose to be on: the weilding end or the receiving end. Try to remember what it's like being on the receiving end. That's where most of the rest of us live.

[jimpeel]

Sending in Commando-Cops to make sure some lowlife doesn't flush his stash?Donald Scott who, by the way, DID NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AS HAS BEEN POSITED BY SOME POSTING HERE, was accused of growing Marijuana in slings high up in the trees on his land.

The cops still chose a late-night dynamic entry and killed Donald Scott. I guess they didn't want him running nilly-willy all over the many acres of high-hanging stash stuffing it down the toilet.

By the way. Although they did find a toilet, they failed to find ANY drugs on the property after they killed him.

Another by the way. Their original "probable cause" for the raid? His wife was seen spending $100 bills on Rodeo drive. Not exactly the kind of activity one would expect from the wife of a MILLIONAIRE.

[FedDC]

Wow, that's like reading a book;) Whatever works for you. Project exile is designed to keep guns out of the hands of CONVICTED FELONS. I agree with this. We as gun owners argue that crimes are commited by criminals, not responsible gun owners and this project is based on that. It punishes gun crimes harshly and has been a great program. If you feel like we should go around arming convicted felons and not punishing people that commit crimes with guns, that's all you. I believe that they should be punished. Anyway, I'm out for a while, headed to JBT School;)

[jimpeel]

Sooner or later, Project Exile will come for you. It won't be the one you see now; it will be the evil child of this idiocy. I wonder if you will still agree with the law when you are sitting, handcuffed, in the squad car watching your firearms being thrown into the back of a truck as "evidence".

As you are screaming "Bulls---!" at your monitor, consider the following:

The Seizure and Forfeiture laws were supposed to only affect the "Drug Lords". They were going to use those laws to take their "Mansions, Yachts, and fancy cars". Then they started shaking down Black motorists on I-95 in Florida. They started taking the homes of little old ladies. They started taking the aircraft of those who chartered someone who was under suspicion of being a drug trafficker. They started taking the homes and land of people whose vacant land was being used, unbeknownst to them, for drug use.

The R.I.C.O. Act was supposed to be used against Mobsters and Mob Bosses. Then they started using the law against abortion protesters.

The P.A.T.R.I..O.T. A.C.T. was supposed to be used only on foreign terrorists. Yet two American born citizens sit in solitary confinement, incommunicado, with no legal representation as this is written.

Now, go back and re-read the first paragraph.

Every law will be taken to its farthest possible reach by whomever is interpreting that law at the moment.

[Publicola]

FedDC,
Project Exile provides strict enforcement of every federal gun control law; not just the ones that keep Ted Bundy from buying an Uzi. If I put a folding stock on a '99 SKS with a boynet lug & detachable magazine, then I'm a candidate for Project Exile. If I go to buy a gun & get denied cause of a 1968 domestic violence misdemeanor thne I'm a candidate for being "Exiled". Get the picture?

Oh, but wait - you get to have assault weapons, new high capacity mags, even silenced & full auto weapon with no tax stamp.

Again that shows a disconnect between LEO's & us mere peasants. It's a difference that you seem to have forgotten. So naturally prior restraint laws that don't apply to you don't seem so bad. Why complain about a law that you're above just because it wrongs everyone else?

Oh & when you're at JBT school, be sure to ask your instructor (assuming you're a student) what to do with determined people who do not think that a cop saying so constitutes due process. I'm curious to hear the answer.

Speaking of answers can you tell me why you feel no knock warrants don't violate the 4th amendment? In case the Acedemy made you forget here's a link to it:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html


Ya might wanna glance at the second one while you're there. :cool:

But to rephrase more specifically, could you explain how a no knock warrant served on the basis of an informant who claims to have just purchased drugs from the person & with no other corrobatory evidence be permissable under the constraints of the 4th amendment? Could you further explain how a person, who has in all probability had his vision & hearing affected by police actions to the point where he could nto clearly identify them as police, could not be justified in mounting some sort of defense of his home &/or self? & further could you explain how even though the evidence seems to point that the man in question was unarmed at the time he was murdered, the police were justified in killing this man & letting his body burn in a housefire that they caused in the process of serving said warrant?

[standingbear]

well said jimpeel..well said.often these days we are treated like "mushrooms"...feed us some crap and keep us in the dark and we'll do great as long as nobody turns on the light.everyone feels safer until laws begin to be abused, the outcomes covered up with half truths and denials and the ends are ultimatly justified in everyone but the victims mind.(sarcasm on)So what if a few innocents are shot,terrorized in the night or left to burn in their homes by the very people we trust..we do what we're told...(sarcasm off)its easy to tell a lie when we cant explain the truth.

[ksnecktieman]

I just checked, it is twelve steps from my apartment door to being visible at my bedroom doorway. It will involve a detour around a coffee table, and the chair I am sitting in as I type this, probably moving this chair to get past it. The witness .45 (DA auto) that is in reach when I lay in bed has a round chambered and the hammer down. If my door is smashed in as I am laying in bed reading at night (I do a lot, and the hallway light is on), when a person appears at my bedroom door, I WILL be shooting. I might be lucky enough to ID them as police and manage to surrender, but the crash of the door breaking is what I will be responding to.

Will I change my planned response from fear of a no knock warrant? NO, I will not. Will I die if one happens? Probably. Will the police be justified in shooting? Yes. Were they justified in being there? I guess my kids and their lawyers will have to decide that.

[jimpeel]

Who will protect us from those who protect us?

[Frank5]

I'll avoid the drug debate on this one. Agree or disagree............drugs are unlawful & the cops were there. That being said:

I thought a doctor had to declare/pronounce a person dead. If so why did the cops leave a shot suspect in a burning building?? 11 cops & no one could get him out of there??

Why was the woman who escaped the fire through a window denied medical treatment for 6 hours??

I thought in PA the cops had to make controlled buys to obtain a search warrent. :confused: I didn't think the word of an informant was enough. Let's not forget that informants are often lowlifes themselves. PA LEOs please comment on this. Am I wrong??

Was the gun the deceased pointed/fired at cops ever recovered??

The cops used a flash bang device without having fire extinguishers available. This does not sound prudent.


From what I can see..........this city....has a history of problems with cops. I live in Northamton county. My wife works in Bethlehem.

I think this whole thing stinks. Something is not right.

[Open Carry]

Anyone wonder how a podunk town with a shrinking tax base (buh-bye Bethlehem Steel) can afford shiny sub-machine guns and fancy gear? It's called Federal Block Grants. Money that has to be spent on certain things. If the States don't ween themselves off this teet, then this kind of thing will become so common that I won't even make the evening news. But, this will never happen. When was the last time that any gov't in the united States became less powerful? Force will have to be used.

[mantispid]

Who will protect us from those who protect us?

I can't wait for the day of computer-controlled defense systems.. or some sort of AI home protection system.

I'd install one of those babies in a heartbeat, make sure it has battery backup, and have the model that has automatic heat and optical-tracking weaponry.

Some scumbag (warrantless LEO, no-knock warrant LEO, crazed drug addict, serial killer, mother in-law, whatever) walks into my my abode without permission, I let SALLY9000 take care of them. Hell, if I'm going down, they're going with me.

Sultry Female voice:

"Greetings, you four have entered the Home of mantispid, where all welcome guests are treated like kings. Unfortunately, you're not on the guest list... and it's 3am. I'm afraid that you must have made a mistake in entering this residence. If you kindly leave within 20 seconds, it would be much appreciated."

20 seconds later:

"Oh, you're still here? That's most unfortunate. Unwelcome guests are so rude sometimes. I've taken the liberty of activating my defensive capabilities. There are currently 7 fully automatic 12-gauge auto-tracking shot-turrets trained on 3 of you. I noticed that the 4th unwelcome guest was wearing body armor, and had managed to make it into the main hallway. I was forced to utilize a Mark VII catalytic digestion sprayer... Unfortunately, unwelcome guest #4 was reduced to a pile of screaming gelatin. I do hope that body armor is machine washable. Oh, how rude of me. Please make any peace with your respective deities if you have them. I hope you enjoyed your stay."




Who wouldn't fall in love with a SALLY9000?

[tcsd1236]

Mantispid, the fact that you find that little scenario humerous shows that you are unbalanced in some way. I would have to wonder why you would feel it was neccesary to kill LEO's performing their lawful duties.

As for the comment that was made about mistakes in no-knocks being common, the way I see it, you hear about these sorts of mistakes 2, maybe 3 times a year.In that time frame, hundreds and thousands of warrants get executed..hardly what I would call a "common " occurance, given those numbers......

[alan]

Blowing somoeone away ovber $80 worth of drugs seems "excessive". Thois aside, the indiscriminate use of SWAT Teams and questionable wartants has absolutely got to be checked.

Also, the question of "if these antics aren't checked, who will be next", has got to be addressed, as the increasing "militerization" of police also needs to be addressed.

It seems that the power given to SWAT Teams is entirely to broad, LIfe And Death, given the seeming qualities and capabilities of the individuals concerned.

[cordex]

I would have to wonder why you would feel it was neccesary to kill LEO's performing their lawful duties.
"Lawful duties" does not necessarily imply anything in the way of morality or ethics.

Would you agree that it was right of the few Jews who chose to resist the Nazis? Even though the Nazis in question were "LEO's performing their lawful duties" at the time? If you can agree with this, (as I think you would) you agree that it is right to resist murderers - no matter which side of the badge they are on. It further proves that a LEO who is in the process of "performing their lawful duties" could be anything from the outstanding police we have on this board to a murderous Nazi thug intent on genocide.

This is not to say that police in this country are anything like the Nazi regime, merely to point out that "lawful duties" doesn't mean a durn thing regarding the morality of the actions in question.

[mantispid]

Yup, cordex had it exactly right. If law violates morality, then there is no ethical obligation to follow that law. Likewise, enforcing such laws becomes an ethical violation. "Just following orders" isn't a valid excuse for committing unethical acts. You can't pass off responsibility for your own actions, even if an authority figure tells you its ok.

[jimpeel]

As for the comment that was made about mistakes in no-knocks being common, the way I see it, you hear about these sorts of mistakes 2, maybe 3 times a year.In that time frame, hundreds and thousands of warrants get executed..hardly what I would call a "common " occurance, given those numbers......So the number being small justifies these deaths? In the spirit of the mantra of the anti-firearms agendists; Shouldn't we stop these raids if will save but a single life?

The fact is that the police have become bounty hunters due to the Seizure and Forfeiture laws.

Donald Scott was accused of growing acres and acres of marijuana so the cops did a dynamic entry in the middle of the night. I guess they didn't want him flushing several tons of the stuff down the toilet. Not only did they not find any marijuana they managed to kill him in the process. The Ventura County D. A.'s office issued a report on the death of Donald Scott and found that the primary reason for the raid was t0o seize his 200 acre ranch. The cops had even done research on the value of the property prior to the raid.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34071

The police have become increasingly militarized and the recruits are nearly all ex-military.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54886

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36699

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25454

In most cases, the amount of drugs or contraband they are seeking is too large or too vast to be flushed down a toilet -- see Donald Scott case above -- so dynamic entries are not necessary. They do them anyway for whatever reason -- practice and training, fun, whatever -- and people are placed in great peril of losing their lives.

The police in Dinuba, California disbanded their SWAT team and gave away the equipment after they raided the wrong house looking for a stolen firearm. Not only did they not find ANY firearms, they machine gunned the owner to death in the process. The Coroner's inquest found that, of the fifteen bullets that hit this man, nine of those rounds entered his body while he was face down on the floor. They settled with the widow and his thirteen children.

http://www.saveourguns.com/raidcalif001.htm

This a site that analyzes the event from the start of the raid to the court settlement.

http://www.porac.org/ldf/articles/september%201%202001.html

One needs to ask oneself why the police need sub-machine guns while serving a warrant on a single family dwelling in the middle of a city.

Mario Paz was shot to death in his bed after the police entered the home and stated that he was "going for a gun." How this man, face down on his bed in one corner of the room was "going for a gun" that was located in the opposite corner of the room.

The La Puente police drove over 50 miles to kill the wrong man.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34617

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23817

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32492

They get so gung-ho that they even, on occasion shoot their own officers.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77304

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76196

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74971

And if you think it is all "for the children" ...

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39202

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28955

http://www.hispanicvista.com/html/070102ccal.htm

[tcsd1236]

Cordex, the never-ending comparisons to Nazis by posters on gun boards is tiresome. US LEO's are NOT Nazis. Pure and simple. People who apparently advocate killing officers in their posts need to have their heads examined.

[cordex]

tcsd1236,
Did you read my post, or just read into it what you wanted to see?
US LEO's are NOT Nazis. Pure and simple.
Very good. Sounds a lot like what I said...
This is not to say that police in this country are anything like the Nazi regime, merely to point out that "lawful duties" doesn't mean a durn thing regarding the morality of the actions in question.

Now, as to:
People who apparently advocate killing officers in their posts need to have their heads examined.
People who unquestioningly support officers no matter what the circumstances fall into a similar category, in my opinion.

Look, I don't suggest that it is right for Joe Citizen to blow away the cop who pulls him over. I do suggest that resistance against the police is not universally evil. Keep in mind, there were times in our country's history where police actively participated in lynchings, intimidation, murder and even the rounding up of several ethnic minorities for isolation in concentration camps. And that is just in the past century.

Thankfully, this is not the case with most modern LEOs. However, it cannot be said that LEOs in this country will never again commit atrocities which would require morally justified armed defense to stop the threat.

[mantispid]

Yup, just because a crook wears a badge doesn't mean I'm going to respect him anymore than I would the average badgeless crook. A crook's a crook. Of course, you don't know a person is a crook unless they act like one.

Most LEO's are outstanding folks that I'd love to have come over for dinner and share the hearth with.

A few LEO's are scum, and don't deserve to lick my boots.

Of course, this seems to be true for the general population (though I'm willing to make an exception for politicians).