Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Exactly, which is why they found a ton of evidence and everything they needed for a quick conviction.
Another no-knock warrant and cover up
- Thread starter TargetTerror
- Start date
- Status
Exactly, which is why they found a ton of evidence and everything they needed for a quick conviction.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
That's just on TV.
In real life these are used, for the most part, for evidence preservation; before "the flush" can erase any possibility of a conviction.
The LEO's here can certainly correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that if just affecting an arrest is the goal there are much safer methods for the officers.
Joining late:
We do not lack awareness of the issue. What we lack is civil discussion of the matter, and posts just repeating the newsblurbs de jour of alleged inappropriate or botched raids does nothing to help the matter. Here are some basic facts:
1. There are, literally, hundreds of "SWAT" raids every day. The overwhelming majority of them go off without a hitch and they never make the news. Whether this is right or wrong, good or bad, is a matter of opinion.
2. You hear about the ones that are wrong, bad, or otherwise odd. This leads to a perceived epidemic of errors, regardless of what the real error rate is.
3. There has never been a drug dealer, criminal, nutcase, or wronged homeowner that was happy about having their door kicked down, and each and every one of them will be saying the same thing in the media and trying to prove the same thing in court- the cops screwed up, I am the victim here. It does not matter what they say, it matters what the truth is.
4. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever get enough correct information to decide what the truth is from a newsblurb about the event. It will never happen.
5. Read #4 again. That is why we are not doing the daily litany of events anymore. It serves no point. Unless if brings something new to the discussion, or has an on-topic issue, it's done. It's over. Propose some action in activism to support your point of view that will affect what you feel to be a positive change, post about it someplace else, or go on about your day. For those of you who think that we should have free discussion about the topic, we did that. Discussions constantly spun straight down to the Low Road, and were serving as a distraction to the primary mission of THR. We are not the Paul Revere of the anti-police-state movement, we exist to further the practice of keeping and bearing arms and popularize it through reasonable, civil discussion of that right.
You don't need to saddle up your horse and tell us the British are coming. We all got the email.
Mike
The problem is that we had a whole lot of notification, a whole lot of fist-shaking and outrage, and a whole lot of crickets chirping when time came for people to, you know, do something.
We do not lack awareness of the issue. What we lack is civil discussion of the matter, and posts just repeating the newsblurbs de jour of alleged inappropriate or botched raids does nothing to help the matter. Here are some basic facts:
1. There are, literally, hundreds of "SWAT" raids every day. The overwhelming majority of them go off without a hitch and they never make the news. Whether this is right or wrong, good or bad, is a matter of opinion.
2. You hear about the ones that are wrong, bad, or otherwise odd. This leads to a perceived epidemic of errors, regardless of what the real error rate is.
3. There has never been a drug dealer, criminal, nutcase, or wronged homeowner that was happy about having their door kicked down, and each and every one of them will be saying the same thing in the media and trying to prove the same thing in court- the cops screwed up, I am the victim here. It does not matter what they say, it matters what the truth is.
4. You will never, ever, ever, ever, ever get enough correct information to decide what the truth is from a newsblurb about the event. It will never happen.
5. Read #4 again. That is why we are not doing the daily litany of events anymore. It serves no point. Unless if brings something new to the discussion, or has an on-topic issue, it's done. It's over. Propose some action in activism to support your point of view that will affect what you feel to be a positive change, post about it someplace else, or go on about your day. For those of you who think that we should have free discussion about the topic, we did that. Discussions constantly spun straight down to the Low Road, and were serving as a distraction to the primary mission of THR. We are not the Paul Revere of the anti-police-state movement, we exist to further the practice of keeping and bearing arms and popularize it through reasonable, civil discussion of that right.
You don't need to saddle up your horse and tell us the British are coming. We all got the email.
Mike
The goal depends on the case at hand. Not all SWAT raids are drug raids. The dynamic entry is used because it is safer for all involved, officers and suspects alike, if one proceeds from the assumption that entry is required.
Mike
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Coronach said:
Yeah, "if." Perhaps we all need to be as aware and cognizant as possible, but the simple questioning of that assumption isn't cop-bashing by any means.
coyotehitman said:
Oh?
So the mods (the police of THR) aren't doing a good enough job for you? Quite ironic.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Certainly have done no research on it but that sure doesn't make any sense on the surface.
What happened to the good old "Come out with your hands up you are surrounded, we'll be here all night" kind of thing?
Is it really safer for all involved or is there some tradeoff for expediency?
I'd be interested in seeing studies on that if there are any.
Sage of Seattle said;
So do you have any proof that would stand up in a court of law that Schuetzle perjured himself when he wrote the affidavit for the warrant?
Is it impossible for you to accept that the cousin who had been involved in production of meth continued his activities once he moved in with Ingle? I have no proof, but the few facts we have sure point that way.
Jeff
So do you have any proof that would stand up in a court of law that Schuetzle perjured himself when he wrote the affidavit for the warrant?
Is it impossible for you to accept that the cousin who had been involved in production of meth continued his activities once he moved in with Ingle? I have no proof, but the few facts we have sure point that way.
Jeff
Uh Wheeler, plenty of people are in jail right now for baggies and a scale....Never heard of laws against drug paraphernalia?
My point is that meth was purchased at that residence, unless you are willing to accuse Schuetzle of perjury. Do you have any proof to back up that allegation should you decide to make it?
The way I see it, Ingle let his cousin live there, the cousin continued to do what he did best, either with or without Ingle's knowledge, the cousin sold meth from that residence to an undercover officer and the raid was the result. Ingle is guilty of bad judgment for allowing the tweaker cousin to live with him, it was the cousin who victimized him, not the police. He pointed a gun at the officers standing at his window and he lived to tell about it. I think he's doing pretty well for himself. If you're going to play in the cesspool, don't complain if you stink afterwards.
Jeff
TallPine
Member
Zip-lock bags and kitchen scales are "drug paraphernalia" without any other evidence??? Wow!
No Tallpine you also need someone to claim to have "knowledge" of of you using them illegally...........
Yeah ...so any LEO that serves on a force that employs officers that have .......creatively used their authority, shouldn't mind being tarred with the same brush? Playin' in the same cesspool and all..... Just another reason why no knocks should be found unconstitutional....guilt by association ....indeed..
Edit to add..
Jeff I read every post before posting... I just scanned through the whole thread again...I did not see where the officer claims to have "purchased" controlled substances, could you point that out for me?..... I could be that I am a little slow though... these threads seem to kill my brain cells...
TallPine,
From the return sheets (record of evidence seized) that must be returned to the judge who signed the warrant after it was served:
Black Bag with scales and baggies found in the cargo area of the jeep
Yeah I always keep my kitchen scale and baggies in a bag in the cargo area of my Expedition, one never knows when they might want to split that large order of fries equally.
Black bag with paraphernalia found on the dining room shelf
It doesn't say what the paraphernalia is, but I would bet it's not exactly an innocent item, I'm sure it meets the definition of drug paraphernalia in Arkansas law.
Scale found in East bedroom drawer
Might need to divvy up those fries when one is eating in bed or maybe one needs the scales for some kind of bedroom game.....
Having been in more then a few places where drugs were manufactured and sold, I have to admit, it doesn't look too innocent to me.
You can see the warrants and the return sheets here: http://www.theagitator.com/tracywarrants.pdf
Jeff
From the return sheets (record of evidence seized) that must be returned to the judge who signed the warrant after it was served:
Black Bag with scales and baggies found in the cargo area of the jeep
Yeah I always keep my kitchen scale and baggies in a bag in the cargo area of my Expedition, one never knows when they might want to split that large order of fries equally.
Black bag with paraphernalia found on the dining room shelf
It doesn't say what the paraphernalia is, but I would bet it's not exactly an innocent item, I'm sure it meets the definition of drug paraphernalia in Arkansas law.
Scale found in East bedroom drawer
Might need to divvy up those fries when one is eating in bed or maybe one needs the scales for some kind of bedroom game.....
Having been in more then a few places where drugs were manufactured and sold, I have to admit, it doesn't look too innocent to me.
You can see the warrants and the return sheets here: http://www.theagitator.com/tracywarrants.pdf
Jeff
Pilgrim
Member
I've always loved the idea of several patrol cars roaring up with light flashing to surround the house of a known druggie. After enough time for a few toilet flushes, the cops all laugh, get in their cars, and drive off to get some coffee.
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Wheeler,
You have to read the Arkansas Times article to find out about the affidavit that was sworn out to apply for the warrant:
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=68509828-1566-472d-9a68-79f43b522950
You just don't go in and say, I think that there is meth being sold at this residence you have to have some kind of proof that would convince a judge that it was in fact so. You swear out an affidavit under penalty of perjury. The affidavit does not go to the person who the warrant was served on. I'm surprised the Arkansas Times got a copy of it and it would certainly reveal more about the case if we could see it.
Baggies...baggies aren't evidence of anything more then a desire to keep your leftovers fresh. But if you have baggies with the corners torn out of them, you have a pretty good indication someone put a rock of meth in one and twisted the baggie around it and tied it, then tore that corner off. Perhaps they don't package rocks of meth that way in Arkansas, but they sure do here.
Jeff
You have to read the Arkansas Times article to find out about the affidavit that was sworn out to apply for the warrant:
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=68509828-1566-472d-9a68-79f43b522950
You just don't go in and say, I think that there is meth being sold at this residence you have to have some kind of proof that would convince a judge that it was in fact so. You swear out an affidavit under penalty of perjury. The affidavit does not go to the person who the warrant was served on. I'm surprised the Arkansas Times got a copy of it and it would certainly reveal more about the case if we could see it.
Baggies...baggies aren't evidence of anything more then a desire to keep your leftovers fresh. But if you have baggies with the corners torn out of them, you have a pretty good indication someone put a rock of meth in one and twisted the baggie around it and tied it, then tore that corner off. Perhaps they don't package rocks of meth that way in Arkansas, but they sure do here.
Jeff
That sort of thing is done, too. Sometimes it works out just fine. Other times it works out with a bunch of shots being fired and people going to the hospital. A few years ago, there was a high profile case in California where they tried to serve a warrant the Olde Fashioned Way by walking up to the door and knocking like gentlemen, and the nutbar ran back into his house and started firing. Next thing you know there was a firefight going on in Suburbia, which is the very thing that dynamic entries are designed to avoid. No one tactic is The Answer.
There has to be a trade-off for expediency at some point...the question is where you draw the line.
So would I. The problem is that you would have to control for the violent nature of the suspects. Generally, the most dangerous ones are handled via dynamic entry, and the less dangerous ones are handled via more conventional tactics, so simply comparing raw numbers would be somewhat apples to oranges, since the ones in the first group should be more likely to resist aggressively than the ones in the second, and I'm not sure how you can quantify that.
However, even so, my SWAG is that even the raw numbers would bear this out. Narcotics teams do a LOT of raids. They rarely have to use deadly force, or have deadly force used on them, because they clear the house so rapidly.
"The dynamic entry is used because it is safer for all involved, officers and suspects alike, if one proceeds from the assumption that entry is required."
Correct.
"Certainly have done no research on it but that sure doesn't make any sense on the surface."
Statistically, fewer people (LEOs, bad guys, uninvolved third parties, etc) are injured or killed when dynamic entries are used; when tactical teams and.or trained groups of people use them, in particular. A variety of factors contribute to it: speed, numbers, planning, gadgetry, etc.
As oppossed to the good ol' days of "comeout with your hands up" stand offs. When they're willing to come out leaving their evidence in place, that's a fabulous plan. When not... Well, it is not such a good plan, particularly when there is evidence to be preserved.
Which is why dynamic entries of the knock and no-knock variety are unlikely to go away. The liability in opting for the more dangerous scenario isn't something most politicians and administrators are willing to incur.
That said... No-knock warrants should be used sparringly, with knock entries being sufficient the majority of the time.
The time line between the knock and hitting the door or window must be "reasonable." Reasonable may be measured in minutes or seconds; every situation is different.
Correct.
"Certainly have done no research on it but that sure doesn't make any sense on the surface."
Statistically, fewer people (LEOs, bad guys, uninvolved third parties, etc) are injured or killed when dynamic entries are used; when tactical teams and.or trained groups of people use them, in particular. A variety of factors contribute to it: speed, numbers, planning, gadgetry, etc.
As oppossed to the good ol' days of "comeout with your hands up" stand offs. When they're willing to come out leaving their evidence in place, that's a fabulous plan. When not... Well, it is not such a good plan, particularly when there is evidence to be preserved.
Which is why dynamic entries of the knock and no-knock variety are unlikely to go away. The liability in opting for the more dangerous scenario isn't something most politicians and administrators are willing to incur.
That said... No-knock warrants should be used sparringly, with knock entries being sufficient the majority of the time.
The time line between the knock and hitting the door or window must be "reasonable." Reasonable may be measured in minutes or seconds; every situation is different.
As for the situation we're discussing:
The "article" reads a bit on the biased side, and there hasn't been much else contributed, exept the information about criminal associates, items consistant with drug paraphernalia, narcotics activity, a dynamic entry made by the cops, and... not a lot of verifiable information one way or the other besides that.
We'll have to keep an eye out.
The "article" reads a bit on the biased side, and there hasn't been much else contributed, exept the information about criminal associates, items consistant with drug paraphernalia, narcotics activity, a dynamic entry made by the cops, and... not a lot of verifiable information one way or the other besides that.
We'll have to keep an eye out.
TCB in TN
Member
I don't know about the statistics for "No Knocks" preserving the safety of LEOs, but it sure appears that "No Knocks" are "statistically much more dangerous for those Innocent individuals who seem to be caught up in more and more of them!
I am not a LEO, I do not play one on TV, and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I can easily come to the following conclusion. If "No Knocks" are really safer for LEO's (which I will take your word on), and it seems that they are being more and more frequent wrong address or poor intel cases where innocents are injured, then there needs to be come serious oversite and consequences for thosesituations where the LEO's fail to either do their research or where they falsify info etc. Power expressed by any gov. agency w/o oversite, and consequences is a recipe for abuse!
Just how innocent Ingle is has yet to be proven.
Jeff
NickEllis
Member
Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think anyone had to prove Ingle innocent. I thought the burden was to prove him guilty.
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Power expressed by any government agency without oversight and consequences is a redundancy. Who is going to hold powerful men accountable for their actions? The constitution? "The people?" No. Only themselves. If they want to. They seldom do, for some reason.
Lower echelon powers are only booted when the higher echelon powers feel their jobs might be in danger from those above them. Power is a really fun game. The only losers are the ones who make other powerful men look bad and get fired. And of course, those who do not make a claim to superior authority and an alternate morality are the ones who suffer the most. That is, we, the "common" men, suffer the most.
-Sans Authoritas
Big Boomer
Member
....
I'm just pointing out that he's not pure as the driven snow, and most likely not the victim most of you believe he is. I'm betting he's convicted. Of course then I'm sure that many here will think he's been framed.
I've been in my share of meth houses. 2 scales, other paraphernalia, baggies (as I said before, only interesting if they have the corners torn out), Meth bought from the residence, right now given the limited facts we have, I'd say it's pointing to a conviction.
You live a criminal lifestyle or hang with those who do, don't be surprised when you're splattered with the filth. Ingle should thank whatever God he believes in that he's still breathing.
I was especially touched with the part of the Arkansas Times article where I believe his sister said he never intended to hurt anyone because he pointed a broken gun at the officers. Like they were supposed to know it was a broken gun.
I think you guys have picked the wrong case to be outraged over.
Jeff
And that right there is the problem....you can't prove innocence until court....if you survive being"served" the warrant that is...until then Ingle is only guilty by association..
They had three weeks to come up with a plan.... the plan that was chosen.........GUNS ON BABY.....
And somehow folks can come here and say it shouldn't us against them....them seem to want to stack the deck....us seem to have to take it.. after all it's for the children..oops I mean the officers safety...shootin' ARs through the fellows house doesn't seem all that safe to me... but what the heck do I know I'm just a dumb roofer.... Wheeler out...
- Status
