No Knocks are evil!!!

[tcsd1236]

I quit trying. Also, my respect for any LEO's has just went away. You tell us to go (you know what) to ourselves, I say the same for you. As far as I am concerned, all LEO's are just like the ones on this board since you represent the profession and I have lost all respect for them.

The problem as I see it is that you AREN'T trying to hear our side, you are simply rambling on with your viewpoint and don't want to hear what officers have to say, which is usually a very valid explaination about why we do what we do professionally; what we get in response from guys like you is more ramblings abouit how we're thugs.

I have NEVER told anyone here to "go **** thremselves, ", no matter how much I dislike what they have to say.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

DMF

Why aren't there EXACT percentages listed on which warrants were no-knocks, in the source you provided.

You'll have to ask Commissioner Kelley to get the answer.

So again, if the Commisioner said that the majority were no-knocks why don't we have an exact percentage? Is it possible the NYCLU is playing fast and loose with the truth?

More people than the NYCLU have cited Helley's testimony. If they were misquoting him I'm fairly certain that he would have something to say about it. If you had bothered to look, you would've notice that the letter was written to someone who was present during the testimony and that Kelley was also sent a copy of the letter.

The reality is no-knocks ARE rare, and are done to increase safety for EVERYONE, by using speed and surprise to minimize the chance for violence.

It's ignorant to believe that everyone's safety is increased by using a no-knock. If such was true, then nobody would have a problem with them. No-knocks needlessly endanger innocent people. Alberta Spruill's apartment was raided by police, which caused her to have a heart attack and die. That no-knock sure didn't increase her safety, hence your claim is incorrect.

Point being that if there is PC and the warrant was signed by the judge, whether or not anything is found is not is not proof that the warrant was not justified. PC is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it is what it is PROBABLE cause.

PC can mean one paid informant giving out bad advice so he can keep receiving his paycheck.

It's not up to LE agencies to decide whether they will do a no-knock or not it's up to the magistrate.

But it is the LEOs who request a no-knock and argue for its use. Furthermore, it's the LEOs who gather the evidence and are responsible for properly serving the warrant. If a warrant is requested, approved, and served with the wrong address it isn't the magistrate's fault, it's those who gathered and reported the information.

liliysdad

And there are a LOT more not so innocents in prison that will attest to their effectiveness.

Are you saying that without no-knocks those people would not have been arrested?Please explain how a no-knock can mean the difference between whether or not a suspect is arrested.

No-Knocks are kinda like a 19/32 wrench...rarely used, but when thats what you need, nothing else will do

If they're really that rare and only used in extreme circumstances, then you would have no reason to object to legislation which severely punishes those involved when no-knocks are used without justification or improperly employed.

sendec

Please cite your sources for the number of no-knocks executed, or is your argument based on one source, whose impartiality is as suspect as mine?

Are you implying that Police Commissioner Kelley would lie during testimony?

 

[liliysdad]

If they're really that rare and only used in extreme circumstances, then you would have no reason to object to legislation which severely punishes those involved when no-knocks are used without justification or improperly employed.

No, I do not, and I will not...you cannot , and should not, punish the employees for the employers wrong...Is it really that difficult a concept to grasp?

If there is insufficient grounds for a no-knock warrant, the magistrate will not sign it, plain and simple. The choice is his or hers, not ours. Period.

Just because a forced entry is made, it does not mean its a no-knock....damn, sounds like a broken record in here.

Easy answer for all the bad guys....when the police come to fetch you, come out with your hands up...youre enraging the libertarians..not with your crimes, but with making us come in and get you. Make sure you have your dope ready to flush, and your kiddie porn ready to delete. Everyones happy now, right?

 

[sendec]

Are you basing your entire thesis on what one person said during one hearing about one police agency? Do you have ANYTHING else, or is this it? I mean, fact-like........ ONE lady has a heart attack, so ALL no-knocks are bad. Do the percentages on Kelley's figures, you're so enamored of them.

Dude, you just don't get it. Believe it or not, some people do not want to go to jail. If they have a chance to get out of it, they'll take it.

 

[DMF]

If they're really that rare and only used in extreme circumstances, then you would have no reason to object to legislation which severely punishes those involved when no-knocks are used without justification or improperly employed.

Oh so you're in favor of adding more laws that serve the same function as existing laws? I'll let the Democrats and the antis know you've joined their team.

You must have missed my post, or decided to ignore it, where I talked about LEOs being held liable for errors made in the execution of their duties, and how they can face severe civil and criminal penalties. I don't need to support any new legislation, because the penalties are already in place.

 

[Art Eatman]

sendec commented: "But if you think, knocking, announcing and counting to "twenty Mississippi" is appropriate in the case of a killer who executed his last victim by driving a burning propane torch thru the guy's ear, you will not last very long."

I agree. I think most folks here at THR who aren't LEOs would agree.

What I'm getting from all these various threads wherein the subject of no-knock procedure is discussed (or yelled about ) is that not only do the types of orders from on high for no-knock vary greatly, the severity of the particular crime for which such an entry is required varies as well.

It strikes me as wrong to foam at the mouth because of an attitude that there is identical methodology across all jurisdictions, when that in no way appears to be correct.

Busting down a door when the person is known to be in the house and refuses to respond is not "no knock". I've seen that implication in some posts.

I find the NYC no-knock numbers rather strange. Nearly 13,000 per year, of which the "vast majority" are no-knock. Dunno how big is such a majority, but it's surely more than half. So, at least 6,500 to 7,000 per year, I guess. That's right at 20 per day, working seven days a week. That's busy. Maybe that's why NYC LEOs have a reputation for being grumpy. I would be, too, if I lived and worked in that sort of urban jungle.

Yet LEOs here report rare involvement in such events--which bears out my earlier comments about jurisdictional differences.

Anyhow, kudos to the courtesy and politeness in the face of provocation on the part of our LEOs here. The vast majority (here we go again with that unknown number) in no way give any feel of JBTism.

Art

 

[insidious_calm]

What about the innocents that are damaged in all this?

I see all this justification on here for no-knocks, but what about the innocent bystanders whose lives are changed and damaged or even lost during these types of raids. What percentage of "incidentals" are acceptable to you all? What number per raid? 1? 2? How many? What is acceptable restitution for those occurences? Jail time? What?

Also what about the financial losses created by these raids? Someone said that the officers have nothing to do with whether or not the raid is a no-knock. This is a lie. I have in front of me a photocopy of a drug warrant signed by the federal magistrate Honorable Gary K. Sebelius. It says plainly at the bottom "No Knock authorized yes/no". Yes is checked. Judges must authorize it, BUT the officers must REQUEST it first. I have some other paperwork associated with that particular raid as well.

In that case, the suspect was renting the property from a friend of mine. My friend suffered large amounts of intrusion into his life and businesses as a result of this particular investigation. He had done absolutely nothing wrong. All he did was rent to someone who chose to break the law. In the end, rather than ask for a KEY! they literally destroyed the door and windows in a 5:30am no-knock. When asked if they would pay for the damages they snippetly replied it's not our problem! So whose problem is it then? WHOSE?


I.C.

 

[liliysdad]

its the person who chose to break the law's problem.....or the owner who didnt do a thorough enough investigation into who he rents to..or his homeowners insurance......

You are correct, a no-knock must be requested, but the judge doesnt have to authorize it..the call is ultimately his. However, unless a no-knock is really necessary, it wouldnt be requested in the first place.

 

[insidious_calm]

See that's what I'm talking about....

Not our problem you say. My friend hires a PI to screen all his tenants. In this particular case The dept. of homeland security was involved because he was illegal. He had excellent fake identification. The PI, a retired 35 year veteran cop didn't catch it. Now here's the kicker, he had previous convictions and all they did was deport him.

In my opinion, if they knew up front that he was a criminal, which they did, they had a duty to inform my friend about the situation. So much for protect and serve huh? They could have at least asked for a key! Did I mention that they set the place on fire with flashbangs? JBT's? Maybe not. Disrespectful? Absolutely!


I.C.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

sendec

Are you basing your entire thesis on what one person said during one hearing about one police agency? Do you have ANYTHING else, or is this it? I mean, fact-like........ ONE lady has a heart attack, so ALL no-knocks are bad.

I see that comprehension isn't your strong point. I'll summarize the situation, read it a few times before hitting reply. DMF made the claim that no-knocks make the serving of warrants safer for everyone. I proved his claim false by providing a case in which a no-knock made the serving of a warrant much more dangerous.

Oh so you're in favor of adding more laws that serve the same function as existing laws?

If given the choice I would make no-knocks illegal. However, I would compromise with severe penalties when said errors are made in the process of getting approval for or serving said warrants. The additional laws would serve to make the criminal penalties much greater, not serve the same function. In an attempt to mirror federal legislation, it would be a mandatory death penalty or life sentence if someone was killed during the service of an improper warrant.

I don't need to support any new legislation, because the penalties are already in place.

The current legislation obviously isn't far-reaching enough, this concerns not only no-knocks but other LEO situations as well. Some examples that I posted in a previous thread:

During a raid Officer David Gebhardt said that his shotgun "went off" and "accidentally" killed Vernard Davis. Not only was he not criminally prosecuted, he was later given an "Ethical Courage Award".
Alberta Spruill's apartment was raided by police, which caused her to have a heart attack and die. Nobody was criminally prosecuted.
Richard Neri was patrolling a rooftop with his gun drawn. When Timothy Stansbury Jr opened the door to step onto the roof, he was shot and killed. Neri was not criminally prosecuted.

liliysdad

However, unless a no-knock is really necessary, it wouldnt be requested in the first place.

Are you saying that an unnecessary no-knock has never been requested? If so, you're either a liar or just ignorant.

 

[liliysdad]

Never lives in the land of lollipop trees and chocolate rivers....Rarely, even extremely rarely, is more like it.

Contrary to what you believe, we do not drive around all night scoping out random doors for their resistance to a swift kick. No-knocks are one of many tools at our disposal, and they are rarely used, thankfully. When used, however, there is a reason. Yes, mistakes are made, and yes, they are regrettable. I would love to have everyone just turn themselves in..but that aint gonna happen.

I still feel that there is great confusion with warrant types. No-knocks require no warning...we show up, we come in, and we come out, plus one. Knock and announce felony warrants are just that...we announce opur presence, wait a reasonable time, and then go in..again, it is rare to make a forced entry. Misdeameanor warrants , at least in OK, are to be served between the hours of 6am and 10pm, and no forced entry can take place, unless extreme circumstances take place. Search warrants require the element of surprise...the more surprised you are, the less likely you are to dispose of the very evidence we are hunting. Again, forced entry is VERY rare.

 

[goalie]

When you are on duty you are NOT a citizen - you are acting as an agent of the state, so yes, in that case my rights are more important than yours.

Sorry to drag this up from way back on page one, but c'mon now, the state is there to serve the people. The rights of the people are more important than the rights of the government/state, and I would even argue that the "state" as an entity does not even have rights, only certain powers as awarded to it by the Constitution of the United States of America.

FWIW, when I was acting as an agent of the federal government while serving in the Marine Corps, I can assure you that my individual rights were not seen as more important than those of John Q Public who I was out defending.

 

[sendec]

In the examples cited of LEOs not being criminally prosecuted, the assumption is that a crime occurred. In order for that to be the case the State has to be able to prove that the officer acted with a certain level of criminal negligence, recklessness or intention, which may, and apparently was, not the case. Furthermore, this needs to be done in front of a grand jury, so it is'nt always the prosecutor's call.

When do we start the ripping on pursuit policies?

 

[tcsd1236]

When you are on duty you are NOT a citizen - you are acting as an agent of the state, so yes, in that case my rights are more important than yours.

We are most certainly citizens while on duty; we retain the same rights as any citizen while on duty; our work status does not change that fact.

 

[Art Eatman]

Folks, this thread is going back and forth on the same old ground. Re-start if anybody wants, but try for some different angles on the issue or some such.

Thanks to all...

Art