firearms_instructor
Member
Thank you, Pax.
And that sums it up perfectly.
And that sums it up perfectly.
No Knocks are evil!!!
- Thread starter DMF
- Start date
- Status
Michigander
Member
We read your posts. Problem is, they are the same old paranoid drivel. Do you honestly think that officers want to disarm you? That we are on some power trip? There really is no talking to someone like you. And I highly doubt that you are as cooperative with LEOs in person as you claim to be. There's simply too much anger coming through in your posts. I would label you a "maybe" person, if not an outright "no" person,if I had to deal with you.
thefitzvh
Member
Eric:
If you can't find the cite, and it was/is someone else who said it, then where's your justification for calling him a JBT?
Here's an idea: An unsubstantiated, derogitory label given to someone is a personal attack. Example:
"Fed DC is a JBT"
Evidence makes it a researched opinion, for example, if you would have said this:
"FedDC is a JBT because he no-knocked my grandma's house and stomped her kittens because her car was unregistered"
then, it's not a personal attack. I disagree with some stuff these guys say, but I'm trying to avoid unfair labelling. In the interests of having these threads allowed, PLEASE don't attack someone when you have no proof of your allegations. Wanna talk about probable cause, etc, start here.
LEOS on this thread: I appreciate the honest, non-personal (albiet heated) discourse
If you can't find the cite, and it was/is someone else who said it, then where's your justification for calling him a JBT?
Here's an idea: An unsubstantiated, derogitory label given to someone is a personal attack. Example:
"Fed DC is a JBT"
Evidence makes it a researched opinion, for example, if you would have said this:
"FedDC is a JBT because he no-knocked my grandma's house and stomped her kittens because her car was unregistered"
then, it's not a personal attack. I disagree with some stuff these guys say, but I'm trying to avoid unfair labelling. In the interests of having these threads allowed, PLEASE don't attack someone when you have no proof of your allegations. Wanna talk about probable cause, etc, start here.
LEOS on this thread: I appreciate the honest, non-personal (albiet heated) discourse
The problem is the majority of cases where people complain about no-knock searches AREN'T no knocks. They are knock and announce warrants where the occupant refuses entry and the police must force their way in to the residence. If we knock and announce, and no one comes to the door, we aren't going to sit around and wait for evidence to be destroyed, or a better ambush to be planned. If the occupants come to the door in a reasonable amount of time, they are given the warrant and service begins. If they don't the cops still have to their job.
Well Michigander stated, "That is the way it is now-a-days. " Well you will have to dig for examples of an untested informant being the SOLE basis for a bad warrant. Because of the highly publicized problems in the 80s the Magistrates are much more careful about what info they will accept as PC. Can't speak for every magistrate at the local level, but at the federal level things have tightened up considerably over the last 20 years. Hence my earlier comments about how things have improved, and while it may make my job tougher, the system is better about protecting rights.
Thanks Eric, it's much appreciated.
However, I suspect opinions vary. I also think the folks screaming about FedDC, lillysdad, Steve in PA, etc. are being a bit too harsh. They've been on the job longer than I have, and have been posting here longer than I have, they may have just given up trying to debate rationally. MOST here are being rational, even the ones I think in my humble opinion are WAY off the mark. However, there are a few that are wrapped in hatred, for a variety of reasons that make it hard to stomach these discussions.I can tell you that the husband and wife who were sexually molesting their 14 year old nephew think I'm a JBT. Apparently the search I led looking for the videos, photos, etc, was trampling their right to "consensual sex" with the kid.
I bring that up because that was a good example of a typical search. They had lots of guns, and had been tipped off they were under investigation. Couldn't delay the search for fear they would destroy all the evidence. Forget no-knock, after we got the warrant, my boss insisted we attempt to get consent before serving the warrant.
So instead of 30 seconds of showing the warrant and moving in, I had to try and get consent which would take MUCH longer. Most scared I've ever been in my life standing on the porch chatting up the wife for several minutes, wondering where the husband was, and whether he was loading up one of the lung guns that would easily penetrate our body armor. Forced entries make the news, shootings make the news. Those are the ones that will get vigorously debated here and elswhere. However, every day there are hundreds, if not thousands, of warrants are being served where some guy is on the porch in a cold sweat talking to one occupant hoping another is not preparing to kill him. Is it good that we debate the extreme cases? Sure, but let's not pretend those are the majority of warrants, or that they are even a large minority.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Technically, that would be, "they serve the warrant, and then it's execution begins"; "Serving" the warrant is the part where you show it to the person who's being searched. Doing the search the warrant authorizes is "executing" the warrant.
It's an important distinction, because until the warrant HAS been "served", the person isn't legally on notice that the police are entitled to execute the search. If you don't serve before executing, you're creating a situation where, so far as the subject of the warrent knows, you're committing a crime against him or her.
It's an important distinction, because until the warrant HAS been "served", the person isn't legally on notice that the police are entitled to execute the search. If you don't serve before executing, you're creating a situation where, so far as the subject of the warrent knows, you're committing a crime against him or her.
manwithoutahome
member
tcsd1236,
Fine, I'm just paranoid and you and the others are my masters. That's the sense that I'm getting.
I was just trying to bring both groups into a discussion without all the attitude but it seems as if you and yours can do no wrong and the problem is that us "civilians" are just allowed to live.
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.
I've quit feeling sorry for you'll and the job that you do since all you have for us is contempt and we're just "paranoid".
I wish you well in life.
Wayne
Fine, I'm just paranoid and you and the others are my masters. That's the sense that I'm getting.
I was just trying to bring both groups into a discussion without all the attitude but it seems as if you and yours can do no wrong and the problem is that us "civilians" are just allowed to live.
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.
I've quit feeling sorry for you'll and the job that you do since all you have for us is contempt and we're just "paranoid".
I wish you well in life.
Wayne
Well if there was a file on Wilk, yes. But since he wasn't charged in that case it is possible a file wasn't opened, or it became a "dead file" put in the archives after it resulted in no case. Some times searches don't show old cases where nothing resulted. It all depends on what agencies were involved and what their system for tracking these things is like.
Also, contrary to the conspiracy theorists that think every LE agency is in cahoots to trample their rights, we're all separate and can't access each other's files. So there is no guarantee that the info about the previous warrant would be known to the guys serving the new warrant. I would guess that they probably did know about the threats, but those threats alone probably wouldn't have been enough to get the Magistrate to approve a no-knock.
I have no idea what the state charges might bring, but here is a link to the applicable federal statute, and I know ICE was involved in the task force (and probably USPIS also, but I don't know) that was serving this warrant. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/110/sections/section_2252a.html
Depending on what exactly was going on it could be anywhere up to 30 years. Some portions have max penalties of 5 years, but a variety of factors can drive it up to 30, and some portions set a minimum of 2 years.
Last edited:
standingbear
Member
the respect thing is a big part of the problem I have with no-knock warants.I am not impressed with intimidation from anyone,especially someone in a professional line of work.respect is NOT a given thing but it can be taken away very easily.
to say that no-knocks are justified because they are a rare occurance and only a small percentage of innocents are either killed or psychologically scarred is a bunch of crap.What if those people that were thrown to the ground or whose homes were wrecked ,were immediate family members of the people doing the no-knock..then I'm sure the number wouldnt be so insignificant and trivial
All people make errors in judgement and especially when they dont get the facts straight,thats understandable and needs correcting...when it becomes "all in a days work' and he/she refuses to take reponsability for it and uses their profession to "excuse" it-like its a petty trivial matter-is when I lose respect and trust for those involved.
the door swings both ways.
Edward429451
member
It seems to me that a some (a lot?) LEO's who think this through realize that if they were restrained from their own wanton violence feel they'd be in much danger in performing the duties of their job, (So it's our job to die, etc...) are pounding down the home stretch of cognitive reason. Then they respond/regress to such mindset as has been their training...ie, (It's the law, The ussc disagrees with you (same thing rephrased) and the like. The underlying thought being that they know that their depts will exhonerate them from wrongdoing in the name of officer safety if they shoot the wrong citizen, raid the wrong address or so forth. This is a recipe for disaster.
Do you guys think that we people *want* to fire on officers? No way. Our backs are to the wall and many people see it and give it the appropriate intelligent response it deserves..(Step on MY pregnant wife's neck while you're at the wrong address and I'll kill you..etc..) Which is reasonable given the circumstances.
Don't like it? Good, it shows you've been paying attention. Now you don't want to die because someone else dropped the ball and fed you mis-information. I respect that. So who's at fault here and how can it be corrected? I/we don't want it to be an us vs them thing. when LEO's revert to training mindset to assure they get to go home at night, coupled with the unpublished yet obviously patterned "the police take care of their own" they take the mindset of it's the law that lets them get away with abuses of the citizenry...then they cross the line into us vs them and add fuel to the fire and widen the division between us. Divide and conquer.
Sometimes you guys say it's our fault for voting in the wrong guy. Hogwash buddy. Your administration is letting you down by recycling the 3%'ers back onto the street, and throw you mostly good guys into the line of fire with the promise of "we got your back if you accidently shoot the wrong citizen". This is pawn structure chess at it's worst. If you make a mistake, it pisses people off and they resist more, letting them pass more draconian laws to conquer the country, If you die, same thing only faster and you get replaced. So why wont your administration back you by keeping the 3%'ers off the street? Hmmm. It doesn't fit their agenda, that's why! If you were to speak out against this travesty, you'd lose your job. They got your back if you make a mistake! No wonder you take citizen abuses so lightly and back your own! Um hmm. (shuck shuck)
Enough rant, whats the solution? You don't want to die, we don't want to die/ be abused. The Administration works against you and us.
So how do we let you do your job and go after the 3%'ers without you being unnecessarily endangered and yet protect the citizenry from mis-information/abuses. The first thing would be to (kill all the lawyers) execute the 3%'ers to prevent further violations upon society. (would protect you and the citizens and send the message that crime doesn't pay to fence sitting criminals). The second thing would be to reinstate the possee comitatus. The flip side of "jury of your peers' is 'Possee of your peers'. Want to get a baddie at home with a warrant? Canvass the neighbrohood gathering intel and insight, confirming addresses, attitudes and armament. Oh-OH, mistake! we accidently went to keith the killers house and let him know we were gearing up to get him. What's he going to do? Flee the neighbrohood? Yay! He'll surface somewhere and be taken in. Meantime he's out of it and the citizens are safer with none being abused. Double Yay.
Posse/LE operations should be mandatory public service on rotation similar to jury duty. It would encourage LEO/citizen relations, give us a hell of a neighbrohood watch program and provide a safer means of enforcement. But of course YOUR ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE TO KEEP THE OFFENDERS OUT OF SOCIETY ONCE ARRESTED.
We could learn to be cooperative (LEO's/Citizens) and crime would go down. Let's be friends and send the respect both ways, otherwise, see my sig line. I don't hate cops. I hate the way your administration pits us against each other to our mutual detriment.
Do you guys think that we people *want* to fire on officers? No way. Our backs are to the wall and many people see it and give it the appropriate intelligent response it deserves..(Step on MY pregnant wife's neck while you're at the wrong address and I'll kill you..etc..) Which is reasonable given the circumstances.
Don't like it? Good, it shows you've been paying attention. Now you don't want to die because someone else dropped the ball and fed you mis-information. I respect that. So who's at fault here and how can it be corrected? I/we don't want it to be an us vs them thing. when LEO's revert to training mindset to assure they get to go home at night, coupled with the unpublished yet obviously patterned "the police take care of their own" they take the mindset of it's the law that lets them get away with abuses of the citizenry...then they cross the line into us vs them and add fuel to the fire and widen the division between us. Divide and conquer.
Sometimes you guys say it's our fault for voting in the wrong guy. Hogwash buddy. Your administration is letting you down by recycling the 3%'ers back onto the street, and throw you mostly good guys into the line of fire with the promise of "we got your back if you accidently shoot the wrong citizen". This is pawn structure chess at it's worst. If you make a mistake, it pisses people off and they resist more, letting them pass more draconian laws to conquer the country, If you die, same thing only faster and you get replaced. So why wont your administration back you by keeping the 3%'ers off the street? Hmmm. It doesn't fit their agenda, that's why! If you were to speak out against this travesty, you'd lose your job. They got your back if you make a mistake! No wonder you take citizen abuses so lightly and back your own! Um hmm. (shuck shuck)
Enough rant, whats the solution? You don't want to die, we don't want to die/ be abused. The Administration works against you and us.
So how do we let you do your job and go after the 3%'ers without you being unnecessarily endangered and yet protect the citizenry from mis-information/abuses. The first thing would be to (kill all the lawyers) execute the 3%'ers to prevent further violations upon society. (would protect you and the citizens and send the message that crime doesn't pay to fence sitting criminals). The second thing would be to reinstate the possee comitatus. The flip side of "jury of your peers' is 'Possee of your peers'. Want to get a baddie at home with a warrant? Canvass the neighbrohood gathering intel and insight, confirming addresses, attitudes and armament. Oh-OH, mistake! we accidently went to keith the killers house and let him know we were gearing up to get him. What's he going to do? Flee the neighbrohood? Yay! He'll surface somewhere and be taken in. Meantime he's out of it and the citizens are safer with none being abused. Double Yay.
Posse/LE operations should be mandatory public service on rotation similar to jury duty. It would encourage LEO/citizen relations, give us a hell of a neighbrohood watch program and provide a safer means of enforcement. But of course YOUR ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE TO KEEP THE OFFENDERS OUT OF SOCIETY ONCE ARRESTED.
We could learn to be cooperative (LEO's/Citizens) and crime would go down. Let's be friends and send the respect both ways, otherwise, see my sig line. I don't hate cops. I hate the way your administration pits us against each other to our mutual detriment.
13A
Member
There has been a frightening trend in LE over the years. No-knock warrants are just part of it. LEOs used to be called Peace Officers. They used to have a motto "to protect and serve" on their cars. Those mottos are disappearing.
We (the general public) used to be treated with more respect when we came into contact with officers. Now, we are treated as "persons of interest" when WE call for assistance. WE are investigated, detained while WE are run through a records check. WE get tasered "for the safety of all concerned" when in the past a reasoned discussion ended the confrontation. Sometimes those tasered are elderly alzheimers victims.
Police organizations are arming themselves in a manner similar to our military with automatic weapons and APCs, even in small towns. This coupled with the frightening laws that have been passed cause even trusting citizens to get a little paranoid.
Where will this trend take us? I can only surmise. Fewer people will call for assistance. More people will understand that THEY are responsible for their safety and arm themselves against WHOEVER breaks into their house. Fewer people will be willing to get involved with organizations they see as being against them. Fewer people willing to get involved with the police will mean more unsolved cases with more risk for everyone.
Perception is reality to people. Please change our perception of police activities. Actions speak louder than words.
We (the general public) used to be treated with more respect when we came into contact with officers. Now, we are treated as "persons of interest" when WE call for assistance. WE are investigated, detained while WE are run through a records check. WE get tasered "for the safety of all concerned" when in the past a reasoned discussion ended the confrontation. Sometimes those tasered are elderly alzheimers victims.
Police organizations are arming themselves in a manner similar to our military with automatic weapons and APCs, even in small towns. This coupled with the frightening laws that have been passed cause even trusting citizens to get a little paranoid.
Where will this trend take us? I can only surmise. Fewer people will call for assistance. More people will understand that THEY are responsible for their safety and arm themselves against WHOEVER breaks into their house. Fewer people will be willing to get involved with organizations they see as being against them. Fewer people willing to get involved with the police will mean more unsolved cases with more risk for everyone.
Perception is reality to people. Please change our perception of police activities. Actions speak louder than words.
Apache
Member
Jeeze-ease up on the insurgent posting-
Now for something completely different! Who has seen this elicite vidio of
Neal Armstrong on the "moon!'
http://www.moontruth.com/clips/moontruth.mpg
Now for something completely different! Who has seen this elicite vidio of
Neal Armstrong on the "moon!'
http://www.moontruth.com/clips/moontruth.mpg
firearms_instructor
Member
It's about manners, and Doing The Right Thing
When the Harris County Narcotics Task Force busted down the landscaper's door for possession of Star Hibiscus (which was growing in his front yard, and they could have verified it, BUT DIDN'T), they didn't find any contraband, even though they tried to make a case against his bamboo, watermelon, and honeydew plants.
They busted his door down mistakenly. Did they apologize to him? OK, FORGET the apology. DID THEY REPAIR HIS DOOR?! Did they fix everything they busted? Clean up any mess they made? Not to my knowledge (but if I'm wrong, it's an honest mistake, I don't need DMF or Don Gwinn accusing me of purposely lying). So they damaged an honest citizen, and here's where I have a problem: they steadfastly failed and refused to Do The Right Thing, which would have been to compensate him for his damages right away without any BS.
Now, maybe it's the fault of all these reporters covering these cases where innocent citizens get damaged in mistaken no-knock raids, But I have yet to hear of ONE case where the police voluntarily fixed the damage they caused. I have read or heard of lots of cases where the innocent victims were stonewalled by the police.
benewton expressed the problem very well, and I notice none of the LEOs have touched this:
When the Harris County Narcotics Task Force busted down the landscaper's door for possession of Star Hibiscus (which was growing in his front yard, and they could have verified it, BUT DIDN'T), they didn't find any contraband, even though they tried to make a case against his bamboo, watermelon, and honeydew plants.
They busted his door down mistakenly. Did they apologize to him? OK, FORGET the apology. DID THEY REPAIR HIS DOOR?! Did they fix everything they busted? Clean up any mess they made? Not to my knowledge (but if I'm wrong, it's an honest mistake, I don't need DMF or Don Gwinn accusing me of purposely lying). So they damaged an honest citizen, and here's where I have a problem: they steadfastly failed and refused to Do The Right Thing, which would have been to compensate him for his damages right away without any BS.
Now, maybe it's the fault of all these reporters covering these cases where innocent citizens get damaged in mistaken no-knock raids, But I have yet to hear of ONE case where the police voluntarily fixed the damage they caused. I have read or heard of lots of cases where the innocent victims were stonewalled by the police.
benewton expressed the problem very well, and I notice none of the LEOs have touched this:
LEO's should be liable for malpractice. Maybe it will convince them to check their info, address, need ,etc. just like every other profession that makes life/death decisions. If I was a JBT, storm trooper, SWAT, PANT, or insert latest alphabet agency here....I'd be pissed to find out I am risking my life over an ounce of pot or someother non-violent, no victim crime, etc. There are better ways to get your man than running into the unknown........
Brett Bellmore
Member
No knock searchs would be almost completely eliminated in any case, if we just got rid of victimless crime laws. We've got a bunch of laws on the books which CAN'T be effectly enforced short of JBT tactics, because they're criminalizing acts that don't involve victims who'd help the police with testimony and the like.
We are. LEOs can be held face both criminal and civil liability for errors. Not just malicious acts, but simple errors. Even when the cops do everything right they can face huge legal bills defending themselves against nuisance lawsuits. Many agents I know carry liability insurance.
To see what kind of stuff can get an LEO in trouble look into the Supreme Court decision in Groh v. Ramirez et al (Feb 2004). In that case the court decided an ATF agent could be sued because even though he had a warrant signed by the judge he had forgotten to attach the necessary specific description of the items to searched for in warrant. The judges decided that even though it was not a malicious attempt to violate the 4th Amendment that it was a violation none the less, and the agent could be held liable. That's the kind of stuff that LEOs can be sued over. No one was shot, no one was hurt in any way, but the agent will probably be on the hook for a large sum of money (that's beyond the legal bills necessary just to take the case to the Supreme Court). Now imagine what happens what agents are involved in shootings or other uses of force.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
A lot of the problems people see with the way some police efforts come about derive from local and state governments. Some of it's law; some is policy.
Item: Years ago, the little town of Palmetto, Florida, instituted a policy of ultra-strict speed law enforcement. They set a 25mph limit in town, and you'd get a ticket for doing 26mph.
People, particularly tourists, complained. They complained to the AAA, which began re-routing tourists around the area. That included Tampa, Bradenton and Sarasota. Tourism business just went all to garbage. Local pressures got the Palmetto folks to change their ways.
Fast forward to a few years back in Louisiana: The state police stopped a good-looking Florida gal and pretty much disassembled her Camaro and left it "as is" after not finding contraband. She squalled. AAA and Floridians advised the world at large to avoid Louisiana. Tourism dollars went down, down, down. The governor of Louisiana got into the act and that sort of nonsense stopped.
You want policies and procedures changed? Don't gripe on THR. Gripe to AAA and AARP and editors and governors and state reps and mayors. You have to threaten the money supply to get their attention. Letters to the AARP magazine about where NOT to retire is a serious impact.
Art
Item: Years ago, the little town of Palmetto, Florida, instituted a policy of ultra-strict speed law enforcement. They set a 25mph limit in town, and you'd get a ticket for doing 26mph.
People, particularly tourists, complained. They complained to the AAA, which began re-routing tourists around the area. That included Tampa, Bradenton and Sarasota. Tourism business just went all to garbage. Local pressures got the Palmetto folks to change their ways.
Fast forward to a few years back in Louisiana: The state police stopped a good-looking Florida gal and pretty much disassembled her Camaro and left it "as is" after not finding contraband. She squalled. AAA and Floridians advised the world at large to avoid Louisiana. Tourism dollars went down, down, down. The governor of Louisiana got into the act and that sort of nonsense stopped.
You want policies and procedures changed? Don't gripe on THR. Gripe to AAA and AARP and editors and governors and state reps and mayors. You have to threaten the money supply to get their attention. Letters to the AARP magazine about where NOT to retire is a serious impact.
Art
I have stayed out of this thread up until now...and I will make but this one post.
Police across the nation serve and execute millions of warrants each year. I would gueestimate that less than 1% of these are no knock...and only a small amount more end up in a forced entry. Are mistakes made? You bet...but nowhere near the numbers that you imagine. The mistakes are publicized...not the righteous ones.
Do we like breaking doors down? No..its a lot easier on everyone involved to make a simple knock and announce, and the subject come in peacefully....guess what? Criminals dont LIKE going to jail..they dont always acquiesce to our orders, so we have to go in and get them. The only thing lessdesireable then a forced entry is the possibility of a standoff, or a death, on either side.
It was said that SWAT members and other police dont like risking their lives for an ounce of weed..I beg to differ. Its against the law..Period. I will make an arrest for an ounce o fweed just like a pund of coke, or a ton of heroin. The sentence fits the crime, not the arrest....they do not difer, In my opinion. As for being "victimless"...while beating the hell out of a dead horse, I disagree immensely.
Police across the nation serve and execute millions of warrants each year. I would gueestimate that less than 1% of these are no knock...and only a small amount more end up in a forced entry. Are mistakes made? You bet...but nowhere near the numbers that you imagine. The mistakes are publicized...not the righteous ones.
Do we like breaking doors down? No..its a lot easier on everyone involved to make a simple knock and announce, and the subject come in peacefully....guess what? Criminals dont LIKE going to jail..they dont always acquiesce to our orders, so we have to go in and get them. The only thing lessdesireable then a forced entry is the possibility of a standoff, or a death, on either side.
It was said that SWAT members and other police dont like risking their lives for an ounce of weed..I beg to differ. Its against the law..Period. I will make an arrest for an ounce o fweed just like a pund of coke, or a ton of heroin. The sentence fits the crime, not the arrest....they do not difer, In my opinion. As for being "victimless"...while beating the hell out of a dead horse, I disagree immensely.
I think that sometimes the rhetoricians forget that sometimes we in the LE community deal with some people who are just ******* evil. While mistakes are made they are made in all professions, which is why many of us carry insurance. 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. Dont take away tools because some people may misuse them accidently or intentionally - antis wants to do the same with guns.
I have no idea of how many search and/or arrest warrants I served in the course of my full-time career, but the number of no-knocks and hours-of-darkness were tiny. They also involved perps who were just flat bad people with histories of violence. If you need to arrest a parole violater for rape (and search his residence for evidence) who did time for robbery and aggravated assault, who has a history of attacking police, who surveillance has indicated is armed, who was involved in 2 murders while in prison, what would you do? I'd recommend crawling in at 4:30 AM, shooting his pits with a silenced .22, a 6-pack of flashbangs and grabbing him with his gun, instead of a weapon, in his hand.
"Wakey Wakey, Sunshine, We're taking you out for breakfast!"
But that's just me. Maybe y'all can meet him in the parking lot after church, I've done that too, but let's leave all of our options open.
I have no idea of how many search and/or arrest warrants I served in the course of my full-time career, but the number of no-knocks and hours-of-darkness were tiny. They also involved perps who were just flat bad people with histories of violence. If you need to arrest a parole violater for rape (and search his residence for evidence) who did time for robbery and aggravated assault, who has a history of attacking police, who surveillance has indicated is armed, who was involved in 2 murders while in prison, what would you do? I'd recommend crawling in at 4:30 AM, shooting his pits with a silenced .22, a 6-pack of flashbangs and grabbing him with his gun, instead of a weapon, in his hand.
"Wakey Wakey, Sunshine, We're taking you out for breakfast!"
But that's just me. Maybe y'all can meet him in the parking lot after church, I've done that too, but let's leave all of our options open.
CannibalCrowley
Member
I'm tired of all these bs lies about no-knocks being rare. The same goes for the claims that they're based on solid evidence from multiple sources along with surveillance and investigation. Police Commissioner Kelley of the NYPD has already admitted that the "vast majority" of warrants have been no-knocks (more info).
As for the secong claim, there's planety of evidence which shows no-knocks being used without any surveillance of investigation being done. Either that or the police involved are so incompetent that they conducted surveillance on the wrong address for a couple days without noticing, and they're so crooked that they decided to raid the home without the corroborating evidence they were supposed to retrieve.
In addition, please stop trying to make it appear that no-knocks are somehow safer than knock and announce warrants. There are plenty of innocent people in graves who would disagree if they could.
As for the secong claim, there's planety of evidence which shows no-knocks being used without any surveillance of investigation being done. Either that or the police involved are so incompetent that they conducted surveillance on the wrong address for a couple days without noticing, and they're so crooked that they decided to raid the home without the corroborating evidence they were supposed to retrieve.
In addition, please stop trying to make it appear that no-knocks are somehow safer than knock and announce warrants. There are plenty of innocent people in graves who would disagree if they could.
CannibalCrowley,
Why aren't there EXACT percentages listed on which warrants were no-knocks, in the source you provided. It must be specified in the warrant, the magistrate must review it and sign off on it. It's not up to LE agencies to decide whether they will do a no-knock or not it's up to the magistrate. 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?
Also regarding the 90% where contraband was found, as THR member WYO said, "You can’t judge a search by whether the result was good or bad."
To which I replied, "I hope everyone remembers that the next time they bash the cops who serve a valid warrant signed by a judge, based on probable cause that doesn't turn up anything."
WYO responded, "That was my point, actually."
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94090&highlight=ATF
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. If there were a requirement that 100% of all warrants must turn up evidence of a crime, there wouldn't be any warrants issued. Also, I've had a couple cases where a warrant was issued and the evidence obtained CLEARED suspects of the crime.
On your final point IF it's true that the vast majority of NYC warrants are no-knocks, and they are MORE dangerous as you claim, why aren't there more tragedies? 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.
Why aren't there EXACT percentages listed on which warrants were no-knocks, in the source you provided. It must be specified in the warrant, the magistrate must review it and sign off on it. It's not up to LE agencies to decide whether they will do a no-knock or not it's up to the magistrate. 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?
Also regarding the 90% where contraband was found, as THR member WYO said, "You can’t judge a search by whether the result was good or bad."
To which I replied, "I hope everyone remembers that the next time they bash the cops who serve a valid warrant signed by a judge, based on probable cause that doesn't turn up anything."
WYO responded, "That was my point, actually."
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94090&highlight=ATF
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. If there were a requirement that 100% of all warrants must turn up evidence of a crime, there wouldn't be any warrants issued. Also, I've had a couple cases where a warrant was issued and the evidence obtained CLEARED suspects of the crime.
On your final point IF it's true that the vast majority of NYC warrants are no-knocks, and they are MORE dangerous as you claim, why aren't there more tragedies? 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.
And there are a LOT more not so innocents in prison that will attest to their effectiveness. Mistakes are made, but they are rare. I would love to make them non-existant, but we all know thats not possible.
NYC may be different, but I will stand firm on my statement that no-knocks are incredibly , incredibly rare, and only happen in extreme cases. Knock and announce are the norm, and usually during daylight hours, between 6am and 10pm..preferably 6am. It is even better to lure the subject to the police department, which works more times than youd think. By and large, criminals are that intelligent.
No-Knocks are kinda like a 19/32 wrench...rarely used, but when thats what you need, nothing else will do.
NYC may be different, but I will stand firm on my statement that no-knocks are incredibly , incredibly rare, and only happen in extreme cases. Knock and announce are the norm, and usually during daylight hours, between 6am and 10pm..preferably 6am. It is even better to lure the subject to the police department, which works more times than youd think. By and large, criminals are that intelligent.
No-Knocks are kinda like a 19/32 wrench...rarely used, but when thats what you need, nothing else will do.
Mr. Crowley,
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? I do not believe it would be valid to extrapolate data from NYC nationwide, even if the source were sterling.
Please also cite your evidence as to the lack of surveillance being done, and as to the injury rate to officers and civilians in no-knocks. Who are these "innocent" people, maybe they are hidden in secret mass graves.
Mistakes are gonna happen, until you hire Robo-Cop: whose in favor of that?
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? I do not believe it would be valid to extrapolate data from NYC nationwide, even if the source were sterling.
Please also cite your evidence as to the lack of surveillance being done, and as to the injury rate to officers and civilians in no-knocks. Who are these "innocent" people, maybe they are hidden in secret mass graves.
Mistakes are gonna happen, until you hire Robo-Cop: whose in favor of that?
- Status