9th Circuit Overturned Again....9-0 Court Gives Police Victory in Waiting Time

[El Rojo]

So how do you balance the rights of innocent civilians and still protect society from bad people? That really is the question. I think all arguments about the cops getting the wrong address due to the war on drugs are pretty pointless. That is a big what if, that could be used for any scenario, not just the war on drugs. Sometimes life just doesn't go your way. If the cops and I blast each other in a hail of gunfire due to some unfortunate placement of circumstance, not much I can do about that. I don't worry about it.

 

[dustind]

El Rojo: Mnay large cities have policies in place because they break down the wrong doors so often. Cases of people being killed because of no knocks are pretty common. Even when no one is physicaly hurt, having a group of people with guns storm your house has to be tramatizing to most people.

 

[cordex]

El Rojo,

I think all arguments about the cops getting the wrong address due to the war on drugs are pretty pointless. That is a big what if, that could be used for any scenario, not just the war on drugs.

Reserving ubertactical, dynamic "no knock" raids for real emergencies helps avoid the problems of wrong addresses. Very seldom is the wrong house or business raided by SWAT in the case of an active shooter, hostage taker or the like. Staging such a raid every time there is a concern that some druggie is going to flush a few ounces of a chemical they've chosen to destroy themselves with increases the chances that they'll transpose a few digits on the address and come no-knockin' on my door.

 

[El Rojo]

Staging such a raid every time there is a concern that some druggie is going to flush a few ounces of a chemical they've chosen to destroy themselves with increases the chances that they'll transpose a few digits on the address and come no-knockin' on my door.

Quite true. It raises the odds from not going to happen to one in a million. 2nd, how many THR members live next to drug members? Yeah, I know that is besides the point, but do you get the idea I am bringing across. It just sounds to me like a pretty much non-issue. Yeah it happens sometimes, but all sorts of crap happens sometimes. I think people try and make a bigger deal out of it than it is.

Cases of people being killed because of no knocks are pretty common.

A pretty broad statement made based upon what would appear to be your general opinion. What do you mean by "pretty common" and what are your sources? Are we talking about one of every 10,000 cases? How often does this happen? Once every three months, once every year?

I mean the way you guys talk it could easily be said that assault weapons are the biggest threat to law enforcement officers and it occurs pretty frequently that innocent people get shot by them. We ought to outlaw assault weapons to reduce this from happening. Right? I mean we know that some stupid, bad people have done horrible things with assault weapons, so we should get rid of them all so that the good people that do things correctly with assault weapons never get the chance to be a stupid person right? Yeah I know that the odds are pretty slim you are going to get shot with one, but it reduces the odds that it is going to happen right?

 

[TallPine]

how many THR members live next to drug members?

Well, just how would we know if we did or not ...? It's not my business to keep up on my neighbor's activities. For all I know, the little old man on SS next door (literally) might be a major drug dealer. He does seem to have a lot of visitors, mostly younger males. (I won't speculate on THAT any further)

Besides, it doesn't matter if "Cases of people being killed because of no knocks are pretty common" or not, if you are the one who happens to get killed.

And now on top of everything else (car wrecks, heart attacks, etc) we have to worry about an out of control govt breaking into our houses. I thought only criminals did that .....

Anybody that breaks into my house while I am home probably will find some crack .........



CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!
CRACK!

 

[Glock-A-Roo]

About 2 years ago I was riding in a van on the way to a firearms training class. The driver was the man running the class, a LEO that many of you here either know personally or have read about. He is one of the premier firearms/self-defense trainers in the country.

This LEO has worked narcotics from every angle, including undercover buys, meth lab busts, and full-on SWAT raids. And he has been at it for over a decade.

He told me "I have enjoyed fighting the war on drugs. I've busted a lot of bad people and got to play with a lot of fun toys. But it hasn't mattered a damn bit. Glock-A-Roo, can you tell me any place in the country where you can't easily buy illegal drugs if you want them? No. They're purer and cheaper than ever. The war on drugs cannot be won."

Folks like TBO can write this story off if they like, but I know what I was told, and the man who told me this knows more about the WoD than all of you naysayers combined.

 

[TheeBadOne]

The war on drugs cannot be won."

For some reason drugs are the only thing looked at with a "zero sum" balance? Sure, it'd be nice if no drugs were used, ever, just as it would be nice if murder, theft, assault, rape, etc never happened. Control of a problem is the goal. Eradication does not happen over night. This country didn't get a drug problem overnight, it won't end overnight. Also, I don't think this country has really comitted to the WOD. Believe it or not, some laws were stiffer on some drug offenses in the 60's and early 70's then they are now. I think that speaks volumes for what we are seeing. This thread can now go on 5 more pages about the WOD, but it's all been said and done many times before (nice and civally) so I justed added my thougths one more time.

All the best

TBO

 

[dustind]

Glock-a-roo: There are a few organizations for former leos against the war on drugs around the country. Stories like the one you told are very common.

TheeBadOne: If we can not keep drugs out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? If the supply is getting cheaper that means there are more drugs per user, it is estimated that only a tiny percent is caught coming into the country. I do not know how you can say we are not committed, look at the dollar cost, prisons, laws, all the fancy federal acts and police powers just to fight it. Our dear president uses the term "drug dealer" and "terrorist" interchangibly.

 

[TallPine]

The war on drugs cannot be won.

That is because the drugs won't ever agree to unconditional surrender

 

[MicroBalrog]

According to the Israeli Defence Force, a combat soldier can get fully dressed in 7 minutes.

 

[El Rojo]

And now on top of everything else (car wrecks, heart attacks, etc) we have to worry about an out of control govt breaking into our houses.

We do? How many drug warrants get served around your neighborhood? You don't have to worry about it. You already said you are not going to worry about it. You specifically stated

Anybody that breaks into my house while I am home probably will find some crack .........

Your mind is already made up, anyone coming into your home without permission is going to get shot. So why worry about it? This is my point. Everyone talks a big game about how wrong it is that these action thirsty cops are violating everyone's civil rights and busting down doors and provoking armed confrontations by serving these drug warrants. Yet no one can give but a few isolated incidents where this happens. No one has offered real statistics of the number of no-knock or 20 second knock warrants have been served and how many have resulted in a shot being fired. Instead they offer the good old it doesn't matter "if you are the one who happens to get killed." Right same logic used behind, "As long as it saves one child's life." Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My main point is stuff happens. When it is your time, there is nothing you can do about it. Yeah, if there were no war on drugs, the odds would be better that the cops wouldn't crash into your house and cause an old west shoot out. Big deal!!! Maybe they will find another reason to have to enter your house in a hurry. Or just maybe they will have learned from all of the mistakes other departments have made and they will verify the address first. "But what about the criminal who provided your name and you have nothing to do with drugs?" Maybe they will have done good survailence and know that you are heavily armed and that you would be best approached on your way home from work or at work in a non-confrontational manner. Maybe, just maybe, they will actually check out the lead first and realize there is no way in heck you are selling 5 kilos a day out of your suburban or small town neighborhood and that the guy lied to them.

My gosh people. Give some credit to LEOs. They are not compeltely stupid. Some of them make mistakes. Show me a professional group who doesn't make mistakes? They learn from them and they move on to do a good job because that is what they are paid for. Sorry to disappoint everyone's morbid fantasy that law enforcement suspects everyone of drug dealing or that they rashly bust into random homes on a regular basis. It just doesn't happen. If you disagree with that statement, prove me wrong. No one has offered to back up their paranoia with any sort of statistics or reasoning other than fear and emotion.

 

[gtd]

If you took the drug trade and its ancillary criminal conduct out of the equation I believe law enforcement would come out smelling like a rose.

Intune,

You're right on the money, but for the "drug trade" statement. That pointless crusade causes all kinds of problems for innocent people caught in the crossfire.

I support the LEOs, I appreciate their risks and contributions, and I want them to have what they need. Unfortunately, we can't or won't take the drug trade out of the equation, and that causes an imbalance that sometimes puts innocent families (or non-innocent but nevertheless nonviolent people) at significant risk.

I just think a good LEO will have enough resources to compensate very well for a slightly lesser amount of firepower. The resulting increased effort in planning, coordinating, and identifying themselves, could maintain some balance helping to prevent mistakes.

Just my opinion, and it's no better than yours. Maybe we can agree to disagree?

Thank you kindly for the welcome!

 

[GSB]

If we can not keep drugs out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

I think you discerned the answer the WoD has come up with without quite realizing it...

 

[TheeBadOne]

If we can not keep murder out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

If we can not keep rape out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

If we can not keep theft out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

If we can not keep fraud out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

If we can not keep depression out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

If we can not keep profanity out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

If we can not keep rudeness out of prisons how can we keep them from free people? - dustind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More "food" for thought...

 

[Glock-A-Roo]

TBO sarcastically mentioned:

If we can not keep (whatever) out of prisons how can we keep them from free people?

Since when can my home be invaded, my property seized, and my life ended or ruined solely because an anonymous informant claims I am a

murderer
rapist
thief
cheat
depressed person
profane person
rude person

...? The system requires much more than a jailhouse snitch's word to even begin to move against me for the above accusations.

A child murderer has more protection under today's law enforcement system than a punk kid selling a $5 bag of pot.

 

[TallPine]

How many drug warrants get served around your neighborhood?

So it's okay to do this in other people's neighborhoods ...?


"They came for the drug users, and since I wasn't a drug user ...."

 

[davera]

Twenty seconds?

An actual drug DEALER is likely to have a lot more than can be flushed in 20 seconds or even several minutes.

 

[TheeBadOne]

An actual drug DEALER is likely to have a lot more than can be flushed in 20 seconds or even several minutes.

Based on...?

To those who don't have knowledge or experiance with how the drug trade is conducted, dealers are no dummies. They usually keep their main stash of drugs in one place and sell from another. They only keep a certain amount of drugs in the sale place. An amount they can dispose of quickly if need be. That is often still enough to convict them of the highest level of drug offenses (sales). If they can hit the main stash they do, but that is ususally a very closely guarded secret (known only to the dealer, not to informants/customers).

 

[TallPine]

Oh, that's just great ...

So by bashing someone's door down, we take a few ounces of dope out of circulation and leave who knows how much more to be sold by someone else. Don't you think they plan for that, too?

 

[TheeBadOne]

Oh, that's just great ...

So by bashing someone's door down, we take a few ounces of dope out of circulation and leave who knows how much more to be sold by someone else. Don't you think they plan for that, too?

The dealer gets taken out of circulation along with the dope. Sometimes they offer deals (reduced time) for giving up the rest of the dope, getting it out of circulation or getting a bigger bust somewhere else. And that is great.

 

[TallPine]

Just one more question ...

Which constitutional amendment enacts federal drug prohibition?

I must have missed that one somewhere.

 

[jimpeel]

I remember several years ago, a city in CA found 22 tons of drugs, Marijuana, I think, in a house. The authorities, in the finest "Little Jack Horner" tradition claimed "Look what a good boy am I" while ignoring that the drugs were allowed to get there in the first place.

The government has turned down two offers, that I am aware of, from Drug Lords who have offered to sell ALL of their wares directly to the government at bargain basement prices -- and I am talking in the millions, not billions, of dollars under thirty million. In both cases, the government has turned these offers down and stepped up interdiction efforts against these Drug Lords.

If the true goal was to eliminate drugs from our streets, the government would leap at such offers. The goal, however is bigger budgets and greater power. Why have a budget in the millions, and a few officers to buy and destroy the drugs at the source, when you can have a budget in the billions and your own little army?

Imagine, if you will, if the DEA were to send forth their officers to places like Bolivia, Columbia, Afghanistan, et al, with the funds, and the will, to buy the drugs at the source for destruction at the source. The majority of the drugs would never enter our shores.

Instead, we wait until they have crossed the border and then we declare "war" on them.

Any commander of any army on the face of the Earth will tell you that you never, never, never wage a war on your own shores if it can be prevented. We could prevent the war from being waged on our shores if we had leaders with the spine to do it.

 

[jimpeel]

The dealer gets taken out of circulation along with the dope.

Don't know how old you are but you may remember the fact they used to tell us, in the fifties and sixties, about the Chinese population. This was simply that if the Chinese, as a nation, were to march four abreast over a cliff with one row per second going over, the column would never stop as they could outbreed attrition.

The same is true of the drug trade. You bust one guy, you fill one cell, and his former minions set up three more Crack houses as drug dealers in their own right.

P.S. No wry comment about how they would be too busy marching to breed.

 

[TallPine]

It is impossible to wage war against a substance. How would you know when you won ...? When the substance surrenders ...

What the govt is doing is waging war against people (using certain drugs). Our own people, none the less. So what we in effect have is a guerilla war in our own backyard. And there IS being collateral damage to innocents.

BTW, about 10-15 years ago, I had the same views as TBO and a few others. "Drugs are BAD, and do anything you have to do to go after the dirty bastards."

It took a long time, but I gradually came to the conclusion that the War on (people using) Drugs should never have been started. But, I still thought that it would make things worse to stop now.

I have a horrible aversion to users and sellers of substances that are currently illegal. This comes from having worked with such people. I had an employer once that tried desperately to get me to accept drugs instead of dollars for the legitimate work that I was doing. Those people are proselytizers of the highest degree - they cannot stand to have anyone around that isn't part of their lifestyle. I didn't stay at that job very long, but I worked in the same industry in the same area for a number of years, much of the time as a competitor to that guy.

But I have finally come around to see that the War on (people using) Drugs is doing far more harm than good. And not the least of the harm is the loss of other civil liberties such as protections from search and seizure.

Why should I care about the guy in the shower that had coke in his house? I don't, really. But the fact that he was guilty of something our laws forbid doesn't mean that breaking down doors after 20 seconds is the right thing to do.

How many "wrong address" or "bad tip" bust-ins are there? I don't know, but I read about several each month nationally. Sometimes people just get terrorized and property destroyed/damaged, and sometimes people get hurt. So what, you say?

Well, a home invasion has to be one of the most traumatic things that I can imagine. Once you have been violated in your sanctuary, I can't imagine ever getting a good night's sleep again. But it was only the police? Gee, that has to make it a hundred times worse - to think that those who are supposed to "protect and serve" committed the violence.

And now the Supreme Court has just put their stamp of approval on this nonsense. For the purpose of preventing some good-for-nothings from medicating themselves into oblivion.

I hope you're just as happy about it when they start busting down doors to look for guns that have just been made illegal ...

 

[TheeBadOne]

The government has turned down two offers, that I am aware of, from Drug Lords who have offered to sell ALL of their wares directly to the government at bargain basement prices -- and I am talking in the millions, not billions, of dollars under thirty million. In both cases, the government has turned these offers down and stepped up interdiction efforts against these Drug Lords.

JimPeel, source please.

Thank you