Another Isolated Incident...*Because* He Was a (Legal) Gun Owner

[Flyboy]

Jeff, nobody is saying that SWAT teams should be unilaterally disbanded and the tactics forgotten. You're attempting to create a dichotomy where none exists. The examples you cite are a hostage situation and a well-known, extremely violent criminal team (the latter of which you yourself seem to be saying was handled without proper regard for the suspects). These are both situations in which SWAT is appropriate.

There exists a middle ground, but to get there, we have to approach the topic of no-knock justification with an open mind and ask "is this the best way" even when the manual already says it is.

 

[Travis Bickle]

Are we now to the point that merely owning a gun--legally--is grounds for a no-knock ninja assault?

Yes. The Fourth Amendment is a dead letter. All they have to do is say the magic words ("Officer Safety") and the courts will allow them to do anything.

 

[Jeff White]

Flyboy,
Where does it say that the case we are discussing was a No Knock raid? Where is the the factual information that says there was anything wrong with the police action in this incident? Come up with some facts to back up your argument that this case is the reason why we should change things. Then we will have something to discuss.

You are apparently basing your case on pure emotion. Where are the facts? You have none. Is your justification that a warrant was served and nothing was found? That a dog was killed? Do you know that it wasn't necessary to kill the dog? If so where did you come up with the information from? It certainly isn't in the article you posted.

If you've got some information that proves there is something wrong with this operation by all means let us see it. If you don't, then I suggest you look for another case to make your point with, because the newspaper article you posted surely doesn't give anyone any reason to think there was any misconduct on the part of the police or the courts.

Travis Bickle said;

Yes. The Fourth Amendment is a dead letter. All they have to do is say the magic words ("Officer Safety") and the courts will allow them to do anything.

I want to see the name of the judge that gives permission to do anything in the way of officer safety. I want to see it in your next post. This is another example of the kind of post that gets these threads closed. Members post inflammatory statements that are totally out of their scope of experience, get's the other side mad, names are called, maybe someone gets banned. I hope you guys are reading all the little moderator hints as to why these threads usually don't last very long. If you heed them, perhaps these threads can be allowed to remain open and intelligent conversation will happen.

 

[HIcarry]

Is the so-called drug war "needed"? Because I'd bet a VAST majority of raids are done in the name of saving people from themselves...

Actually, I wasn't asked about the necessity of the so called "drug wars." But the need to use "SWAT" tactics isn't limited to the drug war. A hostage situation, for example, would be, at least to me, a good reason for these tactics. The drug seizures, especially the lower level ones, seem like a less obvious choice.

It's difficult to have a discussion about the relative merit of these things without recognizing there are valid concerns over the apparent problems.

 

[Jeff White]

Actually, I wasn't asked about the necessity of the so called "drug wars." But the need to use "SWAT" tactics isn't limited to the drug war. A hostage situation, for example, would be, at least to me, a good reason for these tactics. The drug seizures, especially the lower level ones, seem like a less obvious choice.

Another reason why we can't have this conversation here. This thread isn't about the "drug war". It's about a warrant being served to recover a weapon and other items stolen out of a squad car. The drug war and the use of SWAT tactics to make "lower level drug seizures" is not the topic of the thread.

 

[Travis Bickle]

I want to see the name of the judge that gives permission to do anything in the way of officer safety. I want to see it in your next post.

I'm not here to do your homework for you. Read up a little on case law. In any Fourth Amendment case, the justification offered is usually "officer safety" and the courts usually go along. This despite the fact that, statistically, police work is not very dangerous at all (commercial fishing, mining and logging are the three most dangerous jobs in this country, IIRC.)

 

[viperstarbuck]

I agree that a police team is not supposed to be cordial or soft when doing these raids. However, this seems to be a raid that should not have happened at all.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Agreed, Jeff, and I'm a little surprised my (multiple) comments about the poor reporting in the article misleading the posters here got so little attention or traction.

Kudos to Jeff for keeping the thread open so long.

Police rifles, at least around here, are accurized para-military weapons, and a stolen one in the hands of a criminal might justify, in my view, a SWAT raid. My position is that such raids ought be used only in extraordinary circumstances, and not just to serve an ordinary warrant. Surprisingly little discussion has focussed on the probable facts of that particular raid and whether THOSE facts support a raid on scene.

I'd enjoy a conversation with Jeff about the relative costs of surveillance which he mentioned. Local PD here prefer surveillance, as I know only so well.

 

[chieftain]

Do you know for a fact that the incident we are discussing was no-knock warrant? Do you have any statistics on how many no knock warrants are served compared to knock and announce? Do you know the difference between a no knock warrant and knock and announce?

Nope, but then I was not talking about this incident specifically. Do you know for a fact it wasn’t a no knock warrant?

I am discussing the national, problem IMNSHO, of the abuse of the use of no knock warrants by some agencies. That’s it, please don’t use your imagination and think I am talking about something else.

And yes I am very aware of the difference. At least in theory. I only was involved in one tactical warrant service. While with the Sheriffs department I worked for. I was not a sworn officer, but that is another long story.

How many warrants have you or anyone in this thread served? How many search warrants have you applied for? What is the basis for your opinion that it's a rationalization? Gut feeling? Just doesn't feel right to you?

And your opinion? I do know that the reason for the original no knocks was to try to protect evidence. It is rarely the case now. What is the basis for your non response to my request for data? You know facts, not opinion of a cop, not an administrators opinion, or as in my case today an interested citizen. I suppose I am within my purview to suggest or request such data. Am I not?

As to the purpose of the no Knock warrants, my basis is the facts. I am asking for studies from the folks that should know these things. That is why I have asked for facts to argue with. Just what facts don’t you want to talk about? I remember the original constitutional arguments for and against the “no Knocks”. The biggest fear at the time for those of us that were FOR THEM, was that the agencies would misuse and abuse the “no knock warrant”. That appears to have in fact happened. Your serve.

Just because don't cut it on either side. If you are going to make accusations you better be able to back them up.

What “accusation” are you accusing me of making. Asking a straight forward request for data, is hardly an accusation. If you think use the word Rationalization is the problem, that is exactly what it is. Doesn’t make it right or wrong, just what it is. If you need another word, I suggest you use the Thesaurus choose one and we will use it.

Most warrants are served by a couple of uniformed officers and a detective or two. Using a tactical unit to serve every search warrant is not done anywhere in America.

I agree, totally, that is why I would like the comparison data. It would allow folks like you and I to have a “rational” conversation about this subject. You and I simply don’t have adequate data to discuss it right now.

Where in the article on this incident did you see anything suggesting that there was criminal actions conducted by the police? You are illustrating another reason why these threads don't live long here at THR. People with no concern about the actual facts of an incident under discussion throwing out totally unrelated allegations of criminal misconduct. Emotion over reason. We scream at the antis when they use that argument in an attempt to disarm us, but we are perfectly capable of using it ourselves when we are unable to come up with a rational argument of our own.....

Interesting, I didn’t. I wasn’t talking about this incident. I was talking collectively about all these sort of incidents that are happening, it seems to me more often than in the past, across the nation. THAT’S WHY WE NEED MORE DATA.

IF THE POLICE ARE COMMITTING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, THEY NEED TO BE STOPPED. Do you disagree with this. If they are not, no worries.

Please educate me. I suggest we need more data to reflect on what may well be criminal behavior by law enforcement. It may not be. But sticking ones head in the sand and accusing another of acting like a “anti” because he calls for more data, is well…….

My argument is both cogent and rational. I have suggested an hypothesis and suggest we get more data to study that possible problem. You seem to think I have untoward reasons for doing this. I don’t.

Are you suggesting that studying Law enforcement agencies for potential criminal behavior is WRONG? I am assuming nothing other than it might be happening, that’s it. Do you know for a fact, it is not?

Try this on as just an idea, let’s get the nation wide data, then argue. How is that for refreshing. Then you will have some facts, and I will have some facts, and I bet with those facts more than likely we will not be arguing, but shaking hands and agreeing.

Good luck

Fred

 

[HIcarry]

Another reason why we can't have this conversation here. This thread isn't about the "drug war". It's about a warrant being served to recover a weapon and other items stolen out of a squad car. The drug war and the use of SWAT tactics to make "lower level drug seizures" is not the topic of the thread.

Actually, Mr. White, I thought the underlying basis of this thread, based in part on some of the assumptions made from an admittedly poor excuse of reporting, was the justification for no-knock versus knock and announce warrant service, and the possible restriction of these tactics for a variety of reasons. Some arguably better and more factual than others. It is also about the premise that the ownership of a gun was somehow prejudicial to the issuance of that warrant. Yes, the article was about a warrant being served for a possible stolen police weapon, but the conversation was about the relative merits of these types of warrant service. Out of necessity, then, the discussion may rightly delve into the various circumstances where the tactics might be employed.

If you read my prior post(s), you'll see I was simply responding to a comment about these "raids" being done mostly for drug related offenses, and that using these tactics, IMO, for drug seziures may present a less clear justification for them then say a hostage situation.

You on one hand seem to think there is no room for discussion on possible restrictions of these tactics because in your experience the process for getting authorization for them has enough checks and balances. You have also implied that the rate of error was acceptable, even when innocent folks may have been involved. Others here seem to think there should never be an instance where these techniques are used. I personally believe there is a middle ground. One that allows the use of the tactics when indicated and that also restricts it to situations where the risks, to both officers and the possibly innocent public, are worthwhile. Are those relative benefits and risks debatable? Yes, definitely. Do I know all the answers, or have all the facts? No. But your defensive tone and "it's an acceptable level of error/collateral damage, so there is no reason to change it" attitude does very little to foster the intelligent and factual discussion you repeatedly advocate.

As I said before, cop bashing, or in this case, tactics-bashing, are not productive, but neither is denial that there may be ways to improve the situation.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

this was the question


I want to see the name of the judge that gives permission to do anything in the way of officer safety. I want to see it in your next post.

and this was the answer
"I'm not here to do your homework for you. Read up a little on case law. In any Fourth Amendment case, the justification offered is usually "officer safety" and the courts usually go along. "
wouldn't a simple " i can't " have been easier?


i mean you did mean it when you posted this
"Yes. The Fourth Amendment is a dead letter. All they have to do is say the magic words ("Officer Safety") and the courts will allow them to do anything." or was it for dramatic effect? it gets confusing

 

[Jeff White]

I'm not here to do your homework for you. Read up a little on case law. In any Fourth Amendment case, the justification offered is usually "officer safety" and the courts usually go along.

Really? Cite some. Any fourth amendment case? You are making claims you can't back up. "Officer safety" is not some magic term that permits any kind of conduct. And it is disingenuous of you to suggest that it is.

This despite the fact that, statistically, police work is not very dangerous at all (commercial fishing, mining and logging are the three most dangerous jobs in this country, IIRC.)

What does that have to do with anything? Has anyone here claimed police work was the most dangerous occupation in America? No.

However, this seems to be a raid that should not have happened at all.

Why not? The article doesn't mention anything about the warrant being faulty. Just because the contraband items weren't recovered doesn't mean the information wasn't good. The last warrant I did before I retired didn't recover all of the stolen property that was supposedly in the house. In fact only one item listed was still there by the time the warrant was applied for and served. And the only reason that item was still there was the suspect forgot to take it when she fled after she assumed she'd been discovered. Does that meant that the other items listed in the warrant were never there and we shouldn't have served it?

Police rifles, at least around here, are accurized para-military weapons, and a stolen one in the hands of a criminal might justify, in my view, a SWAT raid. My position is that such raids ought be used only in extraordinary circumstances, and not just to serve an ordinary warrant. Surprisingly little discussion has focussed on the probable facts of that particular raid and whether THOSE facts support a raid on scene.

Duke, you've just hit on the biggest reason these threads are usually closed as soon as a moderator sees them. It's seldom the actual facts that we know about an incident that are discussed. Everyone jumps in with their preconceived notions that every raid is no knock raid and every raid is an unjustified assault on an innocent person who some dirty snitch picked out of the phone book. If we let them run they go 150+ posts of meaningless off topic discussion. I suppose it makes some people feel better to get things off their chests, but it makes us, the firearms community or "Gun Culture" look like a bunch of anti government anarchists to the person who isn't in the gun culture who surfs in looking for information. So instead of maybe converting a fence sitter to our side, we inadvertently confirm that the stereotype the antis like to portray us as is probably true.

What tactics the police use is a serious subject worthy of serious discussion. Unfortunately it's too emotional an issue to discuss at THR. It's a complicated subject, one has to have a bit more then a layman's knowledge of both the law and the tactics, techniques and procedures that are used to have an intelligent discussion of the issue. Again, unfortunately the discussion is usually tainted with false statements from people who don't know any better that all it takes to get a search warrant is a police officer to ask for one, or that you just have to say the magic words of "officer safety" and you are automatically cleared to do a no knock entry. So we spend all of our time and effort trying to get past those issues and we never manage to get to the subject at hand.

I'd enjoy a conversation with Jeff about the relative costs of surveillance which he mentioned. Local PD here prefer surveillance, as I know only so well.

Depending on the exact circumstances you are going to pay a minimum of two officers to do nothing but watch the subject or the building the subject is in for as long as it takes for him or her to come out with the goods. If the item you are trying to recover is small, you have have to deploy additional officers to follow everyone who leaves the premises and try to develop probable cause to stop them, and get consent to search them or develop PC to search just to make sure the contraband didn't leave the place/person you are watching with the other person. If you have enough PC to get a warrant, why not just serve it, do the search, recover (or not) the contraband? Which is cheaper and more efficient, tying up resources you could better use elsewhere on a long surveillance or using several officers for an hour or so to serve a warrant?

Arrest warrants are somewhat different. I know of many incidences where arrest warrants were sat on until the person to be arrested was away from his home and family. It is often safer to do it that way. Of course if the person is wanted for violent crimes and there is a chance he will slip away while you are waiting to catch him alone and away from his home, then you often have to take him when you know where he is.

And your opinion? I do know that the reason for the original no knocks was to try to protect evidence. It is rarely the case now. What is the basis for your non response to my request for data?

It doesn't exist. No one keeps those statistics. I could compile data for the agencies I worked for, but that would hardly be representative of the whole country. I'd be more then happy to provide the data if it did in fact exist.

The biggest fear at the time for those of us that were FOR THEM, was that the agencies would misuse and abuse the “no knock warrant”. That appears to have in fact happened. Your serve.

In 22 years I can never remember a no knock warrant being served anywhere in Marion County Illinois. Talking to officers from all over the country in person at training sessions and online has led me to believe that no knock warrants are very rare. If most of the guys who's job it is to serve them say they rarely or like me, never have done it, I have to take that as pretty strong evidence that they must be a pretty rare occurrence. Again, there is not national clearing house for how many search warrants and if the are knock and announce or no knock issued by every court nationwide. I suppose that information is public record, but it would be an enormous job to to compile the data. Maybe someone could get a grant to study the issue?

Interesting, I didn’t. I wasn’t talking about this incident. I was talking collectively about all these sort of incidents that are happening, it seems to me more often than in the past, across the nation. THAT’S WHY WE NEED MORE DATA.

Is it, or does it seem to be because of the 24 hour news cycle we live in now? The first botched warrant service I ever heard about was in Collinsville, IL near where I grew up. It was 1971 or 72 IIRC and the DEA and local police raided an apartment that was not occupied by the people who were supposed to be there. I was in high school at the time. It was all over the news and I believe the innocent parties wrote a book about it. So I know that it's been happening at least since then.

IF THE POLICE ARE COMMITTING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, THEY NEED TO BE STOPPED. Do you disagree with this. If they are not, no worries.

I agree wholeheartedly and in most cases if the police are involved in criminal behavior they are caught, prosecuted and punished.

Are you suggesting that studying Law enforcement agencies for potential criminal behavior is WRONG? I am assuming nothing other than it might be happening, that’s it. Do you know for a fact, it is not?

I've got nothing against watching the watchers so to speak. I do have a problem with people throwing accusations of criminal behavior around where there is no evidence any exists based on the information available. There is no evidence in the news article that started this thread that there was any criminal misconduct or negligence by the police. Yet it's been inferred and suggested several times.

Try this on as just an idea, let’s get the nation wide data, then argue. How is that for refreshing. Then you will have some facts, and I will have some facts, and I bet with those facts more than likely we will not be arguing, but shaking hands and agreeing.

That would be great if the data existed.

Actually, Mr. White, I thought the underlying basis of this thread, based in part on some of the assumptions made from an admittedly poor excuse of reporting, was the justification for no-knock versus knock and announce warrant service, and the possible restriction of these tactics for a variety of reasons. Some arguably better and more factual than others. It is also about the premise that the ownership of a gun was somehow prejudicial to the issuance of that warrant. Yes, the article was about a warrant being served for a possible stolen police weapon, but the conversation was about the relative merits of these types of warrant service. Out of necessity, then, the discussion may rightly delve into the various circumstances where the tactics might be employed.

First off, call me Jeff, Mr. White was my father. The issue of it was prejudicial if the subject was a gun owner was the only thing in this thread that makes it on topic at all here. Yet we don't know that Hasenei was legal gun owner, because all the article tells us is they were looking for a stolen police weapon. To me question that is on topic is if just legally owning a firearm should make you subject to a no knock raid if you get in trouble with the law. And as I said, in my personal experience just the ownership of a firearm didn't however there were other factors that may play into the decision.

You on one hand seem to think there is no room for discussion on possible restrictions of these tactics because in your experience the process for getting authorization for them has enough checks and balances. You have also implied that the rate of error was acceptable, even when innocent folks may have been involved.

It takes a judge to issue a no knock warrant. The police don't make that decision. As for the error rate, please go back and read what DMF said in post # 48:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5318992&postcount=48

There are very few human endeavors that involve so many different people that have such a small error rate. Would it be nice if the error rate was zero? Yes. Is that possible? No.

But your defensive tone and "it's an acceptable level of error/collateral damage, so there is no reason to change it" attitude does very little to foster the intelligent and factual discussion you repeatedly advocate.

As I said before, cop bashing, or in this case, tactics-bashing, are not productive, but neither is denial that there may be ways to improve the situation.

How are you going to improve the situation then? You have to know what the situation is before you can discuss ways to improve it. Unfortunately too many here believe things like you just have to say the two magic words "officer safety" and everything is ok. That's fine, but when they refuse to believe people who actually work with those issues when they tell them it isn't so, it doesn't promote intelligent discussion either.

 

[HIcarry]

It takes a judge to issue a no knock warrant. The police don't make that decision. As for the error rate, please go back and read what DMF said in post # 48:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....2&postcount=48

There are very few human endeavors that involve so many different people that have such a small error rate. Would it be nice if the error rate was zero? Yes. Is that possible? No.

Jeff,

I never suggested that somehow the error rate should be zero. That is as impossible in police work, as it is in aviation and medicine. That doesn't prevent those two industries from looking critically at the errors that do occur to see if there are ways to improve. That is all I have ever suggested. We might disagree exactly what actions may need to be taken based on that evaluation, but that shouldn't prevent it from happening, nor the related discussions. And I don't need to re-read what DMF wrote...I tend to agree with his premises about the relatively low error rate, but unfortunately his calculations are based on the same unreliable database as those that would disagree. Maybe what we need is to establish a database that would provide more reliable information, but I think that may be another discussion for another time. And yes, it takes a judge to issue a warrant, but it is based on facts presented by the police, so the potential for errors are on both sides of the equation.

How are you going to improve the situation then? You have to know what the situation is before you can discuss ways to improve it. Unfortunately too many here believe things like you just have to say the two magic words "officer safety" and everything is ok. That's fine, but when they refuse to believe people who actually work with those issues when they tell them it isn't so, it doesn't promote intelligent discussion either.

I agree, with some reservations.

I believe that the best way I can stimulate change is to entertain discussions about this, based on the best available facts and from reliable sources. Some of those sources will be the folks in law enforcement, some from the individuals involved in providing the information the warrants are based on (the informants) and some will be from the victims of the errors made in the service of these types of warrants.

And while I tend to hold most law enforcement types in high regards in terms of reliable witnessess, I also reserve the right to view the "facts" from all involved with a level of skepticism. After all, while I believe you are relating your experiences truthfully, those officers in Georgia (isn't that where the police officers raided the wrong house, shot the elderly woman, and then planted drugs? If not, that is the situation I am referring to...) obviously weren't. And, experiences with some agencies, such as LAPD, NYC, Boston and Chicago, in terms of trying to prevent disclosure, or actively hiding, systemic problems, unfortunately paint the good agencies in a bad light. Which may be why some folks are a little unwilling of abject acceptance of anything LEOs may say about this, or other controversial topics. Not saying it's right...

Thanks for the reply.

Aloha.

 

[Deanimator]

Deal with it.

Sueing the police as individuals certainly "deals" with it.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm not asking anyone to ignore the ALLEGED 300 errors, I'm merely pointing out how very low the error rate really is.

Also, if you want a zero error rate then you must want the police to NEVER serve a warrant, because that is the only way to get the error rate to zero. If that is what you want then you are asking for anarchy.

Would you be so magnanimous if it were YOUR dog and or child shot dead because they got the wrong address?

Are YOU willing to be the one to say to the victims, "Yeah, your kid is dead, but this doesn't happen that often"?

 

[Deanimator]

Depending on the exact circumstances you are going to pay a minimum of two officers to do nothing but watch the subject or the building the subject is in for as long as it takes for him or her to come out with the goods.

What costs more, surveillance or a wrongful death suit, especially if the family refuses to settle?

 

[Deanimator]

I agree wholeheartedly and in most cases if the police are involved in criminal behavior they are caught, prosecuted and punished.

Chicago PD SOS engaged in these sorts of raids, both for ostensibly lawful purposes, but using perjured pretexts (as proved on video) as well as cover for home invasion burglaries (including the homes of firefighters and police officers). How LONG did these activities go on? And when did the Chicago PD act? Hint: They DIDN'T.

What happens in Marion County doesn't matter when Jerry Finnegan is kicking in your door at 78th and Honore in Cook County. The odds of the Chicago PD doiing anything about it approach zero.

 

[Flyboy]

Jeff, you're right in that the story didn't say specifically that it was a no-knock warrant; that said, it seems logical to assume that if they're going to send a tactical team--who's raison d'être is to handle dynamic assault-type situations--it's not going to be a knock and announce. If your tactics are designed around surprise and confusion ("shock and awe"), announcing yourself seems to be starting on the wrong foot. Also, the article says "which is why they did not knock." Yes, I realize reporting can be bad, but if we're going to have a discussion, we have to start somewhere. Let's stipulate to the facts as presented, and if they're inaccurate, we'll correct the discussion as it evolves--without common ground, we're talking at each other, not with each other.

The apparent reason for the tactical raid is officer safety: the given justification being that "we think he has a gun," seems to be more based on preventing him from using it than on preserving evidence. Given that a gun--particularly a long gun--can't be flushed down the toilet, claiming that the raid is to preserve the evidence seems disingenuous.

Why couldn't the search warrant have been served during the day, when the residents would be likely to be away from the home--or, better yet, do some surveillance to ensure that the home is empty? That would eliminate the threat of violence.

This is the sort of discussion I'm trying to spark: what are the alternatives, and the relative merits? Can we achieve the same ends--evidence stays put, nobody gets hurt--without creating opportunities for mistakes (and scaring the hell out of twelve-year-olds)?

 

[Colonel]

Police rifles, at least around here, are accurized para-military weapons, and a stolen one in the hands of a criminal might justify, in my view, a SWAT raid.

What's that got to do with anything?

Are "accurized" guns somehow more evil or dangerous or socially unacceptable? Please explain, because you sound like an uninformed anti-gun troll here.

Also, please define your use of the word "para-military" above. I'm all ears on this one...

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Flyboy: "without creating opportunities for mistakes (and scaring the hell out of twelve-year-olds)?"

This seldom comes up. I mentioned this topic to a GF last night, believe it or not, and she related how for most of her life she has been terrified of a raid on her home, merely after watching the movie "Brazil" as a child a quarter century ago. I described how these things work in America, and how I would handle an unexpected raid (it's just possible given my occupation; some of my clients are not nice people). I'm convinced the kids develop emotional issues after these things. Collateral damage, I suppose. Not enough to change anyone's mind in the "heat of the night" so to speak.

 

[Deanimator]

Collateral damage, I suppose. Not enough to change anyone's mind in the "heat of the night" so to speak.

Enough multi-million dollar judgements, especially against individual officers who make "mistakes" (The Johnston case in Atlanta was a CHOICE, not a "mistake".) and these things will start to lose their attractiveness.

What I find interesting is the way some of these departments treat the TOTALLY innocent victims. "Sucks to be you" about sums it up. When you offer some "cleaning supplies" to somebody whose house is uninhabitable due to CS contamination, and whose kids are suffering night terrors, it's a pretty good indication of how you view the public who AREN'T criminals. And apparently it's just "greed" to seek redress in the civil courts too.

 

[benEzra]

It makes me wonder how many people here actually understand that a police raid isn't supposed to be enjoyable. Perhaps I'll suggest tossing rose petals and kittens to everyone in the house.

Why no-knocks endanger the police, honest citizens, AND the essential trust between police and those they serve:

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/may976.htm

UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE

(snip)

The [knock and announce] rule serves to protect both the individual citizen and the police from the risk of harm and the potential for violence that may occur as a result of an unannounced entry. Announcement protects officers by ensuring that they are not "mistaken for prowlers and shot down by a fearful householder." Innocent citizens also are protected from law enforcement officers who mistakenly might shoot armed occupants who merely are trying to defend themselves from who they preceive to be armed intruders.

The use of no-knocks in all but the most extreme situations works to undermine officer safety in the aggregate, and unnecessarily puts innocent citizens in harm's way as well. But the greatest casualty of all may be TRUST.

 

[Jeff White]

There it is folks...we're back to the usual suspects dragging Chicago PD into a case that happened into another part of the country as if the criminal activity by Chicago PD has some kind of effect on an incident that happened thousands of miles away. That is why we won't have these discussions here. And this one is done because even with heavy participation from a moderator, pointing out the off topic posts, some members here can't resist the change to bring up their private agenda, totally unrelated to the issue under discussion. This one is dome.