XD Fan said:
It should have only taken the loss of one innocent victim in a no-knock warrant invasion to have stopped the whole thing.
Hmmm... Sounds oddly like the argument that the anti-gun movement uses. "If it only saves one life, it is worth taking away everyone's guns". Perhaps we should ban cars because of drunk drivers too?
hitbackfirst said:
No-knock warrants are a good way to escalate something simple into something tragic. If I hear someone break into my home, I, like many other gun owners, would probably open fire on the invaders, and end up dead by cop bullets. If I am served a warrant, I will not be happy, and I will probably sue someone, but no bullets will be exchanged. Much better way to handle things in my opinion!
I understand your sentiment, but consider why no-knocks are used...
These tactics are used either because of the potential for a loss of evidence if a 'knock-and-announce' tactic is used, or due to the danger that is already believed to be present (In other words, it is better to be the ambusher than to be the ambushee). The overly biased article posted by the OP claims that "no" exigent circumstance where present to justify the use of a no-knock tactic in this situation. If that is indeed true, then the judge should not have signed the warrant in the first place (
keep in mind that police officers do not represent the entire judicial system by themselves, and we have to satisfy legal requirements, and a judge, to get a warrant signed).
The one significant thing that seems to be passed over in every one of these heated debates is the fact that each of us shouldn't be worried about a no-knock warrant unless YOU are doing something wrong.
The agencies/officers that have been responsible for a botched warrant (wrong address, bad shoot, etc) have often been held accountable, even if the popular internet opinion says otherwise.
Obviously, outrageous cases are what make headlines, and in a country of nearly 300 million people, bold mistakes can be found in nearly every profession (teachers molesting students, doctors prescribing dangerous medications, etc). Heck, we've all seen the bold-n-bad headlines on gun-related issues probably thousands of times!
The article posted in this thread is obviously quite biased, and doesn't take a neutral look at the cost/benefit of these tactics (or risk/reward, if you prefer).
I'm not saying that 'wrong house' mistakes are acceptable, but as someone who works in LE, I can see where these types of warrants have been necessary in many instances!
I will concede that many of you are not wrong in saying that a major tragedy could occur if the police were to negligently run a no-knock warrant on your house, rather than the intended meth house next door. But, an issolated handful of mistakes across our very populated nation does not convince me that the entire system is completely broken!
alsaqr said:
Yep, The US has spent hundreds of billions on the "war on drugs." What a resounding success it has been
Where does this relate to this topic? Many drugs are illegal for good reasons, and I don't feel that your comment provided anything relevant to a discussion about
how the law is enforced (you seem to say that you'd either prefer that there were no drug laws, or you are just complaining that not enough enforcement has taken place?).
I had a meth lab explosion in a neighborhood that I lived and worked in ten years ago. Took out both apartments on either side of it (which were fortunately unoccupied at that moment). Illicit drugs are causing a lot of problems in a lot of communities, and your post served only to detract from the actual issue at hand in this thread.
