Home invasion disguised as no-knock?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yay, another pro-anarchy, pro-do whatever we want, drugs are ok, bush is bad, all cops are bad, blah blah blah thread... The anti-govt paranoia here is amazing. Doesn't even surprise me anymore. :rolleyes:

What does surprise me is how often a "law abiding" citizen is so quick to say he will MURDER or attempt to MURDER anyone who is entering his house, even if they are doing so in a lawful manner. It is not up to you or I if no-knock provisions in warrants are legal. The fact is they are at this time. If you don't like it, petition your govt through the 1st amendment for a change. Until then, you would be charged with many crimes up to and possibly murder if you shot and killed a peace officer entering your home with a valid warrant. The best part, you have pre-meditated it here.

Now, whats even worse, is that people who do break the law don't believe they do. I've rarely ever in my career come across someone who violated a felony who believed they had done anything wrong. Just like the above silly statements, I often have heard "If I believe I have done nothing wrong..." well, heh, thats ludicrous.

I bet all the "law abiding citizens" here who are so anti-govt pro-anarchy anti-law probably have some interesting rap sheets. And to think this is supposed to be the "high road."
 
A young lady who was related to someone who was involved with organized crime was kidnapped from her home by home invaders claiming to be FBI a few years ago in, from my recollection, Arlington Texas. I believe they found her body in a shallow grave in Arkansas. They replayed her taped 911 call, something like "...oh wait, it's the FBI..." followed by a few seconds of her screaming.
 
What does surprise me is how often a "law abiding" citizen is so quick to say he will MURDER or attempt to MURDER anyone who is entering his house, even if they are doing so in a lawful manner..
Click to expand...

If you're a law enforcement officer you should be aware that it's not murder to kill a person you believe to be a home invader or a threat to your life.
 
I bet all the "law abiding citizens" here who are so anti-govt pro-anarchy anti-law probably have some interesting rap sheets. And to think this is supposed to be the "high road."
Click to expand...
Well O.S. feel free to look me up and post what little you find. It'll be some traffic tickets from the 1980s and perhaps a call from a fellow who was upset that I was upset that he was messing around with my then wife.
What does surprise me is how often a "law abiding" citizen is so quick to say he will MURDER or attempt to MURDER anyone who is entering his house, even if they are doing so in a lawful manner.
Click to expand...
Inside the wall of my domicile, I am not President, I am not King. I am <insert name of favorite deity>. My home state recognizes a persons right to defend their home from unwanted and illegal intrusion, using deadly force of need be, as well as protecting that person from civil suit should they kill an illegal intruder. (that covers non-LEOs). The warrant serves not only to grant police the right to search for things named on the warrant, but also to notify the occupant of the place to be searched that these are indeed officers of the law, not thugs bent on ill. No-knock warrants as applied in our culture today serve to negate that assurance to the occupant.

Got a warrant to search? Knock on the door, present proper warrant for inspection and we'll fight the issue out in court.

Kick the door in, and don't be suprised is one's welcome is less than friendly.
 
Last edited:
Yay, another pro-anarchy, pro-do whatever we want, drugs are ok, bush is bad, all cops are bad, blah blah blah thread... The anti-govt paranoia here is amazing. Doesn't even surprise me anymore.
Click to expand...
I, for one, am decidedly pro government, though I must admit that I am also decidedly anti-despotism.
What does surprise me is how often a "law abiding" citizen is so quick to say he will MURDER or attempt to MURDER anyone who is entering his house, even if they are doing so in a lawful manner. It is not up to you or I if no-knock provisions in warrants are legal. The fact is they are at this time. If you don't like it, petition your govt through the 1st amendment for a change. Until then, you would be charged with many crimes up to and possibly murder if you shot and killed a peace officer entering your home with a valid warrant. The best part, you have pre-meditated it here.
Click to expand...
When masked intruders bust your door down in the middle of the night, a reasonable person assumes that they are not doing so lawfully, and mean you serious bodily injury or death. The law provides for the right to defend oneself from such things. Naturally, if it turns out to be LEOs acting like criminals, then I wouldn't expect to live long enough for a trial, so my legal standing becomes a moot point.
Now, whats even worse, is that people who do break the law don't believe they do. I've rarely ever in my career come across someone who violated a felony who believed they had done anything wrong. Just like the above silly statements, I often have heard "If I believe I have done nothing wrong..." well, heh, thats ludicrous.

I bet all the "law abiding citizens" here who are so anti-govt pro-anarchy anti-law probably have some interesting rap sheets. And to think this is supposed to be the "high road."
Click to expand...
First off, I am pro government, anti-despotism, pro law, anti government lawlessness. Secondly, I have no rap sheet. I am as conventional as can be. Don't do drugs. Never have. Mind my own business, and respect the rights and property of others. If only my government did the same, we'd all be much better off.
 
Last edited:
The Fourth Amendment is there because this has happened before in our country.

If a fellow stood up to the uniformed thugs it wouldn't be the first time either.
 
If LEO's cant see how completely arrogant, dangerous and devoid of any sense of Rights these "no knocks" are....then they desire every shot that is fired at them. ( back off I have plenty of cop-friends)
Thomas Paine-like Common Sense has to enter the picture here somehwere.

Protecting family and liberty is not just spending $20 to some group and writing to your polictians. If the "state" is that arrogant.......let the bullets fly. (God I pray it never happens to me.......But God I will not sit and take it either)
 
Optical Serenity stated
What does surprise me is how often a "law abiding" citizen is so quick to say he will MURDER or attempt to MURDER anyone who is entering his house, even if they are doing so in a lawful manner.
Click to expand...
Um, dude ... the point is, those of us who know we are "law-abiding" citizens (and I'm thinking we should have a pretty good handle on this) are saying only that if someone breaks into our humble abode in the middle of the night, it's got to be the bad guys, right?

And, alas, rare as they are, mistaken entries by law enforcement agencyies have happened, with fatal results for even some law-abiding home-owners who did not attempt to defend themselves. Please conduct a bit of research.

This thread really has little to do with anarchy, anti-government sentiment, drugs being okay, the question of Pres. Bush being good or bad ...

It is not up to you or I if no-knock provisions in warrants are legal.
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably certain the Bill of Rights addressed this.

And, for the record, I am pretty much a "law-abiding" citizen, twenty-plus year military veteran of a couple conflicts, former MP, former reserve deputy, and currently working in a state law enforcement capacity ...
 
In an article in a popular rag I was skimming a few months ago, the writer, stated that in the Chicago area alone about 1,000 crimes against persons had been ascribed to badguys passing themselves off as peace officers in the last three years, some with - some without - the uniform trappings.

That is one major city area, and this stuff is by no means uncommon. Contrary to a few who suggested otherwise in a similar thread awhile back.

It is difficult if not impossible to dissect this subject without discussing the overlap with others - such as "the war" in one form or another. The bottom line is this; citizens should not be placed in a state of acceptance to laying themselves prostrate and defenseless to anyone crashing the doors of their homes saying the magic words. Subjecting themselves and their families to a horrible game of roulette.

I agree with The Real Hawkeye.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
I'm dubious that somebody could rouse from a sound sleep and identify the problem and take any action before there already is some sort of weapon in one's face
Click to expand...

Why? My bed is not next to the entry door. In my case it would be:

smash in door and take a few steps
turn left and take a few steps
turn right and go up stairs
turn left and go up more stairs
turn right and take a few steps
turn right and go down hallway
smash in second door and enter room..
THEN stick gun in my face?

Haha, I don't think so and that's not even taking my 140lb "Roman War Dog" into account.
 
Yay, another pro-anarchy, pro-do whatever we want, drugs are ok, bush is bad, all cops are bad, blah blah blah thread... The anti-govt paranoia here is amazing. Doesn't even surprise me anymore.
Click to expand...

I am pro-Bush and anti-drug. I am also pro-cop and I work in law enforcement. However, there must be boundaries on what government can do. And the Constitution put the boundary on unreasonable searches.

In other words, before searching a private residence, the government must give the reason to the homeowner. If the government has not provided the reason for the search to the homeowner, the homeowner can only reasonably conclude that the search is "unreasonable" and thus illegal.

If the government agents are conducting an illegal search, then they are no longer acting within the scope of their duties and are, in fact, conducting a criminal act which amounts to an armed home invasion.

What does surprise me is how often a "law abiding" citizen is so quick to say he will MURDER or attempt to MURDER anyone who is entering his house, even if they are doing so in a lawful manner. It is not up to you or I if no-knock provisions in warrants are legal.
Click to expand...

If the government has not provided the reason for the search to the homeowner, the homeowner can only reasonably conclude that the search is "unreasonable" and thus illegal. The government owes its citizens a reasonable opportunity to distinguish government agents acting lawfully within the scope of their duties from criminal thugs. If government agents are acting like criminal thugs, then it is reasonable to expect a homeowner to mistake them for criminal thugs and respond accordingly.

The fact is they are at this time. If you don't like it, petition your govt through the 1st amendment for a change. Until then, you would be charged with many crimes up to and possibly murder if you shot and killed a peace officer entering your home with a valid warrant. The best part, you have pre-meditated it here.
Click to expand...

Unless the homeowner pleas, the conviction rate is well below 50% in cases where a law-abiding homeowner survives the gunfight when forcefully resisting an illegal search or dynamic entry served on the wrong house. In cases where the government agents did not properly identify themselves, convicted homeowners are rare.

I bet all the "law abiding citizens" here who are so anti-govt pro-anarchy anti-law probably have some interesting rap sheets. And to think this is supposed to be the "high road."
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being anti-law, but rather a deep conviction that government agents should follow the same laws as everyone else. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is not optional for agents of the government.

If an agent of the government stretches the boundaries of reasonable searches, fails to properly identify himself, and puts himself in a situation where an honest, law-abiding citizen has good reason to mistake him for an armed criminal home invader, the possible consequence is that the government agent might face forceful resistance from the honest, law-abiding homeowner which could end in tragedy for one or both parties.

Michael Courtney
 
Quote from Optical Serenity
"What does surprise me is how often a "law abiding" citizen is so quick to say he will MURDER or attempt to MURDER anyone who is entering his house, even if they are doing so in a lawful manner."


Most of the posts I see, are from American citizens who say the will "DEFEND" themselves against anyone crashing in, no matter what they say.

The "MURDERERS" are the bad guys, that crash into a house and throw guns on people.

There is NO REASON to risk killing an innocent civilian, who is trying only to PROTECT their family, just to "take drugs off the street", and they don't want to take ANY CHANCE whatsoever that "drugs are flushed by the perp".

I see LEO's use that as almost the SOLE excuse for justification of crashing into an address. Drugs getting flushed, gets the drugs off the streets. Goal accomplished. They have to come out of the house sometime. I am willing to pay taxes to cover all the Overtime necessary, to avoid killing one single innocent homeowner, just because of a bad address.

I don't see anyone here wanting to MURDER anyone, but I do see those who use common sense when trying to protect the little 2500 square foot area, they are supposed to (by the Constitution) be ABSOLUTELY safe in. Period.
 
"that the police have to enter quickly or the drugs will be flushed down the toilet? "

Couldn't they find a way of capturing the "toilet contents" and executing the search warrant without balaclavas? they'd get the evidence if a flush was attempted and wouldn't have to go JBT on everyone. I heard rumours of the "stasi" in germany doing this and thought it might be an idea.
 
Spiphel:
It realy does not matter, if the stated goal, is getting "drugs off the street",
and they truly supsect there is a drug dealer, they can wait until they come out. Everyone has to eat.

The Constitution does not say "...secure in their papers and effects, unless a government employee wants to crash through the front door at gunpoint at the wrong adress and shoot the wrong guy".

Although it says "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" it also refers to "oath or affidavits." The founders intent was that a Jury with the aide of a Judge, (not a government employee such as a judge without the overseeing of twelve jurors of your peers) would determine if "probable cause" existed.

Today, since we have allowed lawyers to bastardize the "Court" system, (meaning to hold an open Court, as in when a King held Court, the PUBLIC came to view it in the open, rather than a Judge (government employee) soley making a decision "In Chambers" which derived from the term "Star Chambers" which were inquisitions with no public witness) we now have Judges issuing warrants at the almost immediate request of Government Empoyees, rather than by oath or affidavit of a citizen in front of a jury.

That is how we managed to get to the point where Storm Trooper tactics prevail over the ENTIRITY of the Fourth Amendment. The fourth should be read in conjunction with the preceding three Amendments, and then after reading the Fifth, this fact becomes more than clear.


Our public schools today spend the avererage entirity of ONE single DAY studying the Constitution. That is how we wind up with so called "Constitutional Scholars" able to get by with telling the majority of the public, we have nor right to be secure within our houses, should two government officials (Judges and LEO's) decide to issue a warrant, without a sworn affidavit or oath by an outside party, which was the original intent, no matter what any LEO is taught in "Law Enforcement" training.

It is so simple, it is ridiculous, but the shell game of "Constitutional Scholars" has been played for about forty years now, and it has come to resemble a circus.
 
You mean like this: "I, (insert full and correct name), will carefully consider all information, testimony, and evidence to be presented in this grand jury hearing and will endeavor to the best of my ability to determine if a crime as defined in the constitution has been committed and if it is probable that the accused is responsible for committing the crime."

So, you are saying the Framers intended a grand jury to hear the police evidence and approve a search warrant before the judge issues one? Never considered it, but it makes perfect sense. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say "so long as a judge issues a warrant," but "upon oath or affirmation," and if that refers to something a grand jury does, your point makes perfect sense. Funny that never occurred to me, but it has always seemed very little, if at all, reassuring to me that a judge (a government employee, as you say) must approve a warrant requested by a cop. The Founders always liked to interpose juries between the government and the individual. What you are saying makes perfect sense, and looking back at the Fourth Amendment a minute ago, I was actually surprised that I read nothing about a judge issuing a warrant on his own. In fact a judge isn't even mentioned. Excellent point. Thanks.
 
What you see here is the result of the "War on Drugs", the finest excuse to mash civil rights ever invented. (Being replaced by the improved version "War on Terror")
An interesting case in Tacoma, Wa. a few years back. I do not remember the exact specifics, but in a nutshell-
Sherriffs, believing one of thier deputies was dealing dope, did a no knock at what they believed was his address. Turns out he did not live thier anymore, but his brother did. Said brother woke up buck nakes with a pistol and shot and killed one of the officers, in court stated he thought it was a home invasion. No drugs were found. Brother is now prison for a very long time. PS- brother had a clean record.
I followed this in the papers, admittedly not the most reliable source of info.
My thought was this- If the brother had KNOWN they were police, what possible reason would he have to shoot?
This could be any citizen.

Practical thoughts? Stiffen your doors hard enough to buy time to wake up, and call 911. A comercial exterior steel door and frame with deadbolt protector would slow them down a bit, I think.
Anybody know if a 911 dispatcher would be able to verify if your home is being busted into by the police?
 
Home invasion disguised as no-knock has occurred

I have seen at least one newspaper report of home invaders
disguised as bounty hunters. While some might say that
people who would open up to bounty hunters are probably
guilty of something anyway, that does not justify a home
invasion robbery.

No-knock raids should be avoided if they raise the level of
danger; situations where they are the safer option are very
rare. TV shows feed the perception there is too much
eagerness to put SWAT training into day-to-day operations.
Whether the perception is backed by stats is something else.
 
This thread scares me..So much so that I called my police chief(retired, friend) and asked him if no-knocks were commonplace. He told me that they are not very common and to get a no-knock, they would have to be 'reasonably sure' that any warrant served would be met with armed resistance, or, that the occupant(s) would have the ability to flush the dope in a drug case prior to entry.

Regardelss, mistakes happen and one way or another, an armed victim defending his home from what he reasonably believes is a home invasion, will fry at the hands of those who made the error. unconscionable!!
 
Optical Serenity,

I don't think anyone is saying that the police have no right to serve warrants. We are simply arguing the legality and wisdom of "No-Knock" type searches. Regardless of if these are constitutional, no-knock warrants are simply a bad idea and the gains do not over come the risks.

I can think of at least two examples that have been discussed here on THR were these types of tactics have resulted in:
The death of an unarmed suspect.
The death of the lead LEO
And a murder conviction for the innocent home owner.

So why are LEOs so eager to conduct no-knocks? In the time it takes for police to knock on the door, shout "POLICE! OPEN UP!", wait for a response, and then force the door if there is none, no drug dealer with any real amount of 'product' would be able to destroy it all in time. Also, if the police are raiding a house with suspected terrorist then I would pray to God that the police did at least enough recon to confirm that the people in the house are infact terrorists first be fore they bust in 'guns blazing'.
 
Optical Serenity:

Middle of the night. Someone is literally busting down your door. Sounds like 3 or 4 people. There are yelling "Police! Police!"

Please tell me your plan of action.
 
Yeah molon labe,

And somehow I think that if you were to point a gun at the police and demand that they produce identification and a warrant you will end up on a steel table by morning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
MD: Third home invasion in Potomac since May
Replies
2
Views
309
Standing Wolf
S
D
  • Locked
(TN) Home invasion goes badly...
Replies
1
Views
552
Mal H
Mal H
H
  • Locked
More Positive Press on CCW Use in SW Ohio (Dayton)
Replies
13
Views
516
eagle45
E
M
  • Locked
Another no-knock raid results in an exchange of gunfire
Replies
23
Views
1K
thexrayboy
T
D
  • Locked
(TX) Home Invasion Robbery Erupts In Shootout
Replies
3
Views
648
Frohickey
F
Back
Top