TallPine
Member
So ... how would they enforce that ???
Would that mean that they may try to break down your door just to see if they can ?
(SIGH) Is this happening more often?
- Thread starter ebd10
- Start date
- Status
So ... how would they enforce that ???
Would that mean that they may try to break down your door just to see if they can ?
Neo-Luddite
Member
They can't. It would be a 'value added' set of charges to stick on someone who was a gang member/drug dealer, etc. Illinois also had a law about having a hidden compartment in your car -- that one was recently stuck down by the IL Sup Ct. The intent isn't to keep honest people from keeping 'the bad guys' out-- it suppossed to prevent a drug dealer from making a 'drug citadel' or something. The 'law makers' (never called reps or senators anymore) like making laws--ones that sound good.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
brerrabbit, there seems to be some confusion in all this. From what every cop who posts here has said, "No Knock" is a rare event. The use of SWAT teams is not, and the procedures are not the same.
I'm against the no-knock thing except maybe in a hostage situation and with highly-trained personnel. I remember when John Mitchell was Attorney General under Nixon and persuaded Congress to authorize the no-knock idea. The second time it was used was at a wrong address: Typographical error on the search warrant. A resident wound up as permanently paralyzed in his legs, IIRC. Anyway, it's beyond being just a "snitch problem".
Again, I'm of the opinion that SWAT is over-used. However, in some areas they're very much necessary. Example: I went to the Steel Challenge at Los Angeles in 1982. That's when I learned that LA firefighters would not go to some areas when called, until after the "Sunlight" helicopters were overhead, and a SWAT team was in control of the area. The problem? Fake calls and rooftop snipers who would shoot at the firemen. And that was 25 years ago; things are reportedly much worse, now.
Back around that time I picked up a lot of once-fired .45ACP brass at one particular range. A dope peddler's girlfriend was the official owner of a Thompson, and they'd burn up several boxes of ammo and leave the brass. I often wondered at the scenario if revolver-armed Austin cops had to try to arrest the guy at his house, in those days before SWAT.
The "militarization" has come about as a reaction to what Bad Guys are doing. It seems that all us honest folks can do is harumph on the internet about it, as though the cops themselves want to be militarized. As though the cops themselves like being shot at as an excuse to have "new toys".
Damfino...
Art
I'm against the no-knock thing except maybe in a hostage situation and with highly-trained personnel. I remember when John Mitchell was Attorney General under Nixon and persuaded Congress to authorize the no-knock idea. The second time it was used was at a wrong address: Typographical error on the search warrant. A resident wound up as permanently paralyzed in his legs, IIRC. Anyway, it's beyond being just a "snitch problem".
Again, I'm of the opinion that SWAT is over-used. However, in some areas they're very much necessary. Example: I went to the Steel Challenge at Los Angeles in 1982. That's when I learned that LA firefighters would not go to some areas when called, until after the "Sunlight" helicopters were overhead, and a SWAT team was in control of the area. The problem? Fake calls and rooftop snipers who would shoot at the firemen. And that was 25 years ago; things are reportedly much worse, now.
Back around that time I picked up a lot of once-fired .45ACP brass at one particular range. A dope peddler's girlfriend was the official owner of a Thompson, and they'd burn up several boxes of ammo and leave the brass. I often wondered at the scenario if revolver-armed Austin cops had to try to arrest the guy at his house, in those days before SWAT.
The "militarization" has come about as a reaction to what Bad Guys are doing. It seems that all us honest folks can do is harumph on the internet about it, as though the cops themselves want to be militarized. As though the cops themselves like being shot at as an excuse to have "new toys".
Damfino...
Art
Deanimator
Member
It depends upon the department.
I'm VERY critical of police, but departments are not all created equal. Take two examples.
The Chicago PD is a cesspool of corruption, incompetence and criminality. Look at news reports just since Christmas of last year to see what's going on in that department. The Weems/Pleasance shooting is a textbook example of the recklessness and corruption which is pervasive in the Chicago PD as an ORGANIZATION.
The Cleveland PD has problems, some of them major. It's got a history of corruption, but NOTHING to hold a candle to Chicago. Controversial shootings are closely investigated, some would say TOO closely investigated. But you don't see Cleveland PD officers shooting unarmed, unthreatening people in the head, and claiming they were surrounded and being attacked, when surveillance cameras show exactly the opposite. When Cleveland PD officers misbehave in public, on or off duty, you don't see the Chief giving them a pass and lying to the public the way Superintendent Cline did with Officer Weems. When two Cleveland officers started a racially motivated fight in a bar, they weren't treated with deference. They were FIRED.
If I learned NOTHING else from being an Army officer, it's that subordinates do what they think the organizational culture tolerates.
Cops will uphold the law... if the people at the top make it clear that there isn't another option. The alternative is chaos.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Deanimator, don't your comments merely reinforce the thrust of my earlier comments about pressure on local political establishments? That is, absent enough screaming and yelling at those who are actually allowing such to happen, corruption will forever continue?
The only difference between Chicago and, say, Denver, is the comparative honesty and integrity of the governing electees. Comparative, not absolute, of course...
Art
The only difference between Chicago and, say, Denver, is the comparative honesty and integrity of the governing electees. Comparative, not absolute, of course...
Art
coylh
Member
I thought the Predator drones were supposed to preclude these kinds of mistakes.
precisionshootist
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 186
Here in Texas we just passed the castle law. This law as I understand it removes the requirement to retreat in any way if you are invaded in your home. I wonder how this will mix with a wrong address no knock or even a correct address no knock for that matter.
The best solution to this problem is not the removal of immunity. The police must be immune to being prosecuted for a mistake or no one will enforce the law. The answer lies in limiting police power to begin with. No knock warrants should not be legal under any circumstances except a hostage situation. I believe they will be made illegal again eventualy, but it's likely to be a horrible tragedy that brings it about.
The best solution to this problem is not the removal of immunity. The police must be immune to being prosecuted for a mistake or no one will enforce the law. The answer lies in limiting police power to begin with. No knock warrants should not be legal under any circumstances except a hostage situation. I believe they will be made illegal again eventualy, but it's likely to be a horrible tragedy that brings it about.
no knock warrants
My .02, with due respect to all who may disagree on one or more points.
Some of this I posted on TFL after a few too many Red Bull
no knock warrants
A "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. Certainly, the tactic is appropriate in a few limited “emergency” situations. Virtually all of the notorious “no knock” cases you see in the news arise when the tactic is used to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.
While the Cato figures are shocking, it is hard to determine exactly how many “no knock gone wrong” raids occur each year. Police and prosecutors try to cover them up.
To understand how we continue to have tragic outcomes related to drug searches, you need to understand the connection between “The War on Drugs”, militarization of the police, and the sudden use of “no knock” warrants.
When the police use a “no knock warrant” it is intended to be “shock and awe”, typically carried out by masked, heavily armed SWAT teams using paramilitary tactics. Before the late 1970s / early 1980s (about when I entered legal practice) “no knock” warrants and tactics were relatively rare and confined to cases where there was an actual rationale for the use of the tactic, such as hostages, a known armed and violent offender, etc. Two trends in law enforcement run in a tightly linked course – the rapid increase in the use of “no knock” warrants and the spread of SWAT teams and their use. Typically, a major portion of a SWAT team’s activity will be serving drug warrants. The “no knock, shock and awe” tactical raid usually involves early morning entry with masks, overpowering weaponry, and sometimes flash bangs (although these are now out of favor a bit).
This Cato briefing paper tracks the militarization trend, as previously noted:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html
I put together a series of posts that track recent SCOTUS activity and how the justices are lined up on this on the current Court. I don't see the need to re-post all that and force y'all to read it - but if you want to, here it is, links to the cases are here as well:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250655&page=2
A couple of things where I disagree with some previous posts.
This sort of thing does happen a lot - and the no knock warrants have been used really broadly throughout the "War on Drugs". Local regulation is really the key, including the action of local Courts under their own state constitution. That has been the trend in MN. Following Richards and in light of several high profile, tragic fatalities, MN courts have clamped down on the use of the no knock provisions in warrants, and the emphasis has been on really requiring the warrant to provide sufficient grounds before a no knock is issued.
The result? Ten years ago virtually all the drug warrants I saw were done by SWAT entry teams - it was standard to approve that provision in all drug cases. Ten years forward, that is rare - just don't see it used much anymore.
The other is thing I disagree with is that the War on Drugs is alive, well and will be with us always. In the academic end of criminal justice and corrections, what is coming out is that much of what was done during the past 20 years did a great deal of damage to the criminal justice system at all levels. In real world corrections and criminal justice, the current view of the War on Drugs is probably overall one of embarassment. The view that is increasingly held is that drugs are a public health problem, and that the focus of billions of criminal justice and law enforcement dollars was wasted. The other view is that we have to rely on actuarial data in corrections an do what is effective, rather than what makes some guy up for election look good.
This is precisely the view I have heard, in the past year:
I really do think a bit of fresh wind has blown away a lot of the stink arising from the excesses of the War on Drugs - which was always a political scam. Perhaps I am just fortunate that in the jurisdiction that work in, that is the overall trend.
My .02, with due respect to all who may disagree on one or more points.
Some of this I posted on TFL after a few too many Red Bull
no knock warrants
A "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. Certainly, the tactic is appropriate in a few limited “emergency” situations. Virtually all of the notorious “no knock” cases you see in the news arise when the tactic is used to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.
While the Cato figures are shocking, it is hard to determine exactly how many “no knock gone wrong” raids occur each year. Police and prosecutors try to cover them up.
To understand how we continue to have tragic outcomes related to drug searches, you need to understand the connection between “The War on Drugs”, militarization of the police, and the sudden use of “no knock” warrants.
When the police use a “no knock warrant” it is intended to be “shock and awe”, typically carried out by masked, heavily armed SWAT teams using paramilitary tactics. Before the late 1970s / early 1980s (about when I entered legal practice) “no knock” warrants and tactics were relatively rare and confined to cases where there was an actual rationale for the use of the tactic, such as hostages, a known armed and violent offender, etc. Two trends in law enforcement run in a tightly linked course – the rapid increase in the use of “no knock” warrants and the spread of SWAT teams and their use. Typically, a major portion of a SWAT team’s activity will be serving drug warrants. The “no knock, shock and awe” tactical raid usually involves early morning entry with masks, overpowering weaponry, and sometimes flash bangs (although these are now out of favor a bit).
This Cato briefing paper tracks the militarization trend, as previously noted:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html
I put together a series of posts that track recent SCOTUS activity and how the justices are lined up on this on the current Court. I don't see the need to re-post all that and force y'all to read it - but if you want to, here it is, links to the cases are here as well:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250655&page=2
A couple of things where I disagree with some previous posts.
This sort of thing does happen a lot - and the no knock warrants have been used really broadly throughout the "War on Drugs". Local regulation is really the key, including the action of local Courts under their own state constitution. That has been the trend in MN. Following Richards and in light of several high profile, tragic fatalities, MN courts have clamped down on the use of the no knock provisions in warrants, and the emphasis has been on really requiring the warrant to provide sufficient grounds before a no knock is issued.
The result? Ten years ago virtually all the drug warrants I saw were done by SWAT entry teams - it was standard to approve that provision in all drug cases. Ten years forward, that is rare - just don't see it used much anymore.
The other is thing I disagree with is that the War on Drugs is alive, well and will be with us always. In the academic end of criminal justice and corrections, what is coming out is that much of what was done during the past 20 years did a great deal of damage to the criminal justice system at all levels. In real world corrections and criminal justice, the current view of the War on Drugs is probably overall one of embarassment. The view that is increasingly held is that drugs are a public health problem, and that the focus of billions of criminal justice and law enforcement dollars was wasted. The other view is that we have to rely on actuarial data in corrections an do what is effective, rather than what makes some guy up for election look good.
This is precisely the view I have heard, in the past year:
- In seminars for State corrections put on by DEA
- expressed by agency heads at the state level
- expressed by chief law enforcment officials and chief prosecutors in policy making settings
I really do think a bit of fresh wind has blown away a lot of the stink arising from the excesses of the War on Drugs - which was always a political scam. Perhaps I am just fortunate that in the jurisdiction that work in, that is the overall trend.
Deanimator
Member
My comments were an expansion, not a refutation.
TallPine
Member
How many more horrible tragedies have to happen ...?
Wasn't Kathryn Johnston enough ????
I say strike the immunity and let a jury decide if it was necessary or not.
The Police don't want their immunity removed because it would expose the very mistakes they are trying to cover up.
I'm sure there are good cops, a minority I believe, but I'm sure they exist.
To turn the tables "If you have nothing to hide, why do you resist the prosecution?"
Jefferson
The Police don't want their immunity removed because it would expose the very mistakes they are trying to cover up.
I'm sure there are good cops, a minority I believe, but I'm sure they exist.
To turn the tables "If you have nothing to hide, why do you resist the prosecution?"
Jefferson
Deanimator
Member
The problem with the assertions of others that "most" cops are good is that it's irrelevant.
I have absolutely NO idea what the ratio of "good" cops to "bad" in the Chicago PD is. It doesn't matter. From top to bottom, from the Superintendent on down, the BAD cops are running the show.
If a cop can blow an unarmed man's brains out ON VIDEO and get a thirty day suspension and a promotion to detective from the man at the top, it doesn't matter that EVERY other cop is "good". What Phil Cline and Alvin Weems did was to THOROUGHLY compromise the integrity of the Chicago PD... if it hadn't been utterly destroyed DECADES ago. Responding to this by saying that "most" cops are "good" is a nonsequitor. The bad cops have the reins in some places, and the good cops aren't doing anything about it. Whether that's because they're intimidated or because they're complicit doesn't matter. The effect on the public, and on the integrity of the entire justice system is the same. Anybody who claims that in Chicago the "good" cops ARE doing something needs to:
Prove it. There isn't one IOTA of proof of ANY effort within the Chicago PD to make things any better. In fact, there's documented proof [some of it on VIDEO] of precisely the opposite. Cops in the Jefferson Tap beating actually allowed themselves to be waved off by the PERPETRATORS of a felonious assault, who just happened to be Chicago cops.
Show SOME result. I've been paying close attention since the Obryczka beating. All I see is attempts at coverup, obstruction of justice, favoritism and deferential treatment toward criminals like Officer Abbate and Detective Weems. Of course speaking out or turning in a bad cop could probably get a good Chicago cop killed. If the cops themselves have no confidence in the system, why on earth should _I_???
civil action
Actually, the civil remedy may be available, and that was relied upon by Justice Scalia in the recent decision in Michigan v Hudson. Scalia maintained that police are sufficiently deterred from improper searches by the right of occupants to bring a Bivens action. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed claims against federal officials who violate an individual's constitutional rights in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens action is the federal equivalent of a 1983 action and would apply to employees of the Public Health Service, the CDC, and other federal agencies. Bivens actions, 1983 actions, and related actions against public health officials have similar requirements.
In his dissent, Justice Breyer countered that such lawsuits are rare and often do not bring much relief for victims.
Unfortunately, the two most recent SCOTUS decisions in this area are hostile to the rights of homeowners. in 2003 the Court adopted an entirely different approach. In U.S. v. Banks, the Court ruled unanimously that 15 to 20 seconds was an adequate wait time between police announcement and forced entry.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-473.ZS.html
Of concern here is that the reasoning of Justice Souter’s opinion was vastly different than the preceding line cases. His concern was the opportunity to destroy evidence, drugs, and stated that it was the fact of imminent destruction of evidence rather than the time it would take to answer the door, that determined when police could enter.
In effect, Justice Souter:
-ignored the common-law principle that announcement protects the innocent from an unjustified home invasion
-instructed police to treat everyone named in a drug search warrant as if they were already guilty.
Then along came Hudson v. Michigan. In that case, the Supreme Court held that drugs or other evidence seized at a home could be used in a trial even if police failed to knock and announce their presence in violation of such a requirement. This ruling was a major shift in Supreme Court rulings on illegal searches by police.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZS.html
The 5-4 decision in Hudson undercut the rule that evidence found during an unlawful search cannot be used. The decision also indicates that the Court is more likely to rule in favor of the government in such cases with Justice Samuel Alito in the place of retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor, who was on the court when the case was first argued, had worried about "the sanctity of the home." Alito, on the other hand, sided fully with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, which emphasized that tossing out evidence acquired in violation of the knock-and-announce rule — but with a valid warrant — could mean "releasing dangerous criminals."
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer called the majority’s decision "doubly troubling."
"It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents. It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." Breyer wrote in his dissent, joined by John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In Hudson, officers had a warrant to search for drugs and firearms. They called out their presence and, after three to five seconds, entered through an unlocked front door.
Hudson tried to suppress the cocaine that police found, failed and was convicted of drug possession. On appeal, he argued that unless tainted evidence is suppressed, police will not be deterred from barging into homes.
O'Connor was sympathetic at oral argument.
After she retired, the eight remaining justices were deadlocked. The case was re-argued with Alito on the court. His vote gave Scalia the majority. Joining them were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
Note that the issue of self defense is specifically noted in the majority opinion. Justice Scalia said this in Part III.A: "One of those interests is the protection of human life and limb, because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self-defense by the surprised resident."
Unfortunately, Justice Scalia’s hostility to whole chapters of 20th-century jurisprudence extends to the notion of self-defense. A lawsuit, in the form of a Bivens action, seems to be his solution.
Actually, the civil remedy may be available, and that was relied upon by Justice Scalia in the recent decision in Michigan v Hudson. Scalia maintained that police are sufficiently deterred from improper searches by the right of occupants to bring a Bivens action. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed claims against federal officials who violate an individual's constitutional rights in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens action is the federal equivalent of a 1983 action and would apply to employees of the Public Health Service, the CDC, and other federal agencies. Bivens actions, 1983 actions, and related actions against public health officials have similar requirements.
In his dissent, Justice Breyer countered that such lawsuits are rare and often do not bring much relief for victims.
Unfortunately, the two most recent SCOTUS decisions in this area are hostile to the rights of homeowners. in 2003 the Court adopted an entirely different approach. In U.S. v. Banks, the Court ruled unanimously that 15 to 20 seconds was an adequate wait time between police announcement and forced entry.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-473.ZS.html
Of concern here is that the reasoning of Justice Souter’s opinion was vastly different than the preceding line cases. His concern was the opportunity to destroy evidence, drugs, and stated that it was the fact of imminent destruction of evidence rather than the time it would take to answer the door, that determined when police could enter.
In effect, Justice Souter:
-ignored the common-law principle that announcement protects the innocent from an unjustified home invasion
-instructed police to treat everyone named in a drug search warrant as if they were already guilty.
Then along came Hudson v. Michigan. In that case, the Supreme Court held that drugs or other evidence seized at a home could be used in a trial even if police failed to knock and announce their presence in violation of such a requirement. This ruling was a major shift in Supreme Court rulings on illegal searches by police.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZS.html
The 5-4 decision in Hudson undercut the rule that evidence found during an unlawful search cannot be used. The decision also indicates that the Court is more likely to rule in favor of the government in such cases with Justice Samuel Alito in the place of retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor, who was on the court when the case was first argued, had worried about "the sanctity of the home." Alito, on the other hand, sided fully with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, which emphasized that tossing out evidence acquired in violation of the knock-and-announce rule — but with a valid warrant — could mean "releasing dangerous criminals."
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer called the majority’s decision "doubly troubling."
"It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents. It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." Breyer wrote in his dissent, joined by John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In Hudson, officers had a warrant to search for drugs and firearms. They called out their presence and, after three to five seconds, entered through an unlocked front door.
Hudson tried to suppress the cocaine that police found, failed and was convicted of drug possession. On appeal, he argued that unless tainted evidence is suppressed, police will not be deterred from barging into homes.
O'Connor was sympathetic at oral argument.
After she retired, the eight remaining justices were deadlocked. The case was re-argued with Alito on the court. His vote gave Scalia the majority. Joining them were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
Note that the issue of self defense is specifically noted in the majority opinion. Justice Scalia said this in Part III.A: "One of those interests is the protection of human life and limb, because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self-defense by the surprised resident."
Unfortunately, Justice Scalia’s hostility to whole chapters of 20th-century jurisprudence extends to the notion of self-defense. A lawsuit, in the form of a Bivens action, seems to be his solution.
It is my understanding that many local jurisdictions have legislation in place that specifically prevents civil action against police officers regardless of the charge. I may be wrong, but that is what I am given to understand. Filing in Federal court is of no real help as most often it is the lower end of the financial spectrum that are most damaged by these police actions. In other words if you cannot afford a lawyer, the police have every right to abuse you with impunity.
Jefferson
Jefferson
TallPine
Member
Thanks for your analysis, Richmond. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that we do live in a police state in the USA, albeit a relatively benign one so far.
It's hard to sue for your rights after you're dead
OTOH, I don't think they do any flavor of "no-knocks" in the county where I live. It would just be too dangerous since virtually every household is armed.
It's hard to sue for your rights after you're dead
OTOH, I don't think they do any flavor of "no-knocks" in the county where I live. It would just be too dangerous since virtually every household is armed.
Flyboy
Member
That's kinda what I figured. Now, the real question: are such agreements likely to hold up in court, or are they likely to be tossed? There seems to be a huge disparity in bargaining power between the two parties.
At the same time, even those who are injured in collisions, or cheated in business deals, have to acknowledge that they voluntarily engaged in that activity, and assumed the risks involved. I've done nothing to assume the risks of being abused/kicked in the groin/shot/house burned down/etc. by a bad raid, other than existing.
This, incidentally, is my fundamental objection to the all-trumping "officer safety:" while I certainly don't wish to see any (decent, honest) officer harmed, I do maintain that citizen safety should be a higher priority, simply because the officer volunteered for the dangerous duty with open eyes; the private citizen didn't. Certainly, it would be nice if everybody came home safely, but think of it this way: what would we say about a fireman who refused to fight a fire because it's dangerous, while letting a family perish inside? Certain jobs come with danger; people who volunteer for those jobs know--or should know--that, and assume the risks, just as a skydiver assumes the risks of his parachute not opening.
lee n. field
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,319
I suspect it's very common. I personally know someone, a 70-something little old Sunday School lady, who had the black armored drug cops show up at her door. Fortunately her visit was resolved with an "Oops, wrong address, bye."
For a while there, when I was paying attention, I'd see (paying attention to national news) a wrongful death reported from a wrong house raid about once a month.
Let's see...
The "officer safety" excuse doesn't wash. Sorry, policework is a dangerous profession. It wouldn't be an issue, except that everything police unions and their pet lawmakers parade under the banner of "officer safety" tends to be further whittling away at 2nd and 4th amendment rights that are part of the very agreement which establishes the legitimacy of the government. When those are violated, the government they establish is in breach of contract and thus abdicates its legitimacy.
Likewise, such matters undermine the concept of rule of law. They breed contempt for the rule of law. When the law is demonstratively unjust, it opens the door to the viewpoint that all of the laws are unjust and its enforcers are corrupt. Screw-ups and the overuse/misuse of SWAT and no-knock warrants pushes that little train right along.
It's like watching a trainwreck. You don't want to watch but you can't look away.
The "officer safety" excuse doesn't wash. Sorry, policework is a dangerous profession. It wouldn't be an issue, except that everything police unions and their pet lawmakers parade under the banner of "officer safety" tends to be further whittling away at 2nd and 4th amendment rights that are part of the very agreement which establishes the legitimacy of the government. When those are violated, the government they establish is in breach of contract and thus abdicates its legitimacy.
Likewise, such matters undermine the concept of rule of law. They breed contempt for the rule of law. When the law is demonstratively unjust, it opens the door to the viewpoint that all of the laws are unjust and its enforcers are corrupt. Screw-ups and the overuse/misuse of SWAT and no-knock warrants pushes that little train right along.
It's like watching a trainwreck. You don't want to watch but you can't look away.
Deanimator
Member
Actually, a lot of police union advocacy is more fundamentally pernicious since it strikes at the very heart of equality under the law.
Recall that the Chicago police union wanted ONLY cops to be exempt from laws forbidding those convicted of domestic violence from owning or possessing firearms. They went as far as to THREATEN the general public regarding the behavior of cops who were disarmed after being CONVICTED of domestic violence.
I can't tell you what percentage of rank and file cops favor a two tier society, with cops above the rest of us. I CAN tell you that it is the OFFICIAL policy of the Chicago police union that cops should be able to own and carry firearms AFTER being convicted of domestic violence. Am I mistaken in my belief that it is their position that YOU shouldn't have a handgun AT ALL?
wjustinen
Member
In the movie Key Largo with Humphrey Bogart
one of the perps complains bitterly about the repeal of prohibition and the damage it did to their operation and financial position. He says that they are going to get prohibition re-instated and will never let it be repealed again.
Well now, some bright boy figured out that drug prohibition would be much more lucrative and you can see the results. Raids like this are just a small part of the problem. Making some of the worst scum on the planet filthy rich and extemely powerful is even more significant.
But, just as with guns it is important to support the .gov in keeping the worst ... out of the wrong hands. Honto ni :banghead:
one of the perps complains bitterly about the repeal of prohibition and the damage it did to their operation and financial position. He says that they are going to get prohibition re-instated and will never let it be repealed again.
Well now, some bright boy figured out that drug prohibition would be much more lucrative and you can see the results. Raids like this are just a small part of the problem. Making some of the worst scum on the planet filthy rich and extemely powerful is even more significant.
But, just as with guns it is important to support the .gov in keeping the worst ... out of the wrong hands. Honto ni :banghead:
Last edited:
- Status
