TallPine
Member
There is (or was) a law in IL about 'fortifying' a house. It was aimed at drug dealers.
So ... how would they enforce that ???
Would that mean that they may try to break down your door just to see if they can ?
There is (or was) a law in IL about 'fortifying' a house. It was aimed at drug dealers.
It depends upon the department.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".
My comments were an expansion, not a refutation.Deanimator, don't your comments merely reinforce the thrust of my earlier comments about pressure on local political establishments?
How many more horrible tragedies have to happen ...?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 problem with the assertions of others that "most" cops are good is that it's irrelevant.I'm sure there are good cops, a minority I believe, but I'm sure they exist.
One partial solution would be to strip the raiding officers and their superiors of their qualified immunity in the event of raids on the wrong property. Currently they are covered regardless. But it doesn't seem that they are surveilling these properties to confirm that they are the intended target. If so there's no reason to protect them from a civil action.
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.Flyboy, don't think it was a Miranda waiver, probably a hold harmless agreement of some sort ("we agree not to sue because nothing was damaged and no one was hurt", etc.). Smart city attorneys are having their SRTs carry them around with them now.
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.Still, some perspective is in order: Millions of people drive millions of miles without wrecks. Millions of business transactions occur daily without lying or cheating. Millions of arrests are made without excitement of any sort.
(SIGH) Is this happening more often?
Or just being reported more often?
Actually, a lot of police union advocacy is more fundamentally pernicious since it strikes at the very heart of equality under the law.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.