"War on drugs" poster, edited 1/9

[Ryder]

Better Oleg. Sometimes you just have to work things out by trial and error. It's nice that you don't take the criticism badly.

It is true that not only the DEA does these. Also true that they don't always come busting in, or shouting, or do it in the middle of the night. If you're looking to whittle down the wordiness you might start there.

Little story about no-knocking:

Two plain clothes detectives entered the front door of a home one afternoon without a warrant a few years back. Landlady let them in with a key. They believed the house was empty. They wanted to search for evidence on the location of two guys wanted in another state for drug violations. The two detectives surprised and killed one guy in the hallway. The other dove out a window and got away. News footage showed them dragging their trophy across the front lawn by his heels. Well that turned out nice for them but some people don't want to be surprised by strangers in their home. I think I am kinda like that.

Bust open my front door while I am sleeping and I will have 10 seconds to react. I will use that time to arm myself. That is not variable.

 

[Stiletto Null]

Thanks Oleg, as an officer, I am offended by that poster. Not too cool about advocating shooting at the police.

Fourth Amendment.

No-knocks on a confirmed target are a grey area (pretty clean cut in even of hostage situations and such, but drug raids are harder to discuss), but let's put that aside for now. No-knocks on a WRONG target are totally unacceptable, and the entry team (and backing organization) must be held accountable for that kind of mistake. Remember Cory Maye.

Being a police officer does not give you a halo allowing people to telepathically discern that you are a Good Guy (hell, in the case of New Orleans, the cops often weren't) and that they should not shoot at the scary man breaking into their homes. Castle Doctrine and all.

Nothing personal, but if you're offended, too bad. Our Second Amendment rights might be in bad shape (c'mon, it's supposed to be a doomsday clause so the citizenry can resist the government in event of the government overstepping its bounds), but at we still have our First Amendment rights. Mostly.

 

[Fed168]

And those first amendment rights are one of the things I will fight for, whether I like them or not. The glorious thing is that we can agree to disagree.

I agree, someone messes up, they should be held accountable for it. No other proper way to answer to a mistake. Putting the no knock issue aside, knock and announce raids on the wrong location are not correct, either. Just about all that is reported are the ones that go bad, they make the press, not the ones that go smoothly, they are not newsworthy.

 

[roo_ster]

Fed168 (Glen & others of a similar mind):

Fed168 (Glen & others):

I can understand your discomfort with the ideas expressed in the poster. It is an uncomfortable topic to discuss. Maybe after Bob Dole does a commercial about it, we can talk about it with less tension?

It is not some sort of anarchist's ravings to be concerned with such controvesial practices.

Perhaps you might want to walk in "the other guy's shoes" for a moment. A good proportion of us here (at THR) & in the USA are quite ambivalent about the War on Some Drugs (WoSD).

It is pretty easy to see why those against the entire WoSD folks are against no-knock raids...they don't want anybody raided for drugs. In their view, no-knocks are just an especially egregious example of the tactics used in the WoSD.

Then there are those who support, more or less, the WoSD who see the tactics being used as offensive and dangerous to law-abiding citizens. They are not blind to the loss of liberty that has occurred as the WoSD winds on...and they don't like it.

Neither of the above groups think the risk of not finding evidence (small enough to flush down a toilet or otherwise dispose of) is worth the risk of executing a no-knock on a law-abiding citizen. Why is that?
1. It is not like there are no other options (usual warrant)
2. As Eisande wrote,

Our teams thinking is this..if the amount of drugs the BG has can be flushed in the 30 seconds or so it takes us to comply with knock/notice then it really ain't that big a case is it? If it is a sizable quantity of drugs, well, he won't be able to get rid of them anyway.

3. There is no immediate, inherent danger to innocents (as would be the case in a hostage, barricaded & irrational guy, or whatnot) to justify such tactics.

My own SOP in the case I am wakened in the night is as follows:

I sleep very well & am not some sort of tactical superman, always sleeping with one eye open.

But, my dogs (which are in the house) are much more alert than I could ever hope to be. Misty, the early warning system, growls or barks if folks are as close as across the street at night. Ten, the close warning system, usually waits until he knows they are on the sidewalk.

So, Misty wakes me & by the time Ten signs out, I am alert. Thye have it down pat, since we used to have neighbors that had social gatherings at all hours of hte night.

Now, given proper knowledge that the breakers-in are LEO-ninjas, I will...comply. Problem is, by that time I am armed. (My rule is if Ten signs out, I open the quick-safe & clear the house with Mr. 1911. Also, all windows & doors are checked.)

I sure hope the tacticool LEO types are as discerning and have as much forbearance as myself, when I look out the window & shine my Surefire in his ninja-masked face. Just what is SOP in such an event? Is it now open season on jfruser, since I checked hte bumps in the night equipped with Surefire & 1911?

It would be a whole lot safer for us solid citizens if no-knocks we outlawed.

Personally, no amount of drugs and no cop's or solid citizen's life is worth the risk that no-knocks present. So, the meth is flushed? I have a feeling that Mr. Scumbag will mess up again in the future.

The only time a no-knock is, ahh, warranted, is in a hostage-type situation, IMO.

I generally make the assumption that both peace officers and solid citizens are doing the best they can and do not wish to needlessly harm another.

A solid citizen, as such, knows they don't sell drugs or otherwise swim in the drug sub-culture. If the police knock and present Mr. Citizen with a warrant, he may be angry, but he's not likely to start blazing away, especially if he has no controlled substances. OTOH, Mr. Citizen knows that there is no good reason for whomever it is to to kick down his door without warning.

In such a situation, where lies the moral right? With the folks busting down the door of the wrong house or Mr. Solid Citizen? My thinking is that Mr. Solid Citizen is in the moral right and that he should treat violent intruders the same until he is absolutely certain he knows they are not a threat to him and his family.

Also, the expectation that Mr. Solid Citizen should automatically fall into "grovel" mode if there is even the slightest chance that those who bust his door down are agents of the government is wrong-headed. He's not the one who had relations with the pooch...and it is HIS house.

 

[Optical Serenity]

Shooting honest citizens is A-OK, just make sure to have an entry team, so they die properly!

How is one better than the other? If a federal officer breaks into my home, he deserves to be shot, same as any other goblin. Make no mistake, without a proper warrant for my residence, it is a crime, no matter what the misguided citizens are told.

Sorry for the thread drift, there. And the beating of the horse, as well...

I have never seen law enforcement on any level do any kind of entry or no-knock into a house or anywhere else for that matter without a warrant.

I simply do not understand the LEO bashing that exists on gun forums. Us cops are the most pro-2nd amendment bunch out there. Its not us that passes laws against you owning guns, its YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. Stop whining about how we are bad, its who YOU put into office that you should whine about, or better yet, save your effort and vote differently.

A poster saying its ok to shoot a federal agent? Or any LEO in that case, is absurd.

I have been present for plenty of DEA and other agencies that made entry into people's homes, and you better believe the warrant (and the provision that is REQUIRED to make it a no-knock) were checked and double checked by every superior officer.

And what the poster suggests is, if I read it correctly, odd at best. With the poster's example, and analogy, we should no longer pull over anyone either, because serial rapest have installed blue lights in the past and imitated cops to stop women and rape them. So should every so called honest citizen out there shoot anyone who pulls them over?

And by the way, almost every time we know of someone who is armed, instead of kicking down their doors at 3am, we simply wait till they are either at work or in McDonalds or something to approach them. Sometimes a very smooth approach works just fine. 3 men who take you down and cuff you while you are eating to serve a warrant is way more effective than letting you go and arm yourself at night.

And folks, remember that warrants are served for a reason. Don't break the law, and most likely you will not have a SWAT team making entry on your house. I've never seen our agency or anyone else's for that matter around here make a wrong entry.

Normal people don't get their house door kicked in.

 

[NineseveN]

And what the poster suggests is, if I read it correctly, odd at best. With the poster's example, and analogy, we should no longer pull over anyone either, because serial rapest have installed blue lights in the past and imitated cops to stop women and rape them. So should every so called honest citizen out there shoot anyone who pulls them over?

No, but we should and are legally able to drive to a well-lit public area when being lit up by the police lights. There is a difference, the danger is not imediate until you pul over. Your example is more like one where people identifying themselves as police come to your door and ask to search the place. You should check the warrant to make sure it is a real document first.

The example of people busting down your door at 3:00AM and yelling something that you may or may not even recognize coming out of a dead sleep with guns in your face is about the same as someone running up to your car at a traffic light, breaking your window or yanking your door open and trying to drag you out of your car yelling "police, on the ground".

Yes, I would advocate driving away or shooting the person doing the yanking (shooting if one could not get away or was taken far enough out of the car that driving was not an option) if your life seemed in danger and you culd not be sure that the attackers were really police officers, or if you did not know or understand what the hell thy were yelling with broken glass in your ear or because you are groggy at 3:00am.

As far as Second Amendment support, I can agree, but what about the Fourth Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Having a warrant does not make a search impeccably reasonable.

 

[Stiletto Null]

Normal people don't get their house door kicked in.

Except that when they do, the odds are terribly stacked against them.

Given, it's probably more a symptom of local degeneracy than anything else, but still.

 

[carebear]

Wrong. Flat out wrong.

Do a search on how many warrants (no one is suggesting no knocks are done without one) are given for the wrong address or name. It's a list that would be too long at even a single incident.

Raids go down on the wrong people at the wrong address frequently enough that it starts calling into question the whole practice.

Your agency may be the exception to what is all too often happening.

As far as the "pulling over" straw man? If there has been a series of that happening , most times the police will tell drivers to be sure it is really a cop before stopping, to call for confirmation or to feel comfortable in driving to a well-lit public area or police station before actually stopping.

 

[Sindawe]

Normal people don't get their house door kicked in.

Horse Puckey! Tell that to Donald Scott. Oh, wait, you can't. He'd dead.

Maybe Ishmael Mena or John Scott can weigh in and offer support for your position. Opps, nope. They are dead too.

Heck, why not make ALL warrant defacto No-Knocks? Save time and trouble for the LEOs. http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jan-10-Tue-2006/opinion/5284041.html

Peace officers presenting a warrant for inspection and verification will be treated with the utmost civility. Door kickers get to eat lead.

 

[Optical Serenity]

Well, I'm just expressing my opinions on what I see. Perhaps here in Georgia things are different, but getting warrants is not easy. One of the first things the judge asks us is how we know the address to be correct. Getting a no-knock provision is about 200 times more difficult than even that.

Secondly, the law here in GA simply says you have 300 feet to yield when blue lights are activated. Now, myself and every officer out there will be fine with someone who puts on their hazard lights, turns on the dome light and slows down till in a well lit area. Actually I much prefer that. It gives me plenty of time to know who you are (tag check, owner check) and secondly, more lit up area is better for my video tape of the incident. Also its safer on everyone.

But anyway, back to warrants...All I'm saying is I have never been present or even locally heard of a warrant at a wrong house. Perhaps it is just here, but also, perhaps on the other angle, there are those out there that blow things out of proportion. Why a bunch of law abiding citizens are so concerned about warrant service is beyond me. But then, there are those posts here I see where someone is asking "I don't have a CCW, but i'm going to carry anyway." so...

Seriously guys, there is no hard feelings, and remember its about opinions. But as much as I love Oleg's work, I simply don't like this poster.

And to answer the one question, most officers I know are also very Pro-4th amendment. What do you think we do? We are out there to enforce & defend the law (which includes the constitution.) Most cops I know have a strong belief in this:

I'd rather let 20 murders walk, than arrest an innocent man.

 

[Sindawe]

Why a bunch of law abiding citizens are so concerned about warrant service is beyond me.

It because warrant service gets done on the wrong people. It may be due to simply misreading the house address, it may be due to bad intel, it may be due to shear laziness. And sometimes that warrant service on the wrong person gets that wrong person dead. But still, Mr. Officer gets to go home to his family, and thats what REALLY counts, right?

 

[Optical Serenity]

But still, Mr. Officer gets to go home to his family, and thats what REALLY counts, right?

No one ever said that... To err is human, of course...But no one ever says LEO's lives are any more important than anyone else. Its typically only a misconception that anti-LEO people (well, just about everyone on gun forums) have.

How many times in your jobs or lives do you make mistakes? Most sheriff's offices serve somewhere around 100 warrants a day around here, and you know what? I can't think of the last time an incident like that occurred. People shouldn't drive because everyday I work an accident? Everyday there is an innocent person killed in a car wreck? Oh, its not the same? Sure it is...

This is the same thing as saying, people shouldn't have guns because some abuse gun rights. Guess what, no-knocks are important in some cases...and sure, a mistake will be made, doesn't mean you have to get rid of it. It will only put more criminals out there, and more danger to LEO's who are simply trying to remove a badguy from the streets because your ELECTED judge has decided to do so. And 99% of the time, its a grand jury of NON-LEO citizens who decides on no-knocks around here.

But hey, lets start banning everything because a few make mistakes. Where do I turn in every piece of property I have?

 

[NineseveN]

And to answer the one question, most officers I know are also very Pro-4th amendment. What do you think we do? We are out there to enforce & defend the law (which includes the constitution.) Most cops I know have a strong belief in this:

I'd rather let 20 murders walk, than arrest an innocent man.

And to be honest, you are in the majority with the Officers I personally know, however; there does exist both a law enforcement and political faction that likes to stretch the rules and sometimes even obliterate the 4th Amendment. I am more concerned about what folks even such as yourself would do with the power that could be given to you under an obliterated 4th amendment than I am with individual officers taking that matter into their own hands...though the latter is still a small concern.

I wouldn't mind being arested if I were innocent, it's the guilty verdict that scares me. Of course, being accidentally killed by a cop due to an error or mistaken identity (on my part, theirs or both) simply terrifies me when we're talking within the boundaries of my own home. The prospect of shooting an LEO because I thought he or she was a home invader or attacker doesn't sit very well with my bile either.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

I liked the first one better.

 

[Stiletto Null]

Well, I'm just expressing my opinions on what I see. Perhaps here in Georgia things are different, but getting warrants is not easy. One of the first things the judge asks us is how we know the address to be correct. Getting a no-knock provision is about 200 times more difficult than even that.

See, that makes a huge difference. I suspect most of the cop-bashing is because of much less scrupulous practices in places like, say, Philadelphia and Chicago.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Normal people don't get their house door kicked in.

Except that we are all criminals in some way. For example, you could become a criminal by improving your home or by giving prescription medicine (such as migraine headache pill) to a friend. So, until the number of laws in the US is whittled down closer to the basics ("shall not steal, murder, defraud or rape"), I am not in favor of aggressive enforcement of anything.

That said, I welcome the input from the cops, local or federal on this. I am sure they don't want to be seen as the enemy, either. That can be modified largely by their own actions and also by their statements in regard to the few bad apples. I am not comfortobale with the possibility that my own posters might accidentally reflect media stereotypes about police or the three-letter friends of the people.

 

[Optical Serenity]

Except that we are all criminals in some way. For example, you could become a criminal by improving your home or by giving prescription medicine (such as migraine headache pill) to a friend. So, until the number of laws in the US is whittled down closer to the basics ("shall not steal, murder, defraud or rape"), I am not in favor of aggressive enforcement of anything.

That said, I welcome the input from the cops, local or federal on this. I am sure they don't want to be seen as the enemy, either. That can be modified largely by their own actions and also by their statements in regard to the few bad apples. I am not comfortobale with the possibility that my own posters might accidentally reflect media stereotypes about police or the three-letter friends of the people.

Oleg, with all due respect (and I am a huge fan of your work), there is something to be said about what you are trying to say here. Think about it, your elected officials have decided to make prescription medication transfer illegal between two parties. Or for example having Rx meds not in original container, or past expiration date. This is done by YOUR elected officials. And honestly, I simply do not violate the law (or try not to at least). Instead of saying "lower enforcement" how about say "People should obey the law, if they don't like it, CHANGE the law...but don't break it."

The difference between here in the United States and the rest of the world is we do have the authority to petition govt to change laws, and we can vote whichever way we want. What you may believe is "over" enforcement is just one perspective, and a respected one.

I don't presume all NON-LEO to be criminals, and you should not assume all LEOs to be corrupt either. Like I said, for the time I've been in law enforcement I have yet to see anything I would deem incorrect done on purpose. There have been times of course when a CI (confidential informant) passed us incorrect information. But that does happen. Anytime humans are involved mistakes are made. And actually, the majority of "injustice" does not occur on the streets, it occurs in courtrooms.

Changing law enforcement is really not the answer, or at least not the big answer...Its changing the way courts and politicians do their job.

That being said, what is beautiful about this country, is that the constitution I defend and enforce everyday allows all of us to disagree.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Instead of saying "lower enforcement" how about say "People should obey the law, if they don't like it, CHANGE the law...but don't break it."

Not enforcing unreasonable laws is not the solution, but it is a stop-gap solution while the laws are being repealed. Some people (politicians) are paid to spend their lives peddling influence and deciding, for good or bad reasons, to restrict the lives of others. I can't devote all of my life to countering them -- it took efforts of millions just to prevent re-passing of AWB and we can't drop everything and fight every single bad law...and we don't even know all the laws on the books.

The medication example I used was a real case: I gave 10mg of Loratidine to help a friend with a sinus headache. Several years ago, when that medication was by prescription only, it would have been illegal. Today, the same action is legal. The ethics of it never changed, it was relief from suffering...but it was only recently illegal to do so. In case of other medications (by prescription or restricted by WoD, such as THC), it is still illegal.

 

[TallPine]

The difference between here in the United States and the rest of the world is we do have the authority to petition govt to change laws, and we can vote whichever way we want.

Yeah, but until "we" can convince a majority of voters (rather than the govt) that as bad as some drugs are, the War on [people using] Drugs is worse, then nothing is going to change. But just look at the catfight that that issue starts on THR

And yeah, I have the freedom to "throw my vote away" on those "wacky, drug-smoking" Libertarians

Unfortunately, there is a circular (non)logic going around: "drugs are illegal so they must be bad so therefore they must stay illegal" What really burns me is that during the last election in MT there was a federal agent going around (on taxpayer money, I presume) speaking out against the "medical marijauna" ballot issue. Talk about a "campaign finance" violation - what right does the govt have to "lobby" the voters about an issue...?

I'm not too worried about the local sheriffs and deputies around here (though our county's SO has some "issues"). I know and respect some of them. And the Montana tradition of armed citizens I believe makes them be very respectful of citizens' rights - even if only for their own safety.

It's the federal TLA's that I'm worried about ....

 

[Sindawe]

Yeah, but until "we" can convince a majority of voters (rather than the govt) that as bad as some drugs are, the War on [people using] Drugs is worse, then nothing is going to change. But just look at the catfight that that issue starts on THR

Yes, and the politicos STILL refuse to listen.

Several States have voter approved Medical Marijuana laws. The Feds have taken the stance that THEY know better and have promised to prosecute individuals using MJ in a medicinal role, despite State sanction.

Denver voters recently voted to decrimmininalize possesion of MJ for personal use in quantities up to one ounce. Denver "Leaders" have vowed to prosecute under STATE law. Now the folks who got the Denver law passed are working on making it a STATE law. Care to wager what the Feds response will be?

You and I likely concur on this issue TallPine, so don't construe this as an attack on your position.

 

[STAGE 2]

It always cracks me up when people on gun boards whine about the war on drugs. I don't know about you but I can't remember the past time I saw a crack addict hit the 10 ring.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I know plenty of recreational drug users who compete. Those who use pot tend to have fewer problems than those who use caffeine. However, the reduction of this issue to drugs (which, to me, have no appeal) is skirting the real problem of excessive regulation of everyday life and of occasionally overly harsh enforcement of those regulations.

 

[Zundfolge]

It always cracks me up when people on gun boards whine about the war on drugs. I don't know about you but I can't remember the past time I saw a crack addict hit the 10 ring.

STAGE 2 wins the award for the biggest non-sequitur posted in these forums in a LONG time.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I like the poster a lot, but you should redo the picture. Make her appear frightened (even terrified) rather than self-assured. This will have much more of an emotional appeal in favor of your message.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The answer to the question in the picture is that she has zero chance of stopping them and as such this does not advocate defending yourself against no-knocks (rightly or wrongly) in my opinion.

Problem is not everyone knows she has no chance. Perhaps you could show her and a SWAT team on the poster to help them reach the right conclusion?

You're not getting the point of the poster, which is that there should not be no knocks precisely for the reasons you've specified, i.e., that people might mistakenly confront a door crasher who happens to be a DEA SWAT entry team and get themselves, and perhaps one or two cops killed too. You see, it's a bad thing. That's the point. Unless you have a known hostage situation, where quick entry and resolution is determined crucial, there is no need for crashing in like that in the middle of the night. For what? Evidence of a drug crime that might or might not have been committed? Are the lives of innocent civilians (and remember, we are all presumed innocent until AFTER a conviction) and/or cops really worth losing so you can get some dope for a drug conviction? Dope use and sale is not even a capital offense, for crying out loud. Do you really want to kill someone, even a suspect, over it? What would be wrong with waiting for them to leave, and snapping the cuffs on in the morning? This is really insane!