4 police officers shot serving no-knock warrant

[D-Man]

Why don't we serve a No Knock warrant on a Man we suspect as a gun toting drug dealer? He may be a drug user wide awake and paranoid that someone may try to rob him so he is checking his weapons when all of a sudden the door slams in. Or he did not pay for the drugs or a rival gang has an issue with him. Or maybe all this and more. Seems like we put the officers in a dangerous position.

Maybe we need to find a better solution for everybody's safety including the neighbors. Just something as a simple typing error could spell disaster.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MotF Bane


Then they may die, and it cannot be held as fault of the homeowner for defending his or her self against armed intruders.

I agree with that. No identification, no announcement, burst into my home, you should expect to get shot. So I'm going to side with the home owner (or even somebody invited/allowed to be in the home) here, even if he's some slimeball drug dealing baby killer, he did no wrong by shooting the officers. And you should know by now that I have zero hate for police.

There is a problem with militarization of police in this country. Personally I think it has something to do with all the "war rhetoric" that gets spewed around. I had the great honor of being involved with two situations somewhat related while working as an EMT and it was frankly just ridiculous. My favorites were the "tactical medics", who instead of being cops pretending to be soldiers, they are medics pretending to be cops. They were so gun-ho about the shit it was silly.

Both situations ended up being peacefully resolved with no combat armor cop action figures necessary, but the whole time the shit was going down it was something straight out of a summer movie. Remember that scene in Blues Brothers right as they are paying off the taxes for the orphanage. Just like that. Seriously. They were both domestic issues that got out of control and they seriously brought in snipers. Freaking snipers. I honestly wish you had an opportunity to listen to them talk. Ridiculous, sad, funny and scary all at the same time.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: SirStev0
No.

No Knock warrant are stupid as shit.

Cover all exits.
Identify self as police.
Serve Warrent.
Bust bad guys.

Sure you don't get the thrill of busting down the door guns blazing but I am pretty sure that policing is about enforcing the law and not about psuedomilitary thrill rides with big powerful wang enhancers.

No knock warrants aren't issued simply so police can bust into a house for thrills. They exist so that suspects cannot destroy evidence or fortify themselves inside a home.

They are certainly overused, but they have a purpose which you clearly do no understand.

Nice edit.

Anyway. Please explain to me how the extra 10 secs you get from busting down the door will actually change the outcome. Obviously, even without knocking this guy was fortified and ready to unleash some fire power. The purpose/advantage that you so adamantly support seems to have been completely worthless. He was still able to pick off 4 police.

Basically you are setting up a bad situation. You are sending in police officers in a frontal attack assault. What is 30 extra seconds really going to do for them. Maybe it wouldn't be hardcore old west shoot-outs if it didn't start with guns-ablazin'. People are either going to resist or not resist. And of course, with this guns-blazing approach we also get the fun stories of a father of 3 getting gunned down due to a typo in the address.

So, please tell me again this great advantage an extra couple secs and a chance to bust down a door guns blazing gets you? I really can't see it.

It's longer than 30 seconds. A regular warrant is executed once the door of the house is opened. Under normal circumstances, police roll up, knock on the door, identify themselves, explain that they have a warrant then enter. That's a hell of a lot more time than 30 seconds and it gives suspects the chance to not only arm themselves, but position themselves in the building, and prepare to resist.

There is no doubt in my mind that these type of warrants are overused, however their purpose is to surprise and hopefully preempt a more dangerous situation.

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
Officers always identify themselves when making an arrest. There seems to be confusion as to what a "no-knock" entry is. Just like it sounds, it means they don't knock, not that they don't talk.

Yes, there does seem to be some confusion. From Wikipedia:

<"In the US, a no knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without knocking and without identifying themselves as police."

A close friend of my family's works in federal law enforcement. From what he's told me no knock warrants simply mean that the police do not have to identify themselves before they enter the house. IE they are not required to say, "it's the police open the door." You bet your ass that once they're inside though they make it clear who is coming through the door.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: SirStev0
No.

No Knock warrant are stupid as shit.

Cover all exits.
Identify self as police.
Serve Warrent.
Bust bad guys.

Sure you don't get the thrill of busting down the door guns blazing but I am pretty sure that policing is about enforcing the law and not about psuedomilitary thrill rides with big powerful wang enhancers.

No knock warrants aren't issued simply so police can bust into a house for thrills. They exist so that suspects cannot destroy evidence or fortify themselves inside a home.

They are certainly overused, but they have a purpose which you clearly do no understand.

Nice edit.

Anyway. Please explain to me how the extra 10 secs you get from busting down the door will actually change the outcome. Obviously, even without knocking this guy was fortified and ready to unleash some fire power. The purpose/advantage that you so adamantly support seems to have been completely worthless. He was still able to pick off 4 police.

Basically you are setting up a bad situation. You are sending in police officers in a frontal attack assault. What is 30 extra seconds really going to do for them. Maybe it wouldn't be hardcore old west shoot-outs if it didn't start with guns-ablazin'. People are either going to resist or not resist. And of course, with this guns-blazing approach we also get the fun stories of a father of 3 getting gunned down due to a typo in the address.

So, please tell me again this great advantage an extra couple secs and a chance to bust down a door guns blazing gets you? I really can't see it.

It's longer than 30 seconds. A regular warrant is executed once the door of the house is opened. Under normal circumstances, police roll up, knock on the door, identify themselves, explain that they have a warrant then enter. That's a hell of a lot more time than 30 seconds and it gives suspects the chance to not only arm themselves, but position themselves in the building, and prepare to resist.

There is no doubt in my mind that these type of warrants are overused, however their purpose is to surprise and hopefully preempt a more dangerous situation.

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
Officers always identify themselves when making an arrest. There seems to be confusion as to what a "no-knock" entry is. Just like it sounds, it means they don't knock, not that they don't talk.

Yes, there does seem to be some confusion. From Wikipedia:

<<"In the US, a no knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without knocking and without identifying themselves as police."

A close friend of my family's works in federal law enforcement. From what he's told me no knock warrants simply mean that the police do not have to identify themselves before they enter the house. IE they are not required to say, "it's the police open the door." You bet your ass that once they're inside though they make it clear who is coming through the door.

wrong.

depends on teh warrent. they can bang on the door yell police open up and thats it. they then can bust open the door.

 

[spidey07]

That's the rub. You forcefully enter the home, good guy or bad, you must expect to be fired at. That's got to be incredibly difficult on the officers part, but as much as I will side on the police, that's not my problem. That's why I'm so conflicted on identifying yourself/etc. Some guys can break into your home/property yelling police but they are not. I tend to side on the "you forcibly entered", I'm going to shoot you and I think the law is on my side in this line of thinking depending on the state.

I'm inclined to agree with "you broke into my house/property and I will protect it".

 

[r6ashih]

A tactical shield would have protected the guy in front from small arms fire. Not so useful against Ak's and awps. Was the drug dealer camping?

 

[Nebor]

I'd say this hinges on whether or not this guy was actually a drug dealin' dirt bag.

Serve a no-knock warrant to the wrong house? You can all die in the doorway, and I hope the homeowner is unharmed.

Either way, a SWAT team getting their ass handed to them when they have superior weapons, tactics, and the element of surprise is an embarrassment. And it's not like they were raiding an Al Qaeda safe house. They were raiding some crack head's house.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
From what he's told me no knock warrants simply mean that the police do not have to identify themselves before they enter the house. IE they are not required to say, "it's the police open the door." You bet your ass that once they're inside though they make it clear who is coming through the door.

I see at least one problem with this situation: until recently, I personally had no idea that a policeman could do that under any cirucmstances. In fact, my assumption would have been that that someone who just knocked down my door then claimed to be a policeman could not possibly be one. This is a terrible situation; law abiding people who mistakenly think that police have to knock and provide ID if requested before executing a warrant are at a greater risk of getting injured (or killed) than criminals who know the score.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I'm really conflicted here and don't know what the law says. 4 narcotics officers serve a no-knock warrant and bust in, and get shot. On one side I have to stand with the home owner, people busting in and he defended his life/property. Then the other side of me says the officers HAD to have been yelling police, police, get down so that means they identified themselves and the homeowner should be charged.

There's a poll but that only has to do with charged for the shooting and nothing to do with whatever drugs they found in the house.

http://wcco.com/national/polic...rs.shot.2.1204786.html

"Deputy Chief Michael Mohel, who spoke with CBS station WCBS-TV Thursday morning, says members of the tactical unit were serving a no-knock narcotics and weapons warrant around 2:25 a.m. when suspect Jamie Gonzalez opened fire from the second floor"

That there is even any form of conflict at all in you, spidey, is why you are NOT a libertarian like you pretend to be. Hell, it takes a pretty serious authoritarian with no respect for a person's property rights to even consider that the homeowner should be charged in this case.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: D-Man
Maybe we need to find a better solution for everybody's safety including the neighbors.

End the prohibition so legitimate businessmen can take over the market rather than having it run by heavily armed psychopaths, and better fund our government with the tax revenue. It worked reasonably well for alcohol.

And yeah, while I don't even own a gun; if some guys busted though my door and I happened to have one handy, my first instinct would be to use it to defend myself, regardless if those guys were claiming to be cops or not.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: bamacre
If this is an arrest warrant, why not wait until the guy leaves the house, and bust him when he doesn't have a chance to fire back? Then go back and search the home afterward.

Yeah, you'd think huh? Seriously. That would make way too much sense.

YAY for the war on drugs .

 

[Jaskalas]

Giving the victim a chance to respond appropriately to police is the right thing to do. As far as I?ve read they did not offer that chance and so I blame them for everything.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: DeekoIf you voted that no, the guy should not be charged with shooting the cops - you're on his side. Whether you agree with the idea of no-knock warrants or not, if you're on his side, uh, you're on his side.

That's the kind of logic that gets us such messed up votes in Congress. Some may just feel that this is not the way we as a people want laws to be enforced. Was the loss of life in this instance worth it?

haha....try again there sport. Someone said they weren't on his side, even though they were on his side. I was correcting their mistaken logic.

I did not say that they agree with every life choice the homeowner has made, now did I? I simply said that if you're on the homeowner's side in this case, you are by definition...on his side.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: JDawg1536
Officers always identify themselves when making an arrest. There seems to be confusion as to what a "no-knock" entry is. Just like it sounds, it means they don't knock, not that they don't talk.

Yes, there does seem to be some confusion. From Wikipedia:

<<"In the US, a no knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without knocking and without identifying themselves as police."

Then they may die, and it cannot be held as fault of the homeowner for defending his or her self against armed intruders.

Word.

If police don't want to die, refuse to participate in bad procedures.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spidey07
I'm really conflicted here and don't know what the law says. 4 narcotics officers serve a no-knock warrant and bust in, and get shot. On one side I have to stand with the home owner, people busting in and he defended his life/property. Then the other side of me says the officers HAD to have been yelling police, police, get down so that means they identified themselves and the homeowner should be charged.

There's a poll but that only has to do with charged for the shooting and nothing to do with whatever drugs they found in the house.

http://wcco.com/national/polic...rs.shot.2.1204786.html

"Deputy Chief Michael Mohel, who spoke with CBS station WCBS-TV Thursday morning, says members of the tactical unit were serving a no-knock narcotics and weapons warrant around 2:25 a.m. when suspect Jamie Gonzalez opened fire from the second floor"

That there is even any form of conflict at all in you, spidey, is why you are NOT a libertarian like you pretend to be. Hell, it takes a pretty serious authoritarian with no respect for a person's property rights to even consider that the homeowner should be charged in this case.

He's a strange duck.

I bet he supports the cops that shot that 80 yr old Grandmother in Atlanta on a no knock warrant and they were at the wrong house.

 

[JD50]

If you don't identify yourself once you're inside, I can't really blame the homeowner for protecting himself.

 

[teclis1023]

I have generally found that the best way to protect myself from no-knock warrants is to not deal drugs or participate in other idiotic activities and behavior.

But that's just me.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
I have generally found that the best way to protect myself from no-knock warrants is to not deal drugs or participate in other idiotic activities and behavior.

But that's just me.

And what if they still bust into your house and shot you?

Kathryn Johnston shooting

 

[Brovane]

No-Knock warrants exist so the police can dress up in Commando fatigues and body armor so they get to pretend that they are some bad ass Delta Force soldier for a couple of hours. The abuse of these no-knock warrants are excessive and are being used way to much.

Unfortunately, generally how the courts have worked out so far if you are the homeowner even if you are innocent and scared for your life and you shoot at the cops you will generally be found guilty of a crime, especially if you hit a officer. However even if you are innocent and the officers accidentally shoot you or kill your pets that is ok in the eyes of the law and the local DA who is usually always on the side of the police.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: teclis1023
I have generally found that the best way to protect myself from no-knock warrants is to not deal drugs or participate in other idiotic activities and behavior.

But that's just me.

And what if they still bust into your house and shot you?

Kathryn Johnston shooting

Wow.

 

[CitizenKain]

Everyone want to make their day better?

CATO Raidmap

Important thing to remember from all this. The police will always lie about what happens, and every cop will stand up for the others.

They can bust into your house, kill you, or your family, and will likely shoot your pets for the hell of it, and they will walk away to do it again. If they make a mistake, the officer will go on "administrative leave" for a week or so, then show up on the force again.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Brovane
No-Knock warrants exist so the police can dress up in Commando fatigues and body armor so they get to pretend that they are some bad ass Delta Force soldier for a couple of hours. The abuse of these no-knock warrants are excessive and are being used way to much.

Unfortunately, generally how the courts have worked out so far if you are the homeowner even if you are innocent and scared for your life and you shoot at the cops you will generally be found guilty of a crime, especially if you hit a officer. However even if you are innocent and the officers accidentally shoot you or kill your pets that is ok in the eyes of the law and the local DA who is usually always on the side of the police.

No Knock warrants should be like a tool in the law enforcement war chest, but it should be that tool waay in the back, at the bottom of the pile, that is used in highly specialized situations. I think we can all agree that police are becoming too reliant on no knock and paramilitary tactics. While these tactics can be effective, I think they often lead to unnecessary escalations.

Have you ever watched the show Kansas City / Dallas SWAT? The show is a prime example of what you're talking about. I saw one episode where some guy was threatening to kill himself in his car. He had a gun. Want to guess the response? 2 SWAT teams and support. About 60 guys surrounded his car, protecting themselves with their vehicles. They had one of those command and control vans and everything. Then they began negotiating. I thought it was a joke. Nope. At one point the guy wanted water. So they got a bottle of water, stuffed it in a burlap sack, discussed how to "deploy the water" and then tossed it at the foot of his door.

The show didn't tell the viewer how long this went on for, but it had to have been at least an hour. An hour spent negotiating with a guy who had a gun who wanted to blow his own head off! Finally, the heroic SWAT team stormed the car and took the gun away.

What ever happened to a uniformed officer pulling up, talking to the guy via megaphone, and either getting him to give his gun up or whatever?

 

[Atheus]

Another 'so glad I do not live in America' moment.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: r6ashih
A tactical shield would have protected the guy in front from small arms fire. Not so useful against Ak's and awps. Was the drug dealer camping?

Yeah but you could get knifed even with a tactical shield.

Edit: But seriously, just because a no knock warrant is legal doesn't mean they SHOULD use it. Just like you shouldn't carry an open 4L beaker of HF acid because you want to do an experiment without your safety gear. Better yet put the beaker on a cart and then carry it out. Cover it too, and wear some gloves + mask + lab suit even if you want protection. If you trip and fall carrying the beaker and die, well too bad. You didn't want to observe safety practices.