One cop killed, others injured serving "no knock" warrant

[piasabird]

Maybe we need a law that says if they go on a warrant and find nothing the state or city has to pay a $10,000 fine plus pay for 3 times the damage they cause.

 

[NoStateofMind]

They should charge the judge with murder.

You'd have to get around judicial immunity first. Basically a blank check to do as they please without repercussions. Another double standard.

Judicial Immunity is a form of legal immunity which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from lawsuits brought against them for judicial actions, no matter how incompetent, negligent, or malicious such conduct might be, even if this conduct is in violation of statutes.

Why don't they stake out the house and wait till the suspect leaves and then break in. They should design a robot that can break the door down.

Well that doesn't give these guys the rush they are looking for. The adrenalin rush they get from these raids are part of the reason they have this occupation. Well that and they like to be the bully but I agree, there is another way to apprehend such 'criminals' (if you can call them that, drugs don't make you a criminal IMO). No knock raids get people killed and rightfully so.

 

[Darwin333]

Let's also look at the idea of what might happen if officers don't use a no-knock warrant. You have armed criminals with evidence of their crimes. The officers knock and announce and wait. The criminal destroys the evidence and opens the door leaving the officers to find nothing and then everyone gets in an uproar that the officers searched a residence without finding anything so the officers must be harrassing this fine citizen. Or, the criminals decide to fight their way out as they don't want to go to jail and now have time to get set up defensively to attack the police as they enter the house.

With no-knock warrants we still have the exact same thing except in many instances the poor innocent person being harassed ends up extremely ventilated and dead. I don't know about you but the above sounds better to me. As I previously stated, turning off the water goes a long way to preventing them from destroying evidence.

No-knock warrants have their time and place to be used. While you are not going to use it for a search for records and documents of a guy committing credit card fraud, it might be justifiable when performing a search of a house for someone that is suspected of distribution of cocaine, is a felon, and is normally armed.

- Merg

No-knocks do have their time and place, like when someone is actively shooting or has made threats that they will start shooting or when there is a hostage or something. Even if the suspect is able to destroy evidence, it is not worth the risk to innocent lives or the police either. There are simply way to many other tactics that greatly reduce the harm to all parties involved.

BTW, very few people are suicidal enough to come out shooting trying to make their getaway. IF they do, the cops have a huge upper hand and the guy won't make it three steps out of the door. An innocent person being shot, or some sleeping baby having a flashbang grenade thrown into her crib, far outweighs the need to preserve evidence for some low level drug dealer.

 

[Darwin333]

Just out of curiousity, what would be an example where they are justifiable?

As I mentioned, they are generally used when the target is considered to be armed and dangerous and there is fear of destruction of evidence. They are performed at a time when people are normally sleeping, which also means there is generally less people in the house (as in no guests). Taking that into account, how would you handle that kind of situation?

- Merg

Stake out the house and arrest him by surprise as he walks to his car with multiple officers. If he goes for a gun the police already have theirs trained on him. Done.

That requires actual police work though.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Maybe we need a law that says if they go on a warrant and find nothing the state or city has to pay a $10,000 fine plus pay for 3 times the damage they cause.

Well its not really coming out of 'their' pocket is it?

 

[Darwin333]

Drugs are not a victimless crime. It does not affect only the person that uses them. Drug users and dealers routinely commit robberies to advance their drug use or dealings. Think of the number of drug users that steal so that they can pawn/sell stuff to get more money to buy more drugs. So, when your car or house is broken into so that a druggie can get money for their habit, you don't call the police since your weren't really a victim then, right?

They were a victim of robbery and NOT of drugs. Millions of normal everyday people do illicit drugs in America without robbing, killing or otherwise breaking any other law. The only thing they are doing is harming themselves.

I would wager that alcohol has a far larger negative effect on innocent people than illicit drugs do. How about smoking cigs?

Bottom line is we have laws on the books to punish people for all of the stuff you said above and making drugs illegal has not stemmed their use. Drug use has vastly increased, drugs have gotten purer and cheaper since the start of the war on drugs. During this period, how many people have we locked up who have not done any of the things listed above and their only crime is willingly putting something into their own body?

As for waiting for him to come out of the house, so we are now going to let a person that is possibly armed outside where there can be other bystanders and innocent people standing around. If the police approach him and he then runs and starts shooting, I'm guessing it's the police's fault that they didn't grab him quick enough, right. Or what if he gets in his car and then flees from the police. I guess it's the cops' fault if he crashes into an innocent family, right because they didn't stop him in time?

If they can't figure out how to wait on him to leave and subdue him with overwhelming force and numbers before he gets in his vehicle or starts shooting then why the hell would I trust them to kick in doors with machine guns and grenades?

And what about all of the innocent people the police harm?

How often have you read that innocent people are injured due to the police pursuing someone? There's an uproar about why and when police should pursue. Then there's the statement that since the police knew who it was they were chasing that there was no reason to be chasing them since they could just pick them up later.

Not as often as I read about police shooting or otherwise severely harming innocent people in the use of these raids. Doesn't mean that it doesn't happen more often but it was the question you asked. FFS we have cops throwing grenades into baby cribs with a sleeping baby because of tactics like this and you are trying to argue that its the safest method of apprehending the guy that wasn't even in the home at the time?

 

[Darwin333]

We'll agree to disagree.

That being said, as of now, drugs are illegal and law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law. When drugs become legal, that will be one less thing that law enforcement has to deal with.

- Merg

Do you agree that the US has the most violent and dangerous population in the entire world? If you go by number of people in jail (BOTH per capita and total), we are indeed the shittiest population of people on the planet. Countries with much larger populations have less people in jail (total) than we do, why do you suppose that is?

 

[NoStateofMind]

So then as long as something is legal by the letter of the law, it's not a morality issue? In that case, slavery and the Holocaust were legal issues as well, not morality issues.

Think about what you're saying before spraying words.

It seems like someone is afflicted with Deficient Morality Disorder or whats commonly referred to as DMD. Those with DMD constantly refer to the law as the arbiter of right and wrong as well as suppress what they know inherently to be right/wrong. They'll usually point to the lame excuse of "well I didn't make the law I just enforce it". Never mind the fact that you'll see them be the first to scream GUILTY when the Nazi's tried that defense at the Nuremberg trials. Alas, the DMD do not recognize this flaw in their logic.

Our Rights as humans do not come from the State and neither do our moral values.

 

[The Merg]

Do you agree that the US has the most violent and dangerous population in the entire world? If you go by number of people in jail (BOTH per capita and total), we are indeed the shittiest population of people on the planet. Countries with much larger populations have less people in jail (total) than we do, why do you suppose that is?

I will agree with you there, but I don't think it can be solely attributed to our war on drugs.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

I think it can be hard sometimes to put that murder charge on an officer though for truely doing their job with the information they had and the situation in front of them.

For example, say an officer is involved in a search warrant, but not the one that obtained it. The warrant was obtained with some information that was not true or accurate unbeknownst to the obtaining officer, the judge that signed it, or the officers that are involved in the execution of the warrant. The officers execute the warrant and the homeowner starts to shoot at the officers and the officer shoots and kills the homeowner.

Should that officer be charged with murder? Some people would unequivocably say yes, but I don't think it's that easy. The officer was doing everything correctly according to the information that they had. A subject pulled a gun on them and he returns fire. Every officer that is involved in a search warrant cannot read the entire warrant and then independently verify the information that is in that warrant.

You ask if we should extend the principle to others as well about entering a home and something goes wrong. The one major difference, as I see it, is that there is no other situation where a person is going to be entering a home in this kind of fashion except for the police. What other lawful situation would someone be "breaking" into someone's home without the intent of actually hurting someone or committing a crime? In the case of the police, their intent is not to commit a crime and hurt anyone.

- Merg

The exact same thing can be said about the homeowner in this instance yet they are going for the death penalty.

 

[Darwin333]

I would think the drug cartels would have some say in it. Whereas alcohol was something that could be produced here and was easily able to be taken out of the hands of the mob, the majority of drugs are produced outside the U.S. While certain drugs are manufactured here, cocaine and marijuana are mostly imported.

First of all, most of our "stuff" is imported but the main reason drugs have been imported is because its much easier to grow gigantic fields of coca plants in other countries and export the finished product. The legalization of MMJ has actually put a decent dent in the cartels pot business.

Frankly, Phiezer or any other pharmaceutical company would absolutely LOVE to produce and sell cocaine, heroin, and whatever else. Then you sell it over the counter and bam, black market goes away instantly. Why would you buy a drug of unknown quality when you can go to Walgreens and buy it over the counter and you know it has very strict quality control.

Probably none. Let me ask this... We legalize drugs... Does that mean prescriptions are not needed anymore? Since Cocaine is considered to be a Schedule II drug as it has medical purposes, do we not need a prescription anymore? What about those that want to use Oxy? What drugs are legalized and which ones are not? Any drug that is not legalized or requires a prescription is going to have a black market for it, correct?

- Merg

I believe that people own their own bodies. That means they should be able to put whatever they so desire into their own bodies. If they want to spend half their paychecks doing Oxy, so be it. If they commit crimes to feed their addiction, well we already have laws for that.

But wait, we can then take a rather small amount of the untold billions that we currently spend on the war on drugs and spend it on drug treatment centers. So people who want to get help can get far better help than currently available. Millions of completely nonviolent people would be let out of jail (as if that doesn't destroy families and lives all on its own), we would have far more police, jail space, and court time to go after violent criminals and so on.

What exactly is the downside? People will do drugs? Guess what, they already do. Would you start smoking crack if it became legal because I sure as hell wouldn't so I don't buy the "if you legalize it everyone will do it" story. The people that want to smoke crack already do and will continue to regardless of legality. The only question we are debating is if we should continue to have the largest prison population in the entire world, mostly of nonviolent offenders, or if we should allow consenting adults to do with their own bodies as THEY, not we, see fit?

 

[Darwin333]

You will note prescription drug issues are much less violent than illegal drugs. Even if a substance like cocaine required a prescription. It would have far less violence associated with it.

Personally I wouldn't regulate it like that. It adds a needless layer in the consumption cycle.

For the last few years the Feds have been pushing pharma companies to make strong opiates like Oxy much harder to "abuse" and combined with local/state they have shut down a metric fuckton of the supply of pharmaceutical opiates on the black market.

This is a real world sitation with real world results, wanna know what the results are? A metric fuckton of increased heroin usage, including people ending up in the hospital or dead from overdoses. Unlike an Oxycontin or some other pharma drug, heroin doesn't have a standard purity/dosage. The same amount you took from the last batch you bought might be twice as much from the next batch.

So we have in fact curbed a lot of prescription opiate abuse, which was the intended goal, while simultaneously increasing heroin use. Umm, good job war on drugs??? Seriously bang up job on that one and a great benefit to society, right? It would have been cheaper to quite literally give the addicts free pills everyday and give them a bit of advice on how not to overdo it.

 

[Darwin333]

I have no doubt that production would increase, but I think that demand would also increase to the extent that supply in the country would not meet demand. Also, it's not like cocaine is something that can really grow in the environment up here. Now, weed on the other hand...



How would you do the regulation? With regard to less death, I'm not so sure about that. I could see an issue with allowing a drug addict get as much of the drug that they want for what would be minimal cost now. I can definitely see the number of OD's increasing, which then puts more pressure on the health system.

I will agree there will most likely be less burden on law enformcement and a significant increase in tax revenue. As for safer drugs, I'm not so sure about that. If the Government starts to regulate the content of the drugs to be sure they are "safe", that will increase the cost of the drug. That will then create a black market for cheaper versions of the drugs that are not as "safe". If the Government stays out of regulating the drugs, we'll have what we have now then.

- Merg

"Safer" means that people know exactly the purity of the heroin (or whatever drug) they purchase because it was made and sold by regulated companies. Heroin purity can vary by insane amounts because in the black market people cut the drug with other products (also not safe) to increase their profits. If a person is used to doing X amount of heroin that is 25% pure and then happens to buy a batch that is 50% pure and does the same amount they normally do they overdose. That does not happen if the market is regulated which is why we have more people overdosing on heroin today than ever before, their opiate of choice was a regulated one but they can't obtain it anymore.

We have actual real world and very recent data showing that it is far safer, and cheaper on medical resources, for people to use drugs that are legally made by regulated companies versus using similar illicit drugs. Please do your own research, I bet your own area has seen a spike in heroin related ER visits in the last few years. Most of those people would have never touched heroin had they not lost access to pharmaceutical opiates.

 

[Darwin333]

The police aren't the ones who created the law, they're just out to enforce them based on whatever political figure decided to make it a priority of enforcement.

Somewhat false. Drugs are a priority for law enforcement mainly because of seizure laws. Before those laws were passed most police departments focused primarily on violent crimes. Amazingly, when you make it profitable to do something, regardless if it is selling drugs or busting people with them so you can take their stuff and use it to buy your department new stuff, people tend to do said profitable activity.

 

[The Merg]

First of all, most of our "stuff" is imported but the main reason drugs have been imported is because its much easier to grow gigantic fields of coca plants in other countries and export the finished product. The legalization of MMJ has actually put a decent dent in the cartels pot business.



Frankly, Phiezer or any other pharmaceutical company would absolutely LOVE to produce and sell cocaine, heroin, and whatever else. Then you sell it over the counter and bam, black market goes away instantly. Why would you buy a drug of unknown quality when you can go to Walgreens and buy it over the counter and you know it has very strict quality control.









I believe that people own their own bodies. That means they should be able to put whatever they so desire into their own bodies. If they want to spend half their paychecks doing Oxy, so be it. If they commit crimes to feed their addiction, well we already have laws for that.



But wait, we can then take a rather small amount of the untold billions that we currently spend on the war on drugs and spend it on drug treatment centers. So people who want to get help can get far better help than currently available. Millions of completely nonviolent people would be let out of jail (as if that doesn't destroy families and lives all on its own), we would have far more police, jail space, and court time to go after violent criminals and so on.



What exactly is the downside? People will do drugs? Guess what, they already do. Would you start smoking crack if it became legal because I sure as hell wouldn't so I don't buy the "if you legalize it everyone will do it" story. The people that want to smoke crack already do and will continue to regardless of legality. The only question we are debating is if we should continue to have the largest prison population in the entire world, mostly of nonviolent offenders, or if we should allow consenting adults to do with their own bodies as THEY, not we, see fit?

I actually don't disagree with you too much here.

I'd love to walk into Walgreens and hear "Price check on aisle 5. Price check on 3 oz. bottle of liquid cocaine."

I think part of the issue is that the politicians want to be viewed as stopping a problem rather than being viewedas cleaning up a problem. Take prostitution for example. It is generally believed that you need to get ridof the pimps and prostitutes to stop the problem. This came about from the unsuccessful attempts of goingafter the "johns". Since it did not stop the problem by arresting the "johns" (the demand), you need to go after the supplier.

The same kinda goes along with drugs. It's viewed that we need to stop the "problem" before it happens, sojust having drug treatment centers is too late. We need to stop things before they get that far. Thus, the war on drugs.

And while I do agree with you a lot above, I do think the Government has the responsibility to look out for peolpe as well. Unfortunately, there are some people out there that don't have the ability to look out for themselves. My dilemma is just how much should that intrusion be.

Unfortunately, with the way things are today, both law-abiding citizens and law enforcement getstuck in the middle of this "battle".

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

We have actual real world and very recent data showing that it is far safer, and cheaper on medical resources, for people to use drugs that are legally made by regulated companies versus using similar illicit drugs. Please do your own research, I bet your own area has seen a spike in heroin related ER visits in the last few years. Most of those people would have never touched heroin had they not lost access to pharmaceutical opiates.

You're right there. The number of people using Heroin today has greatly increased in recent years. And you are also right in that people using it are turning to it as a substitute for Oxy and the like.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Somewhat false. Drugs are a priority for law enforcement mainly because of seizure laws. Before those laws were passed most police departments focused primarily on violent crimes. Amazingly, when you make it profitable to do something, regardless if it is selling drugs or busting people with them so you can take their stuff and use it to buy your department new stuff, people tend to do said profitable activity.

To an extent. The amount of money that a local department gets back when performing a seizure is actually very little. Most of it goes to the Federal Government and the State. The one exception might be if they seize a vehicle. In that case, if the vehicle has no lien, is owned by the person using it when it was seized, isiongoodcondtion, then it might come back to the Department for them to use. It still has to be reconditioned though first.performing a seizure is actually very little. Most of it goes to the Federal Government and the State. The one exception might be if they seize a vehicle. In that case, if the vehicle has no lien, is owned by the person using it when it was seized, and is in good condition, then it might come back to the Department for them to use. It still has to be reconditioned though first. All that checking still costs the Department money though so they need to weigh if it is worth it at that point.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

And you know this is a rampant tactic because? Oh right, the media keeps reporting it over and over and of course the media is always right. Plus, the media reports all the times that a search warrant is approved for which all the information is valid.

Plus, I said this before, what reason does the cop have to lie in the affidavit? Is it really worth putting that lie in if it might lead to them losing their job or their life?

Are there some cops that might lie? Sure. Any profession is going to have their bad apples. But, just because the cops make a mistake or screw up, does not mean that they intentionally did so.

- Merg

In most states cops can take your cash and possessions during drug busts and their department or some other state agency gets to keep the proceeds. That makes busting people profitable. Cops are absurdly unlikely to be brought up on criminal charges even when they blatantly commit perjury. Hell they even have a name for it, "testilying". There have been studies that show the most likely witness to lie on the stand are police officers.

Profit + very small chance of major repercussions = something that is going to happen a LOT. The cops, in most states, have the more motivation for busting drug users and dealers than they do violent criminals. That is factual information regardless of how much you don't want it to be.

 

[Darwin333]

I will agree with you there, but I don't think it can be solely attributed to our war on drugs.

- Merg

Look up the numbers and you will change your view. Most countries don't give absurd jail sentences to nonviolent offenders, we do. Even worse, when said nonviolent person gets out of jail his chances of being a contributing member of society are greatly reduced but luckily he just got out of criminal university so he now we have someone with less chances to do things legally and more knowledge to do things illegally.

What could possibly go wrong, right? We MUST protect people from themselves even if the protection fucks their life up more than what we are protecting them from.

 

[Darwin333]

You're right there. The number of people using Heroin today has greatly increased in recent years. And you are also right in that people using it are turning to it as a substitute for Oxy and the like.

- Merg

So you support a system that you agree has pushed people from a (relatively) safe prescription drug to a much more addictive and far less safe drug, increasing our health care costs, making it harder to treat the people on the drugs, not providing people with treatment to get off of drugs because all of our resources are spent on locking up mostly nonviolent offenders?

Good lord man, why??? Less people would be dead today if it was not for the war on Oxy, and you agree with that, but you still agree with the war on Oxy?

 

[Darwin333]

To an extent. The amount of money that a local department gets back when performing a seizure is actually very little. Most of it goes to the Federal Government and the State. The one exception might be if they seize a vehicle. In that case, if the vehicle has no lien, is owned by the person using it when it was seized, isiongoodcondtion, then it might come back to the Department for them to use. It still has to be reconditioned though first.performing a seizure is actually very little. Most of it goes to the Federal Government and the State. The one exception might be if they seize a vehicle. In that case, if the vehicle has no lien, is owned by the person using it when it was seized, and is in good condition, then it might come back to the Department for them to use. It still has to be reconditioned though first. All that checking still costs the Department money though so they need to weigh if it is worth it at that point.

- Merg

It varies state to state and I don't think most states give the Feds much of the proceeds unless its a Fed case.

At least we agree that cops have a huge motivation to bust people with nicer cars, regardless if they are a drug user or seller or violent or not, than they busting the really bad guys.

Again, hellofa job on that war on drugs stuff.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I will agree with you there, but I don't think it can be solely attributed to our war on drugs.

- Merg

There are lots of contributing factors, but drugs are huge. They are an easy way to throw people into the violence training camps we call prison. There they will learn to be violent in order to survive. They will be surrounded 24/7 by violent people. They will experience violence from prison guards.

When they get out of prison, they will have a severe, permanent, negative mark on their record that any future employer can see. So, fresh off being indoctrinated in violence, and fresh off a ruined financial future...what kinds of activities might said person turn to?

From the prison's point of view, this is what they want. More business. From law enforcement's view, this is what they want. More business. More budget. More overtime. Everyone with a stake in that system wants it to continue for their own profit. I can't think of anything more evil than ruining a man for personal gain.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

So you support a system that you agree has pushed people from a (relatively) safe prescription drug to a much more addictive and far less safe drug, increasing our health care costs, making it harder to treat the people on the drugs, not providing people with treatment to get off of drugs because all of our resources are spent on locking up mostly nonviolent offenders?

Good lord man, why??? Less people would be dead today if it was not for the war on Oxy, and you agree with that, but you still agree with the war on Oxy?

Profit, dude. Gets a fat paycheck and sweet retirement out of it. And special rights, special immunities to laws, and special authority. Never underestimate what people are capable of participating in and supporting in order to receive those things.

 

[The Merg]

The exact same thing can be said about the homeowner in this instance yet they are going for the death penalty.

I would disagree here. The homeowner was not doing everything lawfully. He had drug paraphernalia in the house, which I realize is a point of contention, but he also had a firearm as a convicted felon.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

So you support a system that you agree has pushed people from a (relatively) safe prescription drug to a much more addictive and far less safe drug, increasing our health care costs, making it harder to treat the people on the drugs, not providing people with treatment to get off of drugs because all of our resources are spent on locking up mostly nonviolent offenders?

Good lord man, why??? Less people would be dead today if it was not for the war on Oxy, and you agree with that, but you still agree with the war on Oxy?

I didn't say I completely support the system. What I did say is that the cops have to enforce the laws that they are given and if they say that "Drugs R Bad", well, then drugs are bad.

BTW, here's a very interesting article that you will like...

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

- Merg