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

[The Merg]

Hard to tell how things really went down in this particular case, but it just reinforces my dislike of the entire concept of "no-knock" warrants. Perhaps there are some very very unique and specific circumstances where there is a use for them, but I find them generally to be a terrible idea, and I oppose them from a practical and principle perspective.

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

 

[bshole]

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

BULLSHIT!!! How fucking hard is it to wait outside the house and pick him up when he leaves? Breaking into homes in the middle of the night is what you expect from totalitarian governments. And for drugs? Are you fucking kidding me? For a victimless crime?

Every person prosecuting the EVIL war on drugs are loathesome and despicable. They are the scum of the earth. The swath of death and destruction brought about by their global "war" on drugs is staggering.

 

[The Merg]

BULLSHIT!!! How fucking hard is to wait outside the house and pick him up when he leaves? Breaking into homes in the middle of the night is what you expect from totalitarian governments. And for drugs? Are you fucking kidding me? For a victimless crime?

Every person prosecuting the EVIL war on drugs are loathesome and despicable. They are the scum of the earth. The swath of death and destruction brought about by their global "war" on drugs is staggering.

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?

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?

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.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

How fucking hard is to wait outside the house and pick him up when he leaves?

Oh, and while it might be easy to sit on a house in an undercover mode for hours at a time, how easy do you think it would be to have multiple officers in uniform sitting outside a house waiting on hours for someone to come out? Like that wouldn't be noticeable.

- Merg

 

[Genx87]

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?

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?

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.

- Merg

People steal for a multitude of reasons. Should we outlaw everything for which they steal? Drugs are a victimless crime. They are a product that has demand for consumption. Trying to stop that consumption has lead to far more crime and death than would otherwise happen.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Eroding your rights, getting people killed, helping to maintain organized crime and a black market... the war on drugs, yay.

 

[The Merg]

People steal for a multitude of reasons. Should we outlaw everything for which they steal? Drugs are a victimless crime. They are a product that has demand for consumption. Trying to stop that consumption has lead to far more crime and death than would otherwise happen.

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

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No knock warrants are a recipe for disaster.

 

[Genx87]

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

What is there to disagree about? You really believe those 20+ thousand people killed in northern mexico over the last few years would still be killed if drugs were legalized? That this cop would still get killed if drugs were legalized? That crime doesnt follow our drug war because drugs are sold in a black market devoid of legal recourse when one party screws another?

Luckily CO and WA are leading the way to dropping this shameful war.

 

[The Merg]

helping to maintain organized crime and a black market...

I will agree that a legalization of drugs will probably solve most our country's financial issues due to the amount of taxes that would be collected.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

What is there to disagree about? You really believe those 20+ thousand people killed in northern mexico over the last few years would still be killed if drugs were legalized? That this cop would still get killed if drugs were legalized? That crime doesnt follow our drug war because drugs are sold in a black market devoid of legal recourse when one party screws another?

Luckily CO and WA are leading the way to dropping this shameful war.

Well, with the cartels, I would think they would find some way to still control the distribution of the drugs coming into the U.S. Even if legalized, there is still too much money involved.

And to think that crime only occurs in the drug market due to people getting revenge is naive.

And drugs is one of the only facets in life that people become so addicted to it that they resort to crime to fulfill that addiction. Is that a possibility with other things as well? Absolutely, but no where close to the extent that it does with drugs. I've seen first-hand how one drug user in a family can destroy an entire family. I generally don't see that happen when people commit crimes that are not drug-related. Even gang members don't usually destroy the entire family.

- Merg

 

[Rebel_L]

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

I would think that no knock warrants would be more effective in white collar crime. Do armed criminals in the drug business not worry about things like competing drug dealers making a hit and trying to take them out. If I was in the drug business my guess is that I would be far less trusting of someone bursting into my door yelling police. It would be just the kind of tactic I would use when taking out the competition to get them to hesitate for a few seconds so I would have the upper hand.

I realize that it gives the people inside time to dispose of evidence, but I would place officer safety higher on the list of priorities. I would put a little more effort into finding creative ways to recapture the disposed of evidence rather than sending officers into a likely gun fight.

 

[The Merg]

I would think that no knock warrants would be more effective in white collar crime. Do armed criminals in the drug business not worry about things like competing drug dealers making a hit and trying to take them out. If I was in the drug business my guess is that I would be far less trusting of someone bursting into my door yelling police. It would be just the kind of tactic I would use when taking out the competition to get them to hesitate for a few seconds so I would have the upper hand.

Good point.

I realize that it gives the people inside time to dispose of evidence, but I would place officer safety higher on the list of priorities. I would put a little more effort into finding creative ways to recapture the disposed of evidence rather than sending officers into a likely gun fight.

However, destruction of evidence is not the only reason for these types of warrants. If that was the case, no-knock warrants would be the norm. There also has to be the belief that the target of the warrant is armed and dangerous. And as you stated above, it's the ability to creating that hestitation that the police try to use in their favor. Get in and overwhelm the subject before they have the opportunity to do some harm the officers, themselves, or others in the location.

Going back to this case, Guy had a criminal record that made him a convicted felon. He also had been seen with a handgun on multiple occasions. We don't know specifically what was on the record, but I would guess there were some sort of violent offenses on there. The affidavit spells out quite well that behavior he was seen doing is very indicative of distribution of drugs and the informant confirmed that. And while informants are generally seen as unreliable, in order to be used in a search warrant, they have to show that they are reliable with regards to the information that they provide.

- Merg

 

[bshole]

......

Shit man, our federal government is doing things that the British government would never have considered.

The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond.[1] Raids that lead to deaths of innocent people are increasingly common; since the early 1980s, 40 bystanders have been killed, according to the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.[1]

No-knock warrants have been controversial for various reasons. Some consider them to be unconstitutional. In addition, there have been cases where burglars have robbed homes by pretending to be officers with a no knock warrant. There have been many cases where armed homeowners, believing that they are being invaded, have shot at officers, resulting in deaths on both sides. While it is legal to shoot a homeowner's dog when an officer fears for his/her life, there have been numerous high-profile cases in which family pets lacking the size, strength, or demeanor to attack officers have been shot, greatly increasing the risk of additional casualties in neighboring houses via overpenetrating bullets.[2]

Tracy Ingle was shot in his house five times during a no-knock raid in North Little Rock, Arkansas. After the police entered the house Tracy thought armed robbers had entered the house and intended to scare them away with a non-working gun. The police expected to find drugs, but none were found. He was brought to the intensive care, but police pulled him out of intensive care for questioning, after which they arrested him and charged him with assault on the officers who shot him.

The NLR SWAT team that busted in unannounced on a North Little Rock man and then shot him after he took up, but didn't fire, a gun at what he thought was an unlawful intrusion got vindication for their action yesterday. The man, Tracy Ingle, was convicted in Circuit Court and sentenced to 18 years.

Unfucking believable.

 

[CitizenKain]

That dead cop got what he deserved.

 

[BoberFett]

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?

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?

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.

- Merg

I can empathize with your position. Clearly your mother was on drugs while you were in utero.

 

[Jaskalas]

No-knock fuels violence and hatred against cops.

Surprise home invasions need to stop. People need time to recognize authority and to surrender themselves.

 

[The Merg]

I can empathize with your position. Clearly your mother was on drugs while you were in utero.

Nice. Real nice.

- Merg

 

[Rebel_L]

However, destruction of evidence is not the only reason for these types of warrants. If that was the case, no-knock warrants would be the norm. There also has to be the belief that the target of the warrant is armed and dangerous. And as you stated above, it's the ability to creating that hestitation that the police try to use in their favor. Get in and overwhelm the subject before they have the opportunity to do some harm the officers, themselves, or others in the location.

Going back to this case, Guy had a criminal record that made him a convicted felon. He also had been seen with a handgun on multiple occasions. We don't know specifically what was on the record, but I would guess there were some sort of violent offenses on there. The affidavit spells out quite well that behavior he was seen doing is very indicative of distribution of drugs and the informant confirmed that. And while informants are generally seen as unreliable, in order to be used in a search warrant, they have to show that they are reliable with regards to the information that they provide.

- Merg

I suppose that there would be more risk to the public doing it another way, people are just more unpredictable when everything is running just on instinct rather than when the brain has a chance to catch up. I would guess that someone getting woken up in the middle of night by having their house broken into is far more likely to attack the police than someone approached by those same group of officers in the daylight while they are making their way to the car. I realize its not that simple as that, do it their house and you may have others inside that could cause trouble, do it in public and you have bystanders that could get hurt or taken as hostage, etc etc. Where the best balance is I certainly can not say, obviously the police believe the no-knock warrants are worth it in some situations.

I guess the part that bothers me is the murder charges. It seems to me to be basically a set up... we approach a suspect with the most likely scenario that I can think of in which they attack the police, we sneak up making sure they are acting on instinct, do it in the dark and count on the suspects confusion to give us an edge in apprehending them. Then when the suspect reacts they way one would expect they are looking for the death penalty. Once the fight/flight response system is active it does not deactivate in an instant and it is totally unfair to put a person into the position where we both know its going to activate and do it on purpose, and then punish them for it. I realize that this sounds terribly anti police but it is not meant to be. I even believe the police are doing it to try and minimize any chance of bystanders being injured. The charges on the surface just seem a little on the vengeful side.

 

[brandonb]

I can empathize with your position. Clearly your mother was on drugs while you were in utero.

Normally your responses are pretty good. However, in this case, you should really be ashamed of yourself.

 

[The Merg]

I suppose that there would be more risk to the public doing it another way, people are just more unpredictable when everything is running just on instinct rather than when the brain has a chance to catch up. I would guess that someone getting woken up in the middle of night by having their house broken into is far more likely to attack the police than someone approached by those same group of officers in the daylight while they are making their way to the car. I realize its not that simple as that, do it their house and you may have others inside that could cause trouble, do it in public and you have bystanders that could get hurt or taken as hostage, etc etc. Where the best balance is I certainly can not say, obviously the police believe the no-knock warrants are worth it in some situations.

Exactly the point I've been trying to make. It's a fine line that needs to be decided upon.

I guess the part that bothers me is the murder charges. It seems to me to be basically a set up... we approach a suspect with the most likely scenario that I can think of in which they attack the police, we sneak up making sure they are acting on instinct, do it in the dark and count on the suspects confusion to give us an edge in apprehending them. Then when the suspect reacts they way one would expect they are looking for the death penalty. Once the fight/flight response system is active it does not deactivate in an instant and it is totally unfair to put a person into the position where we both know its going to activate and do it on purpose, and then punish them for it. I realize that this sounds terribly anti police but it is not meant to be. I even believe the police are doing it to try and minimize any chance of bystanders being injured. The charges on the surface just seem a little on the vengeful side.

Completely understandable. I'm not sure how I feel about this aspect either. However, in this case, Guy was a convicted felon and never should have had a gun to begin with. If he had been following the law to the extent that he did not have a gun, most likely no one would have been hurt.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

That dead cop got what he deserved.

And he deserved to die because of why? He was executing what was a lawful search warrant, whether you agree or disagree with the idea of a no-knock warrant it was signed and approved by a judge, and a convicted felon shot and killed him.

- Merg

 

[theeedude]

Gonna be a tough jury selection for the prosecution. They'll be looking for white jurors who are pro death penalty, but not castle doctrine gun nuts.

 

[Rebel_L]

Completely understandable. I'm not sure how I feel about this aspect either. However, in this case, Guy was a convicted felon and never should have had a gun to begin with. If he had been following the law to the extent that he did not have a gun, most likely no one would have been hurt.

- Merg

Your right, without the gun he would very likely not have been able to kill anyone. Unlawful possession of a fire arm however does not have a death penalty attached to it. If we don't use muder charges against the police when something goes wrong, the intel was bad and they end up breaching a home that they had no business being in and things go wrong, do we not have to extend that same principle to others as well? The whole innocent until proven guilty system does not make life easy for police or society in general, it is after all designed to protect the innocent, not to prosecute the guilty. I still think its better life for everyone to let some criminals get away with things then to put innocents in jail (and we still manage that at times, though thankfully not that often).

 

[Genx87]

Well, with the cartels, I would think they would find some way to still control the distribution of the drugs coming into the U.S. Even if legalized, there is still too much money involved.

Did the mob control alcohol distribution after the end of prohibition? The market is too big for illegal cartels to control. The profit margin becomes too small for them to justify the costs.

And to think that crime only occurs in the drug market due to people getting revenge is naive.

It is called street justice. And it happens because one group selling black market item to another screws them over. The only recourse is to violently get their money back. They cant go to the court system and demand payment for bad product.

Also there is the turf wars over lucrative drugs. Which is what we have seen in northern Mexico that has cost the lives of some 20,000 people.

And drugs is one of the only facets in life that people become so addicted to it that they resort to crime to fulfill that addiction. Is that a possibility with other things as well? Absolutely, but no where close to the extent that it does with drugs. I've seen first-hand how one drug user in a family can destroy an entire family. I generally don't see that happen when people commit crimes that are not drug-related. Even gang members don't usually destroy the entire family.

- Merg

What other product is banned and enforced so much as drugs?