Serving a No-Knock Warrant in Plain Clothes

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin
One question I have after reading the article: did the defendant shoot through the door without seeing who was on the other side?

If someone is breaking into your house ("forcing entry" as the police put it) it's entirely legit to shoot them through the door.

Some might say that only a fool would shoot blindly and recklessly, violating several basic firearms handling rules, and I would be one of them.

It's interesting that no one answers my very simple question. Are you debating against yourself now? And it is not necessarily "entirely legit" to shoot someone through the front door; it depends on the circumstances. An easy example would be someone who announces themselves as the police before they begin breaking down your door, because you have refused to open it.

Shooting blindly and recklessly could well make one guilty of a crime. You should watch the terminology.

"I didn't hear them" or, "Mrs. Johnson was just raped last week by some guys breaking in yelling 'Police! Police!'"

In basically every state that has passed the Castle Doctrine into law, shooting someone through the door is a-ok, as an unknown person forcing entry into your home is assumed to have lethal intent.

Nope. Here's a link to Massachusetts's law, for example:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm

(Your terminology is wrong on "passed the Castle Doctrine into law"-- it's not a statute or something.)

It's reasonable to assume that someone breaking into your house is about to do you great bodily harm or death.

... {some gay-ass blather} ...

Here's a link regarding a justified shooting through a door. This happens pretty frequently across the country. No one that I know of has ever been charged for shooting through a door.

You will forgive me for not relying on your vast and omnipotent knowledge in this area.

By the way, in Massachusetts you must be actually within the dwelling to take advantage of the castle doctrine. See Com. v. McKinnon, 843 N.E.2d 1020 (Mass. 2006) (for defense of self-defense to be viable, there is duty on part of defendant to retreat----if under circumstances that is reasonable and proper----before resorting to use of deadly force, except in cases where statute governing persons unlawfully in defendant's dwelling is available, i.e. the one defended against is both within the dwelling, and unlawfully so).

This points out more than ever that you are making untrue, very broad generalizations. I don't expect you to admit to anything, of course. :beer:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Harvey
...
And yes, seriously, "castle." It's like your comments come pre-stupidized, and you're farking illiterate. The expression can be traced back at least five centuries. It expresses a fundamental principle of English common law and American Constitutional law:

A MAN'S HOME IS HIS CASTLE - "This saying is as old as the basic concepts of English common law.," From the "Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins" by William and Mary Morris (HarperCollins, New York, 1977, 1988).

"You are the boss in your own house and nobody can tell you what to do there. No one can enter your home without your permission. The proverb has been traced back 'Stage of Popish Toys' (1581). In 1644, English jurist Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) was quoted as saying: 'For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique tutissimum refugium' ('One's home is the safest refuge for all'). First attested in the United States in 'Will and Doom' (1692). In England, the word 'Englishman' often replaces man." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

It's different to quote a proverb, and another to use the wrong word. Hence it seems fine to say "A man's home is his castle", and everyone of course instantly understands. However, no one will take you seriously if you use the word "castle" to mean "home". They're not synonyms. Nebor's use was more than a mite silly, and Rainsford called attention to it in a funny way. Rainsford wasn't incorrect.

It's not merely a proverb. The "Castle Doctrine" is a part of English Common Law that goes back to the Magna Carta.

... which does not make Nebor's use of the word "castle" any less ridiculous.

I was simply alluding to the castle doctrine. If you want to continue to be a little pissant though, feel free to look up Richard Garriott. He's the creator of the Ultima series. He lives in Austin, Texas. In a castle. In a state where the Castle Doctrine is incorporated into our laws. ZOMG. :Q

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: punchkin
Here's an interesting case; I can't find out how it turned out, which may indicate a plea-bargain:
http://www.topix.com/content/k...play-out-in-bibb-court

Found this:
http://www.macon.com/198/story/230143.html

Well, it is a "war" on drugs and people get killed in wars. Thank God they didn't get those drugs flushed down the drain though!! That's the important thing and I'm sure that will be a comforting thought to his widow and kids over the coming years.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. In fact, since police may be killed in just about all their activities except sitting behind a desk, they should cease apprehending criminals, giving traffic tickets, responding to domestic-violence calls etc. too. Damn the consequences! No matter how infrequent, we must prevent death at all costs.

If you agree then why are you attempting to defend the use no-knock warrants? Do you want people to feel sorry for the officers to the point they no longer feel justified in defending their own homes, just in case it's a mistake by the police??

DUHHHH!! I think punchkin is punchdrunk.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I was simply alluding to the castle doctrine. If you want to continue to be a little pissant though, feel free to look up Richard Garriott. He's the creator of the Ultima series. He lives in Austin, Texas. In a castle. In a state where the Castle Doctrine is incorporated into our laws. ZOMG. :Q

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the defendant in this case was the self-same Richard Garriott, and actually defending his castle in Austin, Texas, a subdivision of Virginia where he lives under an alias, a subdivision that goes by the castle doctrine even though the state does not.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: punchkin
Here's an interesting case; I can't find out how it turned out, which may indicate a plea-bargain:
http://www.topix.com/content/k...play-out-in-bibb-court

Found this:
http://www.macon.com/198/story/230143.html

Well, it is a "war" on drugs and people get killed in wars. Thank God they didn't get those drugs flushed down the drain though!! That's the important thing and I'm sure that will be a comforting thought to his widow and kids over the coming years.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. In fact, since police may be killed in just about all their activities except sitting behind a desk, they should cease apprehending criminals, giving traffic tickets, responding to domestic-violence calls etc. too. Damn the consequences! No matter how infrequent, we must prevent death at all costs.

If you agree then why are you attempting to defend the use no-knock warrants? Do you want people to feel sorry for the officers to the point they no longer feel justified in defending their own homes, just in case it's a mistake by the police??

DUHHHH!! I think punchkin is punchdrunk.

Your head thingy is broken.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: punchkin
Here's an interesting case; I can't find out how it turned out, which may indicate a plea-bargain:
http://www.topix.com/content/k...play-out-in-bibb-court

Found this:
http://www.macon.com/198/story/230143.html

If you're going to be an oppressive, paramilitary force raiding citizens homes, you should at least be good at it. They suspected the guys were armed, and drug dealers, and they still managed to get their asses shot off. A piss poor performance, tactically speaking.

They weren't oppressive in this case; they were serving the public good. It is regrettable that a police officer was shot by a criminal, and is disgraced here by you. News flash: accidents and other unfortunate events happen, even when going knowingly after armed and violent criminals.

Serving the public good? With machine guns and face masks. Right. The Red Cross serves the public good. SWAT teams just serve to terrorize the populace, and government loyalists like you encourage them all the way.

I guess a SWAT team could be considered that if one considers the "populace" to consist solely of bank robbers, drug dealers, and psychos that gun down innocent people at schools and malls.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin
One question I have after reading the article: did the defendant shoot through the door without seeing who was on the other side?

If someone is breaking into your house ("forcing entry" as the police put it) it's entirely legit to shoot them through the door.

Some might say that only a fool would shoot blindly and recklessly, violating several basic firearms handling rules, and I would be one of them.

It's interesting that no one answers my very simple question. Are you debating against yourself now? And it is not necessarily "entirely legit" to shoot someone through the front door; it depends on the circumstances. An easy example would be someone who announces themselves as the police before they begin breaking down your door, because you have refused to open it.

Shooting blindly and recklessly could well make one guilty of a crime. You should watch the terminology.

"I didn't hear them" or, "Mrs. Johnson was just raped last week by some guys breaking in yelling 'Police! Police!'"

In basically every state that has passed the Castle Doctrine into law, shooting someone through the door is a-ok, as an unknown person forcing entry into your home is assumed to have lethal intent.

Nope. Here's a link to Massachusetts's law, for example:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm

(Your terminology is wrong on "passed the Castle Doctrine into law"-- it's not a statute or something.)

It's reasonable to assume that someone breaking into your house is about to do you great bodily harm or death.

... {some gay-ass blather} ...

Here's a link regarding a justified shooting through a door. This happens pretty frequently across the country. No one that I know of has ever been charged for shooting through a door.

You will forgive me for not relying on your vast and omnipotent knowledge in this area.

By the way, in Massachusetts you must be actually within the dwelling to take advantage of the castle doctrine. See Com. v. McKinnon, 843 N.E.2d 1020 (Mass. 2006) (for defense of self-defense to be viable, there is duty on part of defendant to retreat----if under circumstances that is reasonable and proper----before resorting to use of deadly force, except in cases where statute governing persons unlawfully in defendant's dwelling is available, i.e. the one defended against is both within the dwelling, and unlawfully so).

This points out more than ever that you are making untrue, very broad generalizations. I don't expect you to admit to anything, of course. :beer:

Sorry you live in such a repressed state (if you live in MA.) But what can you really expect in a state that still relies on a corrupt "may issue" system for concealed handgun licenses. The government doesn't want you protecting yourself, as that's the job of the "Commonwealth."

Knocking too hard on a door here can get you shot. I use doorbells.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Vic
It's the actual name of the legal doctrine, child.

... and not a synonym for "home", zygote.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor
I was simply alluding to the castle doctrine. If you want to continue to be a little pissant though, feel free to look up Richard Garriott. He's the creator of the Ultima series. He lives in Austin, Texas. In a castle. In a state where the Castle Doctrine is incorporated into our laws. ZOMG. :Q

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the defendant in this case was the self-same Richard Garriott, and actually defending his castle in Austin, Texas, a subdivision of Virginia where he lives under an alias, a subdivision that goes by the castle doctrine even though the state does not.

I already explained that I was referring to the castle doctrine when I used the word "castle."
And Virginia has both Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground doctrine, Shall Issue Concealed Carry, Unlicensed Open Carry, and allows the carrying of firearms on college campuses. It's a hell of a state. Better laws there than here in Texas.

 

[punchkin]

If police always had to knock and announce, don't you think it could be much harder to arrest people with large amounts of cocaine in their houses, selling to the local population? (This is aside from the question of whether it would be more or less safe for the police.)

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: punchkin
Here's an interesting case; I can't find out how it turned out, which may indicate a plea-bargain:
http://www.topix.com/content/k...play-out-in-bibb-court

Found this:
http://www.macon.com/198/story/230143.html

Well, it is a "war" on drugs and people get killed in wars. Thank God they didn't get those drugs flushed down the drain though!! That's the important thing and I'm sure that will be a comforting thought to his widow and kids over the coming years.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. In fact, since police may be killed in just about all their activities except sitting behind a desk, they should cease apprehending criminals, giving traffic tickets, responding to domestic-violence calls etc. too. Damn the consequences! No matter how infrequent, we must prevent death at all costs.

If you agree then why are you attempting to defend the use no-knock warrants? Do you want people to feel sorry for the officers to the point they no longer feel justified in defending their own homes, just in case it's a mistake by the police??

DUHHHH!! I think punchkin is punchdrunk.

Your head thingy is broken.

It just seems that way to you because yours is obviously not operating within it's specified parameters. I mean your still arguing about the use of the word "castle"?? ROFLMAO@U

Grow up for crying out loud!!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor
I was simply alluding to the castle doctrine. If you want to continue to be a little pissant though, feel free to look up Richard Garriott. He's the creator of the Ultima series. He lives in Austin, Texas. In a castle. In a state where the Castle Doctrine is incorporated into our laws. ZOMG. :Q

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the defendant in this case was the self-same Richard Garriott, and actually defending his castle in Austin, Texas, a subdivision of Virginia where he lives under an alias, a subdivision that goes by the castle doctrine even though the state does not.

I already explained that I was referring to the castle doctrine when I used the word "castle."
And Virginia has both Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground doctrine, Shall Issue Concealed Carry, Unlicensed Open Carry, and allows the carrying of firearms on college campuses. It's a hell of a state. Better laws there than here in Texas.

don't forget, Virginia is also for lovers!

I certainly appreciate our gun laws here...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: punchkin
If police always had to knock and announce, don't you think it could be much harder to arrest people with large amounts of cocaine in their houses, selling to the local population? (This is aside from the question of whether it would be more or less safe for the police.)

I guess it depends on your perspective on our rights in society. I'd let 99 criminals go free if it allowed 1 innocent man to avoid a sentence of guilt. I'd also let 99 criminals get twenty seconds of advance warning that police were about to crash through their doorway if it saved 1 innocent man from potentially being shot.

Offhand, if people have a large amount of cocaine in their house, what exactly do you foresee them doing with it in the ~20 seconds advance notice they get?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Nebor

don't forget, Virginia is also for lovers!

Are you saying what I think you're saying? :lips:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: palehorse74
don't forget, Virginia is also for lovers!

Are you saying what I think you're saying? :lips:

uhh.. I'm guessing not...

OK... just this once though!

lol...

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: punchkin
If police always had to knock and announce, don't you think it could be much harder to arrest people with large amounts of cocaine in their houses, selling to the local population? (This is aside from the question of whether it would be more or less safe for the police.)

I guess it depends on your perspective on our rights in society. I'd let 99 criminals go free if it allowed 1 innocent man to avoid a sentence of guilt. I'd also let 99 criminals get twenty seconds of advance warning that police were about to crash through their doorway if it saved 1 innocent man from potentially being shot.

Offhand, if people have a large amount of cocaine in their house, what exactly do you foresee them doing with it in the ~20 seconds advance notice they get?

Exactly.

These no-knock warrants serve to point out that America's drug laws are advancing us towards a police state faster than anything else.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
It's the actual name of the legal doctrine, child.

... and not a synonym for "home", zygote.

In this LEGAL context, yes, it is such a synonym, and widely accepted as such. This has already been established in this thread, repeatedly.

No school today for MLK day?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
It's the actual name of the legal doctrine, child.

... and not a synonym for "home", zygote.

In this LEGAL context, yes, it is such a synonym, and widely accepted as such. This has already been established in this thread, repeatedly.

No school today for MLK day?

LOL, that's exactly what I was thinking too.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
It's the actual name of the legal doctrine, child.

... and not a synonym for "home", zygote.

EHH-h-h-n-n-n! <game show buzzer sound effect > Sorry, punchkin. That answer is incorrect. The words of the familiar, centuries old proverb are:

• A -- adjective meaninng one or singular.
  
• man's -- adjective, possessive, referring to a person, not necessarily male when used in the general sense.
  
• home[/i] -- noun, the object of the above adjectives.
  
• is[/i] -- verb, third person form of the verb, "to be." In this sentence, equating the two nouns in the sentence.
  
• his -- posessive adjectival form of the pronoun "he," referring to the following noun, "castle."
  
• castle -- noun, the second of two nouns equated in the sentence.

In the context of the widely known proverb, and referring to the exact circumstances of the event in the OP's article, the sentence exactly equates the words, "castle" and "home."

Charley, tell our audience about the consolation booby prize for punchkin's failure to comprehend English grammar. :gift: :music:

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Nebor
I was simply alluding to the castle doctrine. If you want to continue to be a little pissant though, feel free to look up Richard Garriott. He's the creator of the Ultima series. He lives in Austin, Texas. In a castle. In a state where the Castle Doctrine is incorporated into our laws. ZOMG. :Q

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the defendant in this case was the self-same Richard Garriott, and actually defending his castle in Austin, Texas, a subdivision of Virginia where he lives under an alias, a subdivision that goes by the castle doctrine even though the state does not.

I already explained that I was referring to the castle doctrine when I used the word "castle."
And Virginia has both Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground doctrine, Shall Issue Concealed Carry, Unlicensed Open Carry, and allows the carrying of firearms on college campuses. It's a hell of a state. Better laws there than here in Texas.

Are you sure?

I see it mentioned in passing in one old Virginia case. See Fortune v. Com., 112 S.E. 861 (Va. 1922) (a man upon his own premises when attacked is under no duty to retreat, but may resist the aggressor, and in doing so may use such force as appears to him as a prudent man reasonably necessary to repel the attack, but not such force as may be necessary to subdue the aggressor or compel him to leave the premises).

I see later cases making it seem highly questionable to me that the castle doctrine is adhered to in Virginia, or was ever adopted. See, e.g. Bausell v. Com., 181 S.E. 453, 460 (Va.1935) ("The owner may resist the entry, but he has no right to kill, unless it be rendered necessary to prevent loss of life or great bodily harm. If he kills where there is not a reasonable ground of apprehension of imminent danger to his person or property, it is manslaughter, and if done with malice, express or implied, it is then murder").

"Stand your ground" doctrine doesn't seem to cover it, as it seems that the defendant would have had to be threatened with deadly force.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: punchkin
If police always had to knock and announce, don't you think it could be much harder to arrest people with large amounts of cocaine in their houses, selling to the local population? (This is aside from the question of whether it would be more or less safe for the police.)

I guess it depends on your perspective on our rights in society. I'd let 99 criminals go free if it allowed 1 innocent man to avoid a sentence of guilt. I'd also let 99 criminals get twenty seconds of advance warning that police were about to crash through their doorway if it saved 1 innocent man from potentially being shot.

Offhand, if people have a large amount of cocaine in their house, what exactly do you foresee them doing with it in the ~20 seconds advance notice they get?

That's just before the police burst through the door, and admittedly it may be less in some cases. But still, the police have to find the bathroom where the drugs are being flushed or whatever in time to prevent destruction of the evidence.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
It's the actual name of the legal doctrine, child.

... and not a synonym for "home", zygote.

In this LEGAL context, yes, it is such a synonym, and widely accepted as such. This has already been established in this thread, repeatedly.

No school today for MLK day?

No, in no legal context is the word "castle" a synonym for "home". Within the context of a proverb, it is. That has been established in this thread ad nauseam.

No work today for MLK day. No school for you?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: punchkin
If police always had to knock and announce, don't you think it could be much harder to arrest people with large amounts of cocaine in their houses, selling to the local population? (This is aside from the question of whether it would be more or less safe for the police.)

I guess it depends on your perspective on our rights in society. I'd let 99 criminals go free if it allowed 1 innocent man to avoid a sentence of guilt. I'd also let 99 criminals get twenty seconds of advance warning that police were about to crash through their doorway if it saved 1 innocent man from potentially being shot.

Offhand, if people have a large amount of cocaine in their house, what exactly do you foresee them doing with it in the ~20 seconds advance notice they get?

That's just before the police burst through the door, and admittedly it may be less in some cases. But still, the police have to find the bathroom where the drugs are being flushed or whatever in time to prevent destruction of the evidence.

No offense, but I don't think you've thought this through very well. They don't need to capture 100% of the evidence to get a conviction - else they'd never have gotten the warrant to begin with. Residue will still be there. Not to mention that if the police are breaking down a door and invading a private residence for the amount of cocaine that can be flushed in twenty seconds, the entire concept needs reexamination. A real cocaine stash is hidden in the floorboards or whatnot and isn't easily disappeared.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: yllus
I'd also let 99 criminals get twenty seconds of advance warning that police were about to crash through their doorway if it saved 1 innocent man from potentially being shot.

Really? It seems to me your numbers are a bit strange. Are you assuming that every 100th raid involves an innocent person? Are you equating the risk of being shot with actually being shot? Would you let 99 cocaine dealers go free to avoid a miniscule risk of one person being shot? Notice that bullets may start to fly even with a standard warrant. By such a criterion it seems that we'd never be able to go after anyone at all.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Vic
It's the actual name of the legal doctrine, child.

... and not a synonym for "home", zygote.

In this LEGAL context, yes, it is such a synonym, and widely accepted as such. This has already been established in this thread, repeatedly.

No school today for MLK day?

No, in no legal context is the word "castle" a synonym for "home". Within the context of a proverb, it is. That has been established in this thread ad nauseam.

No work today for MLK day. No school for you?

You're gonna have a short career here if you keep being so obstinately stupid. Just letting you know, I've seen them come and go, and your kind never stays for long. It's bad enough to not contribute...

Anyway, it is NOT a proverb we're discussing here, but the actual name of a common law legal concept established through ~700 years of juristic precedent, and actual legislation in 29 states.

edit: oh yeah, and I'm posting from work. As usual.