Serving a No-Knock Warrant in Plain Clothes

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: 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.

I've thought it through very well. Residue is not proof of the amount of drugs that were actually present. Even if this were not an issue for charging someone with a specific offense-- which it is-- it could be an issue in other ways, including sentencing.

It might be enlightening for you to see how much sugar you can flush down a toilet in a minute flat. That's the amount, or more, that we're talking about in many cases.

Criminals today may often not try to flush the drugs because of the availability of no-knock warrants-- i.e. it doesn't work much of the time when you're caught by surprise.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes, I'd let 99 cocaine dealers go free to avoid 1 innocent person being shot. In a heartbeat. Of course, the "numbers" are just a form of expression to get an idea across (catching criminals < endangering lives of innocents) but you seem to have some trouble understanding things like that.

Originally posted by: punchkin
I've thought it through very well. Residue is not proof of the amount of drugs that were actually present. Even if this were not an issue for charging someone with a specific offense-- which it is-- it could be an issue in other ways, including sentencing.

It might be enlightening for you to see how much sugar you can flush down a toilet in a minute flat. That's the amount, or more, that we're talking about in many cases.

Criminals today may often not try to flush the drugs because of the availability of no-knock warrants-- i.e. it doesn't work much of the time when you're caught by surprise.

How do you imagine a defence attorney explains away residue, then? Proof of the house being used to traffic illegal narcotics doesn't require all 100 out of 100 bricks of coke being entered into evidence.

Cocaine isn't kept in a bag ready to be poured out, FYI. Nor is it typically sitting with arms reach waiting to be grabbed and funneled into the toilet. I think you need to reexamine what you think you know.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: 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.

I've thought it through very well. Residue is not proof of the amount of drugs that were actually present. Even if this were not an issue for charging someone with a specific offense-- which it is-- it could be an issue in other ways, including sentencing.

It might be enlightening for you to see how much sugar you can flush down a toilet in a minute flat. That's the amount, or more, that we're talking about in many cases.

Criminals today may often not try to flush the drugs because of the availability of no-knock warrants-- i.e. it doesn't work much of the time when you're caught by surprise.

End the failed Drug War. Problem solved.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: 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.

Yes, I'd let 99 cocaine dealers go free to avoid 1 innocent person being shot. In a heartbeat. Of course, the "numbers" are just a form of expression to get an idea across (catching criminals < endangering lives of innocents) but you seem to have some trouble understanding things like that.

Originally posted by: punchkin
I've thought it through very well. Residue is not proof of the amount of drugs that were actually present. Even if this were not an issue for charging someone with a specific offense-- which it is-- it could be an issue in other ways, including sentencing.

It might be enlightening for you to see how much sugar you can flush down a toilet in a minute flat. That's the amount, or more, that we're talking about in many cases.

Criminals today may often not try to flush the drugs because of the availability of no-knock warrants-- i.e. it doesn't work much of the time when you're caught by surprise.

How do you imagine a defence attorney explains away residue, then? Proof of the house being used to traffic illegal narcotics doesn't require all 100 out of 100 bricks of coke being entered into evidence.

Cocaine isn't kept in a bag ready to be poured out, FYI. Nor is it typically sitting with arms reach waiting to be grabbed and funneled into the toilet. I think you need to reexamine what you think you know.

Okay, my post went right over your head. What if the chances of an innocent actually being shot in a no-knock raid are one in a million? Are you still against it on that basis? What if this risk is no higher at all than a normal knock-and-announce raid? What then?

You assume that drugs are always packaged for sale, I guess. ROFL

Learn to take some time. Breathe, type, think, look over what you've written. Then post.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Shut the fuck up about the Castle Doctrine not being law. We all know it's LEGAL DOCTRINE. That's why it's called the fucking CASTLE DOCTRINE. Write "semantics" on a cock and choke on it why don't you? You could not be more annoying. Ugh.

Seriously, that made me LOL Nebor.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: punchkin
Okay, my post went right over your head. What if the chances of an innocent actually being shot in a no-knock raid are one in a million? Are you still against it on that basis? What if this risk is no higher at all than a normal knock-and-announce raid? What then?

Learn to take some time. Breathe, type, think, look over what you've written. Then post.

From the person who's still having trouble figuring out that castle == house that's high comedy. Let me know if you ever come back to this issue with an informed opinion.

Oh, and yes, at 1/1,000,000 I'm still against it.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: yllus
From the person who's still having trouble figuring out that castle == house that's high comedy. Let me know if you ever come back to this issue with an informed opinion.

I'll let you go without answering, small fry.

 

[yllus]

*pats your head sympathetically* I thought you might.

 

[Fern]

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.)

No.

I've personally seen large amounts of cocaine. The "bricks" need to be unwrapped & ground into flake/powder form before you could flush it.

You need to keep the bricks in their wrapping or the coke will absork moisture from the air (humidiy) and ruin it.

I suppose someone could have a large-type amount that was already powdered, but it'd be a tell-tale sign that it was cut. But when powdered, you still need to keep it from absorbing moisture.

In any case, the police have any other number of tools to use and, IMO, don't require the right to just bust down any door without knocking. Period. The difference is only a matter of seconds and may prevent such unnecessary deaths, as well as help to preserve some level of Constitutional rights.

So far as I can tell, there is no evidence that this guy was a criminal. And if not, he outta sue them.

Fern

 

[1EZduzit]

http://www.erowid.org/chemical...i=cocaine/cocaine5.jpg

http://www.erowid.org/chemical...ine/cocaine_brick1.jpg

 

[Craig234]

Rainsford, a rare chance to disagree with you, when you criticize the phrase with 'castle':

The word is not meant to be a literal description, but rather to evoke a concept for a right.

It's precisely because most homes are not literal castles that the word is used, because it's trying to convey the concept that every homeowner should not have freedoms limited by the physical protections available in a modest home, but rather should have legal protections that are far more powerful for keeping the police out than a thin door would be - and to evoke the concept, an analogy is made to the physical security enjoyed by the castle owner.

It's really not a concept worth criticizing in my view, and while the details of where to draw the lines ar debatable, the basic idea, involving increasing individual liberty, seems good. Why not enjoy one of the very few issues on which the right can get some things correct?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rainsford
According to the story, the police won't confirm or deny what the officer may have been wearing except to say that it's not their policy to serve warrants in plain clothes...maybe you should read the article first, eh?

Its not their policy to kick in doors of innocent people, but they do a fine job of fucking up the address all too often too dont they?

And seriously, "castle"? It's like your comments come pre-satirized for our convenience. It's your fucking house, you're not Lancelot.

You realize its called the "castle doctrine" right? I mean shit, the very laws label your house as a "castle", whats thew problem?

Is there an actual law that talks about the right to defend one's castle?

The name of the law (or nicname I guess) is the "Castle Doctrine." That's what the OP was referring to. I find it hilarious that someone mocking the OP for not knowing how to read would not have heard a common phrase in the firearm/home protection lingo.

It's not the name or nickname of a law, but of a legal doctrine. Is there an actual law that talks about defending one's castle?

In some states yes. In others no.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

Simple questions don't always get answered because they can usually be answered with simple google searches: Text

Virginia does not have a specific castle doctrine law. 29 other states do.

"No knock" warrants are a bad enough infringement against unreasonable searches. Breaking down the wrong door is inexcusable. Think about what you're defending. Anyone can yell "Police!" or "Swat!" while they're breaking down your door.

No knock warrants infringe what exactly? They have the proper documents to search the domicle. No knock warrants are usually used against people they suspect might try and 1. destroy evidence or 2. use weapons against them.

 

[Wreckem]

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.

Yeah, but unless there is emminent danger to your life, in most states shooting someone breaking into your house is illegal.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: 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.

They use no-knock warrants for more than just drug cases. They use them in most cases where they think a stand off might happen.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
No knock warrants infringe what exactly? They have the proper documents to search the domicle. No knock warrants are usually used against people they suspect might try and 1. destroy evidence or 2. use weapons against them.

They infringe upon the unreasonable clause. That was established legal precedent per the SCOTUS for nearly 100 years, right up until the most recent and controversial ruling.
So for you to pretend confusion on this issue is disingenuous, at best.

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Yeah, but unless there is emminent danger to your life, in most states shooting someone breaking into your house is illegal.

A gang of armed men breaking down your door qualifies as "imminent danger" in every state in the country.

Originally posted by: Wreckem
They use no-knock warrants for more than just drug cases. They use them in most cases where they think a stand off might happen.

Link to one.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

No knock warrants infringe what exactly? They have the proper documents to search the domicle. No knock warrants are usually used against people they suspect might try and 1. destroy evidence or 2. use weapons against them.

You're missing the point. The cop was shot entering the guy's house. If he wasn't properly identified, the home owner has no way to know who is breaking in and every reason to feel threatened. Under that circumstance, the cops have no reason to complain if the home owner opens fire in self defense.

I'm an extremely non-violent type, but I've also been the victim of a couple of burglaries that were personal enough in nature that I was pretty scared, and for awhile, I was sleeping with loaded pistol next to me in bed. If I was home and armed when an unidentified person broke into my house, I'd shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

No knock warrants infringe what exactly? They have the proper documents to search the domicle. No knock warrants are usually used against people they suspect might try and 1. destroy evidence or 2. use weapons against them.

How many police officers have been shot serving these legal no knock warrants?

How many of the people who have done the shooting have gotten off?

They may be legal in the strictist sense of the word but they are obviously infringing on something or cops wouldn't be getting shot.... especially not with so many of the shooters walking away scott-free.