Forgive me for being such a negative asshole, but why do Police think they have to do these nighttime raids anyway?

I mean, just arrest the fukker during the day when he's going down to the local 7-11 for cigs., extra shit paper, Hustler, or a lottery ticket anyway.

As for the gun grabbing liberals and worthless gun laws..because it makes em "feel good" that they are doing something when in all actuality they're not, and if you arrested every criminal asshole law-breaking miscreant type, who would be left to re-elect them?

Besides, by ignoring the 2nd Amendment so blatantly, those asshats are no better than criminals themselves.

Just as long as your dog isn't shitting in my yard (i.e. - living in armed, gated communities with personal bodyguards protecting them), why should I concern myself about violent crime?

Tough vid, tough situation. I cant help but think if all of us arent going to have to make the same decision in a few years. When they truly go to make gun illegal and the cops saying they are only following orders come to your house, what are you gonna do?

Felons shouldn't have guns, but we should.

Never thought id say this, but i agree with Gaddis.

I must have missed the part where they state that he filled ANY paperwork with the BATF. I don't think that he did and it just goes to show that criminals will get a gun if the want it, that includes automatics. The police serve warrants in this manner often when the suspect is an alleged drug dealer, in an attempt to keep them from flushing any evidence down the toilet. It's called a no-knock warrant and IMO it is ill advised. At least they did actually announce themselves after the explosives that they hung on the door went off, but who could hear/think so clearly after that and in the midst of all of the chaos? They put themselves and any occupants of the house in a very bad situation, this time it had unintended consequences. I'm glad to hear that the officer lived, I hope they rethink their tactics and I hope he refuses to do another no-knock entry. Without that body armor, he would have been gone.

any link to the background info on this? a google search didnt reveal anything.

Well said. No knock warrants are a danger to all, especially when the LEO's get faulty intel.

I'd like to know how many of us would do the same thing if someone were to kick in your door in the middle of the night?

Well some of you have an opinion similar to the one above. But what is it based on?

How many armed men have you faced in your life?

How many shoot outs?

How many suspects were you legally required to bring in, without injury, if at all possible?

How did you go about protecting innocent bystanders during these conflicts. if any?

What is the criminal history of the suspect depicted in these videos?

What is his history of violence?

Did you know how many armed suspects were in the house prior to being told by the video? The police in this video state they didn't.

If you don't have good answers for these questions perhaps second guessing the police in this matter is inappropriate?

BTW 1911, anyone that knows anything about intel, knows that all of it is faulty. The only question is how much.

I think that exactly because i havent been part of a system of no-knock raids that has resulted in the loss of over a hundred innocent lives in the last few years, that i AM qualified to speak. Its obvious that they are doing something wrong. Period. and as someone who has not raided an elderly woman's house in the middle of the night, slaying her as she screamed in terror, i think i AM doing something right, and have every right to point that out.

As far as im concerned, no knock means no notice of warrant, no warrant means no right to enter, entry without a warrant is forbidden by the highest law of our land, and should be discouraged by any and all immediate means, with the same sort of tenacity that finally got the message to the british, that, no, we are not in the service and thralldom of the crown...

Common sense.



Sometimes personal experience is not required to know that something is a bad idea. Breaking into someones home without anouncing that you are with the police is one of those things. Let me ask you a question, if this had happened at your house and you had a gun within reach, what would have been your reaction? If you would do nothing, I need to remember this if I ever decide to pursue a criminal career. If you would grab your gun but not shoot(because target identification is key), I would expect you to end up shot. The police deserve respect and so do we. They can barge into YOUR living room with the safety off and point guns at your loved ones, all in the name of a failed war on drugs However, you can't point a gun or even a "gun like object" in the general direction of people who blew up your door unannounced without getting shot LEGALLY. Equally respectful? Police have the right doe defend themselves if they believe their life is in danger, as do we. However, when they put themselves, and us, in a predictably bad situation I think that they have overstepped their bounds.



Obviously we don't know, but that does not change the fact that the no-knock method used in this(every) case is an obviously bad idea. After being given the chance to come out the suspect finally did. There is a good chance that no one would have gotten shot if he had been given that chance instead of the police going in commando style. "You're gonna murder my family!"



An even better reason not to barge in, what if there was 5 armed men? What if between them and the men there were innocents?



Yes, far be it from me to question someone who may have made an obvious mistake. They have a badge for christ's sake! NEVER question the tactics of the police because they are ALWAYS right. Now, I don't want to make it seem like I don't respect the police, I do. They do a very hard job, they are brave and the nation you be lost without them. I just think that some times those in charge convince them to do some not so great things.



Again, an even better reason not to plant explosives on peoples doors and barge in with guns pointed at their family members. It's a disaster waiting to happen, in this video it happened.



http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126284.html

madmilo - Your logic and explanation are very good. My issue relates to the failure of intel. Azrial has indicated that the intel is always faulty. Is this true? To one degree or another, perhaps. However, specifically I am speaking of LEO entering an innocent persons home with a no knock warrant. If it is a bad guy, I think we can all agree that it is preferable for him to be apprehended or killed in his own bed. If it is me watching the Disney channel then it is a disaster waiting to happen. If the intel on who and where the person is cannot be 100% then a "no knock" should not occur. I'm sorry Mrs. 1911 & kids won't help much as it is explained to them that they were told it was our house by someone supposedly reliable. It is with the greatest respect for those who serve us that I mention this. Hopefully because I am not a member of the LEO community my thoughts & discussion won't be held against me or dismissed out of hand.

If that kind of shit were to ever happen in my house I would probably respond with a heavy hand. We have a bad situation down here with pseudo cops.

I agree with 1911 that it is more about what would happen if bust into an innocent persons home. If you were to enter my home in this fashion, someone might get shot. By that I mean I might be shot, that is my problem with this method, it would likely cost me my life. Surely you could understand my disapproval of a tactic that would likely/needlessly cost me my life, not that I have ever been wanted by the police. Now if they were to knock on my door, I would have no problem coming out.



I hear ya, and as long as these tactics are used on very rare, exceptional cases I don't have a big problem with them. As long as they are used solely to make the arrest safer for the citizens and are not used just to preserve any would be evidence(drugs). I can actually see where they might be necessary, but I have a feeling that they are used a little too often. When is such an entry method called for? Who decides on an entry method? We obviously can't help but to look at it from our point of view, and from that point of view we are likely to get shot, hence my disapproval. Any other method would end with me calmly walking out.



Well shit, I guess that answered my previous question. Is this the only situation it is used in? Care to elaborate?



Yes, but that is an exceptional case. It's certainly called for in cases like that. Who knows, maybe the PD knew that the suspect likely had automatic firearms in this case also. I would still fall in that category.



Yes, walmart is obviously a bad choice to have a firefight, if you have a choice. Neighbors are going to be at risk of strays, but if the suspect is indoors at least it puts a few more walls between them.



What if they have a gun on them and drawn? I carry at home out of habit and may have the gun drawn in this situation. If was asleep I may get the gun sitting on my nightstand and work my way towards the shotgun. I guess as long as it is not pointed at an officer I'm OK? What if I have a flashlight pointed at them? I guess a weapon mounted flashlight would be a bad idea? I have one on my shotgun. This is one case that I actually hope I am too slow to get to my gun. I'm glad to have you in this thread, we need your perspective. What do you recommend I do if I'm wakened by the sound of my door being busted in?



It's good to hear about y'all not having to shoot someone, I actually find that surprising. Let's hope that day never comes. No better place or time, as long as they will not give up without shots fired and this is actually the best option. Some of the cases, admittedly the worst, are not involving those individuals. The guy in this case may have come out without a fight if given the chance, we will never know, but all the police have to go on is the suspects history. Thank you for your service, madmilo.

I'm sad for the cops who think that armor is superior, if it couldn't stop .223 its worthless. great video footage, horrible situation, was that a flash bang that they tossed in there? No wonder the guy couldn't hear them yelling "search warrent" and all that shit, if a explosion when off at my door followed by guys with guns, guess what? i'm shooting those mother fuckers too, but +1 for the bad guy being taken alive. Also looks like the team really wasn't prepared for a actual gun fight to occur, back to the training pits for them

The officer who stopped Busch, Sgt. Glen Poe, was recently wounded in a drug raid on the West Side. He was shot four times and lost part of his hand, a Sheriff's spokesman said. Poe is recovering at home and is expected to return to duty.

I pulled this off USA today archive.

i don't know the all circumstances of this event, but no-knock assault team raids, day or night, are NOT what this country is supposed to be about.

just a few weeks ago, an innocent mayor's house was no-knocked and they killed the family dogs.

when the supreme court upheld the no-knock warrants a couple years ago, i had a thought..."if assault teams don't announce they have a legal warrant, that means i have no chance at all to disarm my booby traps."

sounds indiana-jones-crazy, but you never know...i could have a 500 lb battering ram swinging from the entryway ceiling to knock uninvited guests into the street, killing the first few. poison arrows, trap door with pungee sticks, big fucking boulders, liquid nitrogen shower, ebola-infected attack-vampire-bats, poison gas, 30.06 or .50cal auto-targeting turret just waiting to mow down intruders...the possibilities are endless



home invasions are all the rage these days, and i value a good dog more than an unannounced swat team. all they'd have to do is knock and show a warrant...

Madmilo, hope you dont think i am attacking you, and i do greatly respect the point you tried to raise, which is the fact that even if the law prohibits something, those who dont care for the law will not obey it. As an example, our great model nanny state of the UK instituted total gun control in 1997, and Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%, the figure of course is much greater if you consider the near war zone of Ireland during this period. this is a very clear and easily understood example, and i do not think the NFA act of 1934 has helped anyone in the long run other than the former revenue collectors of the BATFe.

But i do want to stress, as this case is a prime example of overtly, though i definately would like to hear more details, that the constitution of the united states of america, the document behind which every american should stand, clearly states we are protected from the undue force of government, no matter its powers, without the consent of the people. this is a very touchy point among very many americans who remember the point upon which the american flag was first rasied. These warrants, no knock or covert entry, no matter what you call them, may be an ideal force to deal effectively against one person who is actively working to injure our local american society, but under no circumstances does the law, or will of this document or land allow for such measures to be used against even one just man.

These warrants are not justified in most if not all cases, not morally, not legaly. they are incouragable both morally and patrioticly, so long as even one innocent man is put in a situation where he might fire and kill a civil servant who only wishes to serve his duty.

New York City:

Cops in New York City are accused of wrongly breaking into a local man's home this month, holding him at gunpoint, then stealing $2,000 from a jacket.

The May 9 incident was a result of a raid in which the police officers were given faulty information, the New York Daily News reported Sunday.

"They didn't tell me what they were looking for or why they were here," said Alisaleh Moshad Ali, 50, the Yemeni immigrant whose house was broken into. "They just told me to get on the floor."

The police later apologized, after finding that they were at the wrong address. However, Ali and his wife, Leslie, 30, have not received any explanation for the $2,000 Ali says went missing from his jacket, which was in a closet.

Police argue Ali left the house for 30 minutes after the incident, leaving someone else the opportunity to steal the money since the door was reportedly broken.

The Daily News reported the police department has been receiving an increased number of complaints involving raids on the wrong homes.

From Jasper, Texas:

According to the amended lawsuit, the officers had obtained a search warrant on Sept. 28, 2006 to enter a residence at 126 Circle Drive in Brookeland. The Hunts reside in a mobile home located at 940 Church Street in Brookeland.

[...]

The lawsuit alleges that Hunter, Tomplain, Noyola, Poindexter, Erimias, Coulter, Payne and Hall "broke in the door and trashed the house. They kicked in two doors, tore up three lamps and tore down the gate coming into the house.

Officers confronted the Hunts at the rear door of the home and ordered them down at gunpoint, according to the lawsuit.

"All the defendants left the house after they terrorized both plaintiffs and trashed the premises when defendant Hunter belatedly told everybody that they were in the wrong house," the lawsuit states.

Officials could not comment on the lawsuit.

“The lady (SWAT officer) says ‘Mother F-----, I said get down or I’ll blow your f------ brains out,’” Roach said. “We were just blown away. We didn’t know what was happening, it happened so fast.”

Court documents showed police were acting on a tip from an informant that crack cocaine was being sold from Roach’s address at the time, 1773 Wilson Avenue.

A search warrant listing that address was executed and, afterward, Roach said a SWAT team pointed guns at his family, including six children ages one to 16. Then police discovered the informant had given the wrong information.

The raid happened in December 2004. It's in the news because the family's lawsuit was just thrown out of court on qualified immunity grounds.

“It is fundamentally under Kentucky law that the power to exercise an honest discretion necessarily includes a power to make an honest mistake in judgement,” the judgment read.

Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney William O’Brien said the judgment exonerates the city from any liability and that it’s a balancing act of society’s needs.

A West Philadelphia family says they were terrorized in their own home Sunday night and blame the Philadelphia Police Department. The Narcotics Division was conducting an undercover operation, responding to complaints of drug deals happening on a home on the 5400 block of Summer Street.

"The officers responded to the wrong home," said Inspector Aaron Horne, commanding officer of the Narcotics Division. "They made a forced entry. Once inside they were alerted to the fact it was the wrong residence."

The police department spouted the usual line about how this almost never happens. Except that it's the second incident in Philly this month. Also, this isn't particularly comforting:

In this case, he says surveillance officers didn't give an address of the home they were targetting.

"They gave a physical description, house with a black storm door, in front of the residence was a pick up truck. Unfortunately there was a house 5 doors away that had a black storm door with pick up in front. The officers didn't have time to determine which house was which," said Inspector Horne.

Inspector Horne said "On behalf of the Philadelphia Police Department and the Narcotics Strike Force, I'm totally willing to apologize for the efforts, the mistake. The overall intent was to eradicate drugs from the neighborhood."

By MIKE ROBINSON (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
September 30, 2007 6:04 PM EDT

CHICAGO - Videotapes of angry officers savagely beating civilians and charges that a murder plot was hatched within an elite special operations unit have Chicago's troubled police department reeling again.

Adding to the department's woes is word from federal prosecutors that they are investigating claims that homicide detectives tortured suspects into confessing to murders that landed them on death row in the 1980s.

Not since club-swinging cops in baby-blue helmets chased demonstrators through clouds of pepper gas at the 1968 Democratic National Convention have Chicago police been so awash in trouble.
<a><img></a>

The biggest shock came Wednesday when federal prosecutors charged special operations officer Jerome Finnigan with planning the murder of another member of the unit to keep him from talking to the government.

"This kind of stuff on Page One is just horrible," and reinforces a misleading stereotype of police, said Roosevelt University political scientist Paul Green, who taught at the police academy for four years.

"The overwhelming 99.9 percent do their job professionally," he said.

But evidence of deep-rooted problems is piling up.

Finnigan, 44, also is one of six members of the special operations unit, created to crack down on gangs and drugs, who are charged with operating a shakedown operation aimed at civilians. Prosecutors say they have him on tape weighing the possibility of having someone kill a fellow special operations officer to keep him from becoming a witness against him.

Finnigan and his attorney, Michael Ficaro, declined to comment.

In July, three off-duty officers pleaded not guilty to charges that they beat four businessmen in a bar in a videotaped confrontation.

In another videotaped confrontation, off-duty officer Anthony Abbate was seen apparently beating a 115-pound female bartender because she would not serve him another drink. Abbate has pleaded not guilty to a felony charge of aggravated battery.

The quagmire is deepened by five federal lawsuits accusing police and city officials of covering up the torture of murder suspects at the Area 2 detective headquarters under violent crimes Lt. Jon Burge in the 1980s. Burge was fired in 1993 after a suspect in the murder of two officers allegedly was abused while in his custody.

A four-year study by two special prosecutors appointed by a Cook County judge, released in July 2006, found that Chicago police beat, kicked and shocked scores of black suspects in the 1970s and 1980s to get confessions. The report said it was impossible to file charges because the incidents were so old that the statute of limitations had long since run out.

On Wednesday, however, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald announced the federal government was stepping into the torture case, saying it would seek evidence of "perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice by members of the Chicago police department."

"It's political, it's cultural, it's systemic," said attorney G. Flint Taylor, who represents several former death row inmates now suing Burge and city officials.

Attorney Richard Sikes, who represents Burge in the five civil suits, said after Fitzgerald's announcement that allegations against his client "have been fairly investigated by the special prosecutors who found that charges were not appropriate."

The department has been slow to put its best foot forward. Officers in the news affairs office said only department spokeswoman Monique Bond could comment. Bond did not return three calls seeking comment over two days.
<a><img></a>

Mark Donahue, president of Chicago's Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, said most officers are doing a professional job but the department's reputation has been hurt by the misdeeds of a minority.

"I subscribe to the few-bad-apples theory," Donahue said. "It is also due to the attention that the few bad apples are getting from the media."

The City Council recently revamped the Office of Professional Standards, which investigates charges that police officers abused civilians. Instead of reporting to department higher ups, as it did for years, the office now reports directly to Mayor Richard M. Daley.

Craig B. Futterman, a University of Chicago law professor, says such investigations in the past were shoddy and rarely resulted in discipline against the officers.

"If they investigated crimes the way they investigate complaints against police officers they would never close a case," Futterman says.

This one took place in Henry, a small town in southern Virginia, in October of 2003.

Ariel Alonso and Jonathan Conrad were two lonely men who developed an interest in alchemy. After meeting on the Internet, the two men shared a home in Henry, Virginia, where they practiced amateur chemistry, producing various elixirs that they then sold on their website. Cooky? Sure. But not criminal. Conrad, in his 50s, was into alternative medicine, and generated most of the income from the venture. Alonso, in his 70s, was bit more eccentric -- he dabbled in metallurgy. The two had invested thousands of dollars in the lab, but were able to make a decent living from their web business.

On October 13, 2003, local authorities paid a visit to the home, where they saw the men's chemistry equipment, and (naturally) immediately suspected a methamphetamine lab. For reasons still unclear, a "field test" tested positve (there seem to be lots of false positives with these narcotics field tests). The DEA would later admit that test was only "equivocally" positive.

So later the same day, DEA agents raided the men's home. The raiding officers devastated the lab, shattering thousands of dollars in equipment, and arrested the men on charges of manufacturing methamphetamine. The two spent 18 days in jail.

Unfortunately for the drug cops, more extensive lab tests later revealed no sign of methamphetamine, nor of any of the chemicals used to make it. In fact, there were no signs of any illicit substances at all. The two men were released.

Despite their innocence, the DEA refused to compensate Alonso and Conrad for the damage drug agents did to their lab. With no source of income and lots of credit card debt used to buy the lab, Conrad moved in with a relative in North Carolina. Alonso had no family, and so moved back into the home, where he lived on Social Security. When his furnace broke, he had no money to repair it, and had to use his stove for heat. He eventually contracted lung cancer, and died in a low-income nursing home in September 2004.

An Accokeek couple is demanding an apology after Prince George's County Sheriff's Deputies burst into their home and killed their dog - all because deputies went to the wrong address.

Pam and Frank Myers were tucked away in their home Friday night watching a movie when the warrant squad pounced.

[...]

They wouldn't let me go to the bathroom which is like seven feet down the hall," said Frank Myers.

"it was terrifying. I can't sit on my couch at night any more. I'm looking over my shoulder the whole time," said Pam Myers.

The Myers say the deputies knew immediately they had raided the wrong home. They say it could have ended with an apology, until the couple heard two shots from the yard.

"And I said, 'You just shot my dog," said Pam Myers, through tears. "I just wanted to go out and hold her a bit. They wouldn't even let me go out."

The couple's five-year-old boxer Pearl was killed. The deputy says he feared for his life. They say the dog would bark but was no danger to the deputies.

The house the elite, well-trained, highly professional police unit was looking for was two doors down.

"I was frightened for my husband because they threw him on the ground," Llorente's wife said. "I was scared.

Llorente said he was just leaving for work when unmarked cars pulled up, Drug Enforcement Administration agents jumped out, threw him down with guns drawn, handcuffed him, stormed into his home and searched for drugs.

"I asked them why they came to my house, they said a neighbor or somebody called and said I had a hydroponics lab in my house," Llorente said. "Then I asked them if a marijuana plant could grow inside my underwear drawer."

The Llorentes said they don't speak much English – they're immigrants from Cuba. They said one of the reasons they came to the U.S. was to escape oppression from the Cuban police. Isabel Llorente said she never thought this could happen here. "Never, because they criticize Cuba so much," she said.

"I've never gone through anything like this."She said what made it especially traumatic was not knowing if the agents were really police or imposters. She said she tried to call 911, but they wouldn't let her.

"What added salt to this injury was after the situation – house is searched, door is broken – they just walked away," the Llorentes' lawyer said. "Like, 'We're the government. We made a mistake.'"

Last December, we wrote about a botched SWAT raid on an innocent Minnesota family. Acting on bad information from an informant, the police threw flash grenades though the family’s windows, then exchanged gunfire with Vang Khang, who mistook the police for criminal intruders. Seven months later, no one in the police department has been held accountable for the mistakes leading up to the raid.

However, this week Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan and Mayor R.T. Rybak did give the raiding officers medals and commendations for their bravery in nearly killing Vang Khang, his wife, and their six children.

Said Chief Dolan while handing out the hardware:

"The easy decision would have been to retreat under covering fire. The team did not take the easy way out," Dolan told the crowd. "This is a perfect example of a situation that could have gone horribly wrong, but did not because of the professionalism with which it was handled."

This is really beyond outrage. The city of Minneapolis is commending and rewarding its police officers for firing their weapons at innocent people. A family of eight was terrorized, assaulted, and nearly killed, and it’s the "perfect example" of a situation that could have gone wrong?

It’s not the first time this kind of thing has happened, either. In November 2006, a Baltimore County, Maryland police officer was given an award for shooting Cheryl Lynn Noel, a mother of two gunned down in her nightgown when she grabbed a gun after mistaking the raiding police officers for criminal intruders. The officer then shot Noel a second time from point blank range. That award came shortly after the Noel family filed a civil suit against Baltimore County.

A few years ago, my father averted a raid on his property because he heard a large number of vehicle doors opening and closing so he basically opened the door to see what was going on. There were about 20 armed police officers ready to bust down his door who were shocked as hell when he prematurely opened the door and said "can I help you?" At that point, a local LEO recognized him and realized that they had messed up and were on the wrong block. Almost simultaneously, federal agents arrived at the scene and stared yelling at the guys on the ground that they were at the wrong place. It was really scary when you think about it. I'd say dad was lucky they didn't shoot him when he opened the door.

This is what's sad, we have come to fear the people who are supposed to protect and serve us, and for good reason. I hope all of the negative stories didn't drive madmilo away, I really want to know what I should to in this situation, from his perspective. I don't want to give them an excuse to shoot me.

Abolish No-Knock Warrants.

WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO:

"We have the place surrounded, come out with your hands up!" . . .

Are you telling me that doing this would result in More danger to the police? If the fuckers want to wait it out, toss some tear-gas into the home. But shit, you busting through a door at night is just ASKING to get shot, cops or not.

SURVEILLANCE would work wonders to help as well.
EXAMPLE: He comes home every day for lunch at 1pm, swat be ready to go around the corner in an unmarked van at 12:30. When he shows up, we'll move in. They move in, surround the house, and tell him to come out....

His choices: Come out peacefully, come out shooting, or not come out. If he starts firing, blow the doors and get his ass. If not, let him come out peacefully.

I sure as fuck know it'd be safer for innocent people.

Pepper spray the damn dogs, it's painful but they won't die. If it works on BEARS it will work on a Pit.


ANYONE who supports SWAT and LEO No-Knock raids is a fascist. I'm sorry guys, but they just plainly are draconian. They suck.

I don't even do any drugs except Advil, and I say DROP this war on Drugs. If you want to fight a WAR ON DRUGS, post the swat guys at the BORDERS and shoot the drug runners, not innocent family dogs.

Sometimes there is no ideal solution to a problem. You are left with selecting the option that best balances the trade-offs involved. There are times when a no-knock warrant is appropriate, but the consequences of bad intel or some other screw up could be very grave indeed. Azrial and madmilo brought up some good points, but so did others coming from a different perspective. Perhaps the bottom line is that no-knock warrants should only be executed when there is very good reason to believe that serving the warrant in a different manner would present a substantially greater risk to the public AND the law enforcement personnel are certain that they are after the right person in the right place. If they are not certain, then more intelligence gathering is necessary.

If anyone breaks down my door in the middle of the night, with me knowing that I have not committed any crime, it is highly likely that they are doing so with nefarious intent, and I will react accordingly. I would expect any mentally prepared law-abiding citizen to do the same. If it turned out to be law-enforcement officers, then I would immediately "stand down" as soon as I became aware of that. However, who knows if it would be in time for me or them?

I am no big fan of no-knock warrants, but I am even less enthusiastic about ignorant, irrational hysteria.




Of course that strategy could result in more danger to police AND the public. First, that would give a known violent armed felon (as a typical example) the opportunity to grab their weapons and prepare for the police. Second, have you ever heard of a hostage situation? They can end very badly indeed, and preventing them from developing is one of the reasons that no-knock warrants are used. By the way, there are many instances in which tear gas has failed to produce the desired results. I can agree that more care should be exercised in planning and carrying out no-knock warrants than sometimes is. I can even accept that they should be more a method of last resort. The fact is, however, that there are circumstances in which they are appropriate. On the whole, far more lives have been saved than lost through their use. You only hear about the disasters though.





If only hardened criminals would generally be so cooperative and predictable. Surveillance is, of course, appropriate. It is also used as a matter of course. Sometimes, it does yield information that allows for a nice, neat, peaceful arrest. However, it is really naive to suggest that will always be the case.





Pepper spray can be a useful tool, but it is grossly overrated by many people. It usually works with bears, but not always. It usually works with dogs, but not always. It doesn't even always work with people. All this is true even when the pepper spray is applied under ideal controlled conditions. I know this from the scientific literature on the topic, anecdotal evidence from others in the law enforcement profession, and personal experience in training. Moreover, when serving a high-risk warrant, officers don't enter with pepper spray in hand; rather, they enter with a gun in hand. If a dog comes at them, there isn't time to effectively deploy pepper spray.





What a nice, absolute, unfounded assertion. Care to provide some evidence to support that statement? I would say that I have effectively refuted that point without even having to try hard. Madmilo has as well.





Without going into a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of "the war on drugs," I would hope you realize that not all illicit drugs come across the borders (methamphetamine, GHB, inhalents, psilocybin mushrooms, marijuana, peyote, illegally obtained prescription drugs, etc.). Also, I would think that shooting every apparent drug runner in the border regions would be much more problematic than executing no-knock warrants. Either you are shooting them because "available intelligence" indicates that they are probably drug runners (as opposed to a hunter, hiker, rancher, etc.); or you are stopping them, finding that they are indeed transporting illicit drugs, and then executing them on the spot.

Extreme posts are fine, but it sure would be nice if people would bother to get their facts straight.

how about, instead of 'fascist,' saiganoobie said 'ignorant of the 4th amendment, freedom, and the american way'?

That would be better, but still erroneous. Since the Fourth Amendment was enacted to preserve preexisting freedoms, and that is part of the American way, I'll confine myself to a brief treatment of no-knock warrants within the context of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since in the case of a no-knock warrant, there is in fact a warrant duly based upon a finding of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, the issue hinges on what is "reasonable." That is debatable, and there has, indeed, been a great deal of debate on the issue of reasonableness in search and seizure. Valid points were made on both sides in this very thread. Legal scholars have argued different positions at length. As I noted in a previous post, sometimes there is no ideal solution to a problem, and you are left with selecting the option that best balances the trade-offs involved. I submit that this is one of those situations. The prevailing view is that, while in most instances the police should "knock and announce" prior to making entry, there are some very limited circumstances in which their entering without first "knocking and announcing" would be justified and reasonable. This is supported by the bulk of the legal scholarship on the issue, as well as by case law. You have every right to disagree, and there are certainly legitimate concerns surrounding the practice; but experience has shown that proper execution of no-knock warrants, in the very limited circumstances in which they are allowed, actually reduces the risk to all involved.

Humans are fallible, and mistakes can be made in any human endeavor. In general, the screw-ups get the lion's share of the press. That is true in law enforcement, military operations, medicine, etc. Even when everything is done properly, there is always some risk. Some "horror stories" can be dug up with respect to many practices that are very beneficial on the whole.

OK ok, Not facist, but ignorant of the 4th amendment.

Sometimes my thoughts get ahead of my hands and what comes out lacks certain necessary explanations.


What I mean is: If these no-knock warrants are about the war on drugs, which it seems many of them are, then innocent lives are put in danger because of the war like treatment of drugs. If it's truly a war, fight the war where many of the drugs enter the country. Ports and borders. Don't fight the war in my neighborhood because some douche is making money selling weed.

If you feel the need to get all mall-ninja'd up and bust into a home, shoot a dog, and terrorize people, then take that aggression and put it to use on the border. You'd accomplish limiting drug trafficking and limiting illegal invasigration.



I don't think reasonable cause from an affirmation of oath by an "Informant" should be enough. How about the informant says "Joe has a hydroponic's lab" and then they investigate the area for PROOF that there is one. If no proof is established you don't go. . . Manufacturing evidence doesn't count either.

Also, Departments should be 100% accountable for all damages in cases of mistaken residences and false witness by "informants". Right now, they bust into your home, kill your dog, steal whatever they want, break items, and walk away like nothing happened. The family sues and the suit is thrown out because the cops were "just doing their job"... and the courts, which decide the civil case, gave the cops the go-ahead to break in.




No-knock warrants scare me to death. It's a fear. Fears are emotional. Sometimes my emotions get the better of me when I type. It's sometimes hard to be rational about an emotional subject, that's why I'm glad you guys are here to say "Saiganoobie, that's dumb, here's why." and I read it and go, "That makes sense, let me re-think this" and we go on our merry ways with a discussion.


~Saiganoobie

+1 I'm with ya SaigaNoobie.
No-Knock warrants express the idea of predetermined guilt.

"You guys are right. We are all here just to make life hard on you and find away to take your belongings and put you in jail. We are all looking for a reason to get all "mall-ninja'd up" and bust a cap on some fool."

I knew it..........lol


But really, you do what you have to do to stay safe, and get rid of the bad element......and thank you.

It's good to hear that these warrants are used in extreme cases and with a lot of preparation in your experience, even if mistakes are rarely made in other jurisdictions. My main question for you is what should I do if I hear my door being taken out at night? I realize that the chance of it being LEOs that are mistakingly raiding my house is slim and that it will most likely be a criminal. That's why I can't just stay in bed. Do you think that police should be responsible for any damage done in these raids? I mean, if it's their(your) best option, fine but the department should pay for any damages to property or people.

On the other hand, I can also see DistalRadius's point that "No-Knock warrants express the idea of predetermined guilt." After all, if you assumed that the occupant was innocent it would be hard to justify raiding their homes with weapons drawn. I think if you break into someones home and they are not charged with the crime that the warrant was issued for, the department owes them BIG TIME. Also, if found innocent of the original charge, the occupants should be off of the hook EVEN IF they pull a gun on YOU. It sounds harsh, but it is just because they(especially being innocent) have good reason to believe that those committing the B&E are criminals. Now, if they shoot first it is more questionable, one should identify their target before firing. My only qualm about that is that when an LEO sees an innocent homeowner holding a gun in that situation they are likely to shoot. The police have the benefit of a uniform that makes it reasonable to assume that they mean no harm, I don't have that benefit, there is no innocent homeowner uniform. I will be treated as armed and dangerous even if innocent and defending my own home. That goes back to DistalRadius's point. What's your opinion on this, madmilo?

I think I'll solve all this by leaving the light on with a closed circuit camera so I know who is there. Great discussion on both sides and like read_the_wall said, "But really, you do what you have to do to stay safe, and get rid of the bad element......and thank you."

1911

That's a fine idea 1911. Seems knowing who's on the other side of the door would be very helpful.

I cannot believe the hysteria some of you are pushing into this!

Nothing like a little hysteria to keep the read going.

For instance? Criticism is good, just make it constructive. I think most of us realize that the cases involving the wrong houses are the exception, but it still happens too often. As long as they follow the same guidelines that were mentioned by madmilo and they pay for any damage to property or people there would be almost no problems. I still have a bit of a problem with it because "we" are breaking into people's homes and pointing guns at people who SHOULD be presumed innocent. If the suspect pulls a gun on a cop in most instances it's an open and closed case, the suspect intentionally escalated the situation. When a team of cops break into your home and threaten your life, weather you have committed a crime or not, THEY have intentionally escalated the situation. In that situation(that the LEOs created) an armed home owner attempting to protect themselves and their family, innocent or not, is likely to get shot. Is that reasonable? It may be tactically advantageous, but that is a separate issue. It becomes less of a tactical question and more of a civil rights question. If I'm shot because I had a gun in my hand when ANYONE breaks into my home unannounced, the intruders DESERVE to be charged with a crime. It is THEIR fault, no two ways about it.

I don't think that it is likely for this to happen to law abiding citizens in any jurisdiction. The problem is that I like to be prepared for the unlikely.



Is this directed at the suspects past or the crime that is on the warrant? If it's the crime that the warrant was issued for, you should assume that they are innocent, right? If you are talking about the suspects violent history, I understand the practicality of assuming that they will be a threat to others if being served a warrant. Notice I said "violent", not "criminal". Are these tactics only used on non-violent convicted felons? Any misdemeanors that would indicate a person is violent enough to warrant such an action? This is never used in you jurisdiction, that you know of, just to keep drug dealers from flushing evidence?



I guess I need to find out the situation in my jurisdiction, any Idea bout how I should go about doing so?



Understandable, but I'll wait until I see them before dropping my gun. Although it's rare, some criminals use impersonation to make a home invasion easier.



Do the police pay for damages even if they have the right house, whether the suspect is convicted or found innocent?



Of course, who would allow others to jeopardize their own freedom? It seems that back then people were less afraid of the consequences . Do you feel that the fear of consequences is a result of attitude change or public pressure? I assume it's both. It's not surprising that there was corruption back then, these were the same people that abused "coloreds".

I wonder if police have to prove that they adequately identified themselves and gave the suspect the chance to drop his gun in cases like the one involving Tracy Ingle.

i can see that you're definitely an 'optimist' regarding executive powers. problem with no-knocks, is there aren't enough checks and balances. departments all around the country are making themselves look like shithead paramilitary dumbasses when they get a warrant and no-knock it, based on faulty/incomplete informant information, or just plain stupidity.

after the entry team has killed the family pets or killed innocent residents, they claim that they followed proper procedure and pass the blame to the informant. google it, search on youtube, you'll find news reports. "informant told us it was a yellow house with a pickup in the driveway. we entered, neutralized the dogs, and opened fire on the resident that appeared defensive and appeared to be getting a weapon. we didn't realize that the real target was a yellow house with a pickup in the driveway 5 houses down."

so i guess there's a few questions that no-knockers need to ask themselves:
1. what suspected crimes justify a no-knock/flashbang/assault team? kidnapping, sure...real terrorism, sure...10 kilo a week armed coke house, sure...but small-time drug raids? that's what 99% of no-knocks are. if most of what they sell is $100 or less bags of weed, a few crack rocks, or a bottle of pills...i don't see how that as what the supreme court was expecting no-knocks to be used
2. can you put a number on the acceptable 'bad no-knock warrants'? 5 innocent people and 5 dogs a year? put a number to that. then imagine if a good friend, or family member, or their dog was shot because of bad information or just plain stupidity.

as a group, drug informants are unreliable . they might mix up the address, they might give the name of another small time user or small time dealer, or just make something up...but they won't give the names of the BIG players, because they either don't know them, or know they'll get killed for snitching on mr kilo-a-day

speaking of snitches, a police dept of a neighboring town i grew up in had a really bad habit of threatening kids who had practically nothing...a joint or a roach...they'd say, 'we'll let you go tonight if you call us tomorrow and tell us where were can find a 1/4lb'. is that kid going to give the name of the REAL big time dope man? no, they'll be scrounging to name some little guy they don't like or just make something up because they don't know a real dope man.

sad part of that is, once the cops let the kid go...HE'S FREE and he doesn't even know it. he doesn't have to ID anyone and they can't charge him for that roach after the fact. he'll probably just get harassed by the same cops that lied to him in the first place. they'll pull him over when they see him or shine spot lights in his house.

i think the single most effective change that could be made regarding law enforcement would be "LEOs cannot lie." imagine that. that's protection of unreasonable search and seizure (4th amend). citizens wouldn't be coherced into self incrimination (5th amend). how many times have you been pulled over and the cop said "smells like you've been drinking", or "smells like marijuana" and you'd love to say "you smell like a pile of lying pig shit." how many people have admitted to crimes they didn't commit because LEOs lied to them? no double standards, if i go to jail for lying to a cop, a cop goes to jail for lying to me.