I don't even know what to say to this

This is a discussion on I don't even know what to say to this within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; A few thoughts. Originally Posted by BigDaddy5 Hmmm...get better body armor? Level III or IV can stop a .223 round. Standard police body armor nation-wide ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 56

Thread: I don't even know what to say to this

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,711
    A few thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddy5 View Post
    Hmmm...get better body armor? Level III or IV can stop a .223 round.
    Standard police body armor nation-wide is not Level III or IV. These are hard plate armors, not suitable for everyday wear. Even when they are available and worn, they only protect at that level where the plates are. This is in no way a justification, just a statement of fact.

    Wow...are you serious? What happened to privacy laws...
    There is absolutely NO expectation of privacy on a site like Facebook. If you don't want people to see it, don't post it in a public domain like that. Again, not a justification, just a statement.

    There are SO many slippery slope arguments that can be used here...
    Possibly, but using open-source information is not a violation of anyone's rights.

    As for the NKW debate... The idea of completely banning an effective tool because some people misuse it sounds somehow familiar.... Oh, yeah, it's exactly the argument that the anti-gun folks use...

    This is a case that should be judged on its merits, and should not be yet another emotional, misinformed call to ban all NKWs. There are far more murders by firearm in the US then there are accidental/negligent killings through NKWs, and yet here we all are defending our position that it is not the tool, it is the individual. Perhaps that line of thought should be extended beyond the 2A.

    Also note that the police did in fact find firearms in the house - which is the reason for the "heavy" warrant service in the first place.

    All in all, the article is very slanted, pointing out every piece of equipment that the one officer was carrying (which, truth be told, isn't much more then many of us carry daily), and implying that the investigators should have known that the men posing with weapons were just "goofing" on them. An emotionally antagonistic piece, written under the guise of journalism.

    All that being said, this is tragic, and - from what has been posted here - sounds like it could easily have been avoided.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array BigDaddy5's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    A few thoughts.


    Standard police body armor nation-wide is not Level III or IV. These are hard plate armors, not suitable for everyday wear. Even when they are available and worn, they only protect at that level where the plates are. This is in no way a justification, just a statement of fact.
    Very true, however I don't believe that justified the thought process here. Even level IIIA isn't designed to stop a rifle round, so if police facebook stalk other people and discover they have a rifle, are they going to do the same approach?

    Oh, and not to mention that this wasn't a "standard police" raid. Standard police raids don't involve .45 cal sub machine guns and battering rams, agreed? I wouldn't call this an everyday occurance either; what's designed for everyday use and what should be used on these types of "high-risk" raids, is far different.
    There is absolutely NO expectation of privacy on a site like Facebook. If you don't want people to see it, don't post it in a public domain like that. Again, not a justification, just a statement.
    After reading fishmaycraft's left out details (and double checking them on MSNBC), you are right. What bothers me is not that they checked facebook once, what bothers me is that he does it "Day to day, we peruse these sites. It's part of our job now because that's where students are."

    Again, yeah it's a logical fallacy, but if some low-level university police agency is using these tools to keep tabs on their students, what's going on that's not being discussed? What about other agencies with more resources? What kind of information are they obtaining that may be in the gray area of public vs. private?

    I'm aware of a fine line between what's said in private and public, but at the same time just because a few people have misused facebook doesn't make it right for the police to constantly keep tabs on their students.

    This bothers me, this is like giving the police video recorders and keeping archives of everything they see, legal or illegal, just because they know students hang out in a public place. Sure, it's public, but do we really need the police to keep tabs on us at every corner? It's the same argument you have below, they're keeping track of everyone because a few people have misused an effective tool.

    Possibly, but using open-source information is not a violation of anyone's rights.
    Right, but my problem is with the above

    As for the NKW debate... The idea of completely banning an effective tool because some people misuse it sounds somehow familiar.... Oh, yeah, it's exactly the argument that the anti-gun folks use...

    This is a case that should be judged on its merits, and should not be yet another emotional, misinformed call to ban all NKWs. There are far more murders by firearm in the US then there are accidental/negligent killings through NKWs, and yet here we all are defending our position that it is not the tool, it is the individual. Perhaps that line of thought should be extended beyond the 2A.
    I'm not making a call to ban no-knock entries. In fact, I care little about the outcome of the raid...what bothers me is the whole cyber-stalking done by police on a "day to day" basis, and that they made a ton of assumptions about this case based on several pictures they found. This guy was guilty before he had a chance to prove himself otherwise.

    I definitely think no-knock entries are a highly dangerous thing for police to do, but I'm not calling for a ban on them.


    Also note that the police did in fact find firearms in the house - which is the reason for the "heavy" warrant service in the first place.
    Not the firearms they were expecting to find, based on pictures the guy was never in.

    All in all, the article is very slanted, pointing out every piece of equipment that the one officer was carrying (which, truth be told, isn't much more then many of us carry daily), and implying that the investigators should have known that the men posing with weapons were just "goofing" on them. An emotionally antagonistic piece, written under the guise of journalism.
    I picked up on this too, it definitely has the smell of being anti-cop. But my point is that I know a lot of people who have pictures online in similar fashion to the ones described in the article. People shooting at a range, and posing in a "tough guy" stance with their firearm. Of course this is done in a safe manner, fire arm pointed in a safe direction, finger off trigger, weapon unloaded, etc.

    Since I haven't seen the pictures, I can't make an educated comment on that.

    But again...it still bothers me that they find it no big deal to keep tabs on people through sites like facebook and myspace on a daily basis, simply because that's where "the students are."

    I've refused to get into the social networking scene for this exact reason. One could even say I refuse to join facebook because I fear my government will use it to keep tabs on me. Based on this article, and other incidents in the past, I would be correct. What's that quote about people fearing the government and the government fearing the people again?

    All that being said, this is tragic, and - from what has been posted here - sounds like it could easily have been avoided.
    That, at least, we can agree on.

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,711
    BigDaddy5 - good points. I don't know how much time these officers are spending looking through social networking sites, but I can tell you that the vast majority of information that both criminal investigators and intelligence operatives use comes from open sources. There is no requirement to sign up to Facebook (for example), and if you do there is no requirement to post pictures of yourself, and if you do that, there is no requirement to post pictures of yourself with a gun. All of these things are voluntary, with the full knowledge that you are posting in a public forum that can (and is) viewed by millions of people. People post a lot of silly, stupid, personal, revealing, and (sometimes) incriminating things on sites like this, so it stands to reason that investigators would use them to gather information.

    In the end, I think we agree for the most part. I think we may be interpreting the police use of Facebook in this case (and similar cases) differently. If the police are spending inordinate amounts of time simply scanning through profiles with no real purpose, then this is most likely a waste of resources. However, if they are trying to gather information on suspected criminals (who happen to use Facebook) in preparation for an arrest or for an affidavit, then I see this as a completely reasonable and justifiable exercise. The suspects may post things like where they will be over the next few days, who may be living/staying with them, what their aaprtment/house looks like or what the floor plan is like, what sort of car they drive, and so on and so on - not to mention specific evidence of crimes committed. (In this case, for example, the suspects may have written about how they love their new PS3...)

    As for what constitutes a "standard" police raid - I always take a long gun on a warrant service, no matter how "standard." It's funny, but some people really don't want to be arrested, and are willing to fight to avoid it. A ram is also fairly "standard" equipment for a deliberate warrant service, at least in my experience.

    Again, though, I think we agree on more points then we disagree, and this is the sort of situation that merits lively and intelligent debate.
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,133
    First off I am NOT excusing the actions of anyone in this incident . I am saying that the piece IMHO was both anti police , and anti firearm . Before i start jumping to conclusions I would want to see ( thro FOIA or other means the entire file(s) on the incident . We dont know what other reason the police had for serving a NKW all we know is what one ( to my read ) biased reporter chose to tell us, and i have no idea how credible his " sources" are if he has any . Since he did not quote the affidavit of probable cause used to get the warrant i will assume he did not bother to so much as procure and read it . Remember folks , Cops dont decide if a NKW is issued , a Judge does . While i wont say one was justified here ( imo ) without more info , I will say that a Judge felt one was given the information he knew by the affidavit , or it would not have been issued in the first place .
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

  6. #20
    Member Array bobernet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    134
    A good case against no-knock entries can be made, and maybe should be. What happens when someone inside opens fire on the police? And then either police are dead, or they shoot back and the person being "raided" is dead.

    Regardless of whether, in the end, the "raided" person was a GG or BG, it's hard to argue that they didn't have the right to open fire when their home was stormed by people with guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishmaycraft
    What that article didn't mention was that the man (that is correct, man not boy) and his friends savagely beat a student with clubs etc. and took his playstation.
    If they had probable cause to arrest him for the assault, then the whole raid was somewhat pointless. Unless the guy was barricaded in his home, all they had to do was have surveillance on the place, and nab him when he left.

    If they had a search warrant and were fishing for evidence, and were afraid for their safety, again... watch the place and search when he leaves.

    I also understand that this man had a history with being on the wrong side of the law (I don't know the details).
    Umm.. so? Ad hominem.

  7. #21
    Member Array bobernet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by fishmaycraft
    you now see the picture and know he has experience with weapons, I completely understand the no-knock.
    Almost every person on this forum has pictures of their guns or them holding their guns. If that makes everyone here "fair game" for the same tactics, there is obviously something wrong with the law.

  8. #22
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,711
    Quote Originally Posted by bobernet View Post
    A good case against no-knock entries can be made, and maybe should be. What happens when someone inside opens fire on the police? And then either police are dead, or they shoot back and the person being "raided" is dead.
    I may be misunderstanding you here, but the entire point of a NKW is to deny the BG the opportunity to shoot at you (or to destroy evidence). If someone is shooting at officers through their own doors/walls prior to the warrant service, what is to be gained by having it be a "knock-and-announce" warrant? Also, if the BG does in fact fire at officers (through their own door or not) and ends up dead, then that's simply the result of trying to murder the police, and I for one wouldn't feel too bad.

    Regardless of whether, in the end, the "raided" person was a GG or BG, it's hard to argue that they didn't have the right to open fire when their home was stormed by people with guns.
    Here, I certainly do hope I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying that criminals have the right to kill police officers coming to arrest them? Because that's what this statement conveys. Even a GG has no RIGHT to shoot at police officers if they are identifiable as such, in almost any circumstance.

    If they had probable cause to arrest him for the assault, then the whole raid was somewhat pointless. Unless the guy was barricaded in his home, all they had to do was have surveillance on the place, and nab him when he left.
    That's just not how warrants are served. You want the BG in doors, where he is less likely to be able to escape, where you can control his actions better, and where the public at large is safe(r) should it go very badly and bullets start flying. This is akin to the old "shoot him in the leg" argument, and is really a non-starter.

    If they had a search warrant and were fishing for evidence, and were afraid for their safety, again... watch the place and search when he leaves.
    First, you don't "fish" for evidence with a search warrant - you have to prove to a judge that there is good reason to believe that evidence is already present in the place to be searched. You must describe the evidence you believe will be found, and show your own evidence to support your belief that you will, if fact, find what you are looking for. Second, you want the guy there when you are searching for many reasons. It prevents malicious law suits, for one ("those cops stole my Ming vase collection when they searched my house!"), it prevents you from being interrupted by an unexpected appearance of the suspect, it allows you to immediately confront the suspect with any evidence you find, and so on and so on.

    In a perfect world, all the BGs would just show up at the police station, turn over all the evidence against them, and handcuff themselves while waiting for you to fill out the paperwork. Unfortunately, that just ain't the way it works...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  9. #23
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Once again...Sorry I have to say it...For all those here that seem to be for No-Knock warrants (and there are quite a few here for it), This is YET AGAIN another reason NOT to have them. It is also why I believe we need to quit using the dog-gone SWAT/Emergency Response teams for suspicion of petty crimes. :RANTOFF:
    Exactly!!! Executing a No-Knock in the investigation of... a stolen video game! Justification is of course a picture of someone with a LEGALLY owned rifle.

    If the LEO's mess up and decide to raid my house will they do so by blasting through the door because NY State has a list of all my handguns? Will the kill my dog on the way in as well as myself? Odds are if the dog goes beserk in the middle of the night and I hear a crashing door and gun shot I will respond with at least my 1911, if not my 870. I guess that means I am dead, my children are orphans and my wife a widow.

    It is plain to see after LEO errors time and time again that these dynamic entires solely to justify the money spent on fancy gear and training are a danger to the public.

    Unless Hannibal Lecter is inside sharpenning his knive to prepare his latest "meal" I see no reason at all for this type of Rambo nonsense.

  10. #24
    Senior Member
    Array sojourner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,054
    Agreed with Musketeer's post.

    Plus, who the heck authorized that guy to use and carry a 45 sub when he obviously cannot keep his finger off the trigger. Well, he got to go home safe that night and I'm sure the politicians in the area will somehow miraculously(SP?) judge this as an appropriate action of the officer due to officer safety.

    I'm all for officer safety, but not when ensuring officer safety ensures great bodily harm up to and including death on somebody that was not posing a threat.

  11. #25
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Musketeer View Post
    Exactly!!! Executing a No-Knock in the investigation of... a stolen video game! Justification is of course a picture of someone with a LEGALLY owned rifle.

    If the LEO's mess up and decide to raid my house will they do so by blasting through the door because NY State has a list of all my handguns? Will the kill my dog on the way in as well as myself? Odds are if the dog goes beserk in the middle of the night and I hear a crashing door and gun shot I will respond with at least my 1911, if not my 870. I guess that means I am dead, my children are orphans and my wife a widow.

    It is plain to see after LEO errors time and time again that these dynamic entires solely to justify the money spent on fancy gear and training are a danger to the public.

    Unless Hannibal Lecter is inside sharpenning his knive to prepare his latest "meal" I see no reason at all for this type of Rambo nonsense.
    Unless you are a terrorist or homicidal maniac, I see no reason for you to have "assault weapons."

    Unless you are an assassin or an armed robber, I see no reason for you to have a concealable handgun.

    Insert any number of bogus arguments here - they are all the same. We as proponents of the 2A should recognize more then anyone that it is NOT the tool, it is the action. Banning a tool because it is intentionally or negligently misused by a few is exactly what we are all here fighting AGAINST. If this case of NKW was bad - prosecute those who committed crimes and leave the tool out of it; just as we ask that criminals be prosecuted for gun crimes and not that guns be prosecuted (and banned) based on criminal actions. Hypocrisy, anyone?
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  12. #26
    Member Array BigDaddy5's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    but I can tell you that the vast majority of information that both criminal investigators and intelligence operatives use comes from open sources. There is no requirement to sign up to Facebook (for example)... People post a lot of silly, stupid, personal, revealing, and (sometimes) incriminating things on sites like this, so it stands to reason that investigators would use them to gather information.
    This is what bothers me, though. A silly, stupid and personal picture to one person might be a revealing and incriminating picture to someone else. This is what I'm most afraid of, and why I refuse to get into these sites. What if I become a suspect for some reason, and now they've got pictures of me that they can justify this kind of action on. I'm no criminal, but I have had friends get in trouble with the law before (one was a roommate).

    In the end, I think we agree for the most part. I think we may be interpreting the police use of Facebook in this case (and similar cases) differently. If the police are spending inordinate amounts of time simply scanning through profiles with no real purpose, then this is most likely a waste of resources. However, if they are trying to gather information on suspected criminals (who happen to use Facebook) in preparation for an arrest or for an affidavit, then I see this as a completely reasonable and justifiable exercise. The suspects may post things like where they will be over the next few days, who may be living/staying with them, what their aaprtment/house looks like or what the floor plan is like, what sort of car they drive, and so on and so on - not to mention specific evidence of crimes committed. (In this case, for example, the suspects may have written about how they love their new PS3...)
    I agree that it can be a tool, but I don't think high-tech means should replace low-tech ones, and in this case I think they did. I also think that the potential for abuse is fairly high.

    Also, if these were Mills firearms and Mills was a suspect as well...why didn't they take Mills in first, and do an inventory?

    Like I said, the tactical response is not what I'm questioning, it's the entire precedent laid forth here: using facebook to track people, executing a "high-risk" warrant based on some pictures that he wasn't in, and knowing that he doesn't own the firearms in question.

    As for what constitutes a "standard" police raid - I always take a long gun on a warrant service, no matter how "standard." It's funny, but some people really don't want to be arrested, and are willing to fight to avoid it. A ram is also fairly "standard" equipment for a deliberate warrant service, at least in my experience.
    If you're bringing in a long-arm, do you not try to bring in some defensive measures if you know you're out gunned? What I'm asking is, if you know a suspect has a long-arm that's capable of easily defeating your standard load out body armor, would you not want some better armor?

    As a non-LEO, it's my view that just because you're poorly equiped, that doesn't give you justification for an outcome like this one, you know? I don't think that the police should be under-equiped, but I think it might be coming to that with the amount of police abuse being documented lately. (I don't blame that on the LEO's...though there are always a few bad apples..., that's a slippery slope caused by politicians).

    Again, though, I think we agree on more points then we disagree, and this is the sort of situation that merits lively and intelligent debate.
    Absolutely

  13. #27
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Regardless of whether, in the end, the "raided" person was a GG or BG, it's hard to argue that they didn't have the right to open fire when their home was stormed by people with guns.
    Are you saying that criminals have the right to kill police officers coming to arrest them? Because that's what this statement conveys. Even a GG has no RIGHT to shoot at police officers if they are identifiable as such, in almost any circumstance.
    In a no-knock warrant there is a very good chance a case for justificble homicide of a police officer can be made not just by a law abiding citizen who is wrongly targetted but by a real criminal. The bottom line is that when doors are blown off the hinges and huge amounts of violence and frightfullness ensue the identification of a real police officer is not a simple matter. If they choose to dress themselves up in black masks and storm a house like a gang of violent home invaders I can see any citizen responding with force. I know in NY we have had multiple cases of violent home invasions and cop impersonators. The two have also happenned together. The bottom line is if you do not want to be shot then don't blast down my front door.

    My job is to defend my family. Asking me to identify that it is a real officer who is proceeding to destroy my house and terrorize my family instead of a violent psycho or group of home invaders preying on my family is a problem created by the police, not me.

    At the same time the criminal who responds to an armed storming of their home with force can easily respond that they thought it was an attack by another gang. In such a situation they legally could defend themselves. It might be up to a jury to decide but a case could be made for self defense.

    No Knocks, and their cousins the "announced" entry which is immediately followed by rams and destroyed entryways places both the public and officers in danger. There are very few such situations that could not be overcome by using a little bit of brain power but it is easier to resort to the the ESU guys and their over the top tactics.

  14. #28
    Member Array BigDaddy5's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Musketeer View Post
    In a no-knock warrant there is a very good chance a case for justificble homicide of a police officer can be made not just by a law abiding citizen who is wrongly targetted but by a real criminal. The bottom line is that when doors are blown off the hinges and huge amounts of violence and frightfullness ensue the identification of a real police officer is not a simple matter. If they choose to dress themselves up in black masks and storm a house like a gang of violent home invaders I can see any citizen responding with force. I know in NY we have had multiple cases of violent home invasions and cop impersonators. The two have also happenned together. The bottom line is if you do not want to be shot then don't blast down my front door.
    Unfortunately, I would have to agree with OPFOR on this one. While I see your point and it is a very valid one, the ability for an officer to capture a high-risk suspect while in condition white is an overwhelming advantage for them. Knocking at a door might be best for the majority of us, but there are always those few who wont answer their door to a "Mr. Smith, this is the Police."

    Even when I have police come to my door (twice now), it's a tense few seconds until I've positively identified them as officers. I don't allow them access to my home either, not because I have anything to hide, but because I choose not to.

    But I'm no criminal. I don't panic when I hear a knock at my door, and I don't feel a need to run when the police announce themselves. Some do, and I think the precious few milliseconds they save not announcing themselves can be life saving. I can't say for sure how I would react to my door being blown apart, though. There needs to be some common sense behind these things.

    No NKW is going to be pefect, though, and there will be abuse and misuse. I'm with OPFOR on this one, punish those who do it wrong. Regulate how they're done, and make sure nobody ventures into the gray area.

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array Musketeer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by OPFOR View Post
    Insert any number of bogus arguments here - they are all the same. We as proponents of the 2A should recognize more then anyone that it is NOT the tool, it is the action. Banning a tool because it is intentionally or negligently misused by a few is exactly what we are all here fighting AGAINST. If this case of NKW was bad - prosecute those who committed crimes and leave the tool out of it; just as we ask that criminals be prosecuted for gun crimes and not that guns be prosecuted (and banned) based on criminal actions. Hypocrisy, anyone?
    No-Knocks are not a tool. They are an action. Torture is also an action but is it allowed to be used by the police in getting a confession? No. Do you believe the police should be allowed to use torture but only called to the carpet when it is done so "improperly." Entrapment is also an action but is it allowed to be used by the police? No. Warrantless unjustified searches and siezures are also an action but are they accepted? No.

    No-Knocks are almost always a bad idea conceived by those with too little creativity and large an ESU budget. If we only saw a couple of them being performed there probably would not be the outcry their is but it is plain they have been abused.

    No-Knocks are a tactic that places police and citizens both at risk for very little reason.

    The COTUS does not say the police have the right to execute a no-knock warrant. It's legality is not defined. The COTUS does say I have the right to keep and bear arms though.

    If you wanted to make the case that we should not argue against the hardware the police purchase, just their application, you would have a case. I do not think it a strong case though as the hardware the police buy they do so with public money. We have every right to question it. Everything the police do and buy is done with public money so all of it should be open to questioning at the least.

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,133
    Ok folks , It has come time for a mini rant here ( again ) on the proper use , and necessity of NKWs in the police trade . I have erved a boat load of warrants , some no knock some not . On every No knock i have served there were REAL reasons we took that approach . No officer likes to serve a No Knock and unless you have experienced a dynamic entry you likely will have an issue understanding just why they are unpopular with the teams . Just imagine you are going to have to kick the door in and subdue a member of this forum without anyone getting hurt or shot ...
    Now lets do it at 3 am so we wake them when the door goes down .. Consider you will be dressed in black tac gear with a nomex hood over your face and real small sholder patches so you are not redly identifiable to the average forum member as the officer that may stop him for that late yellow light ...
    Consider that of late it has become fashionable for the well equipped home invasion team of criminals to scream police a couple of times as they effect criminal entry .
    Consider that the only two ways an investigative team can get the P C for a no knock is
    1. an extreme and articulatable danger to LE personnel serving a warrant .

    2. An extreme and articulatable danger of the suspect (s) disposing of vital evidence uppon service of a search warrant .

    On issuance of a warrant be it NO KNOCK or KNOCK and Announce this is what a JUDGE will look at before he grants the warrant , and specifies service type .

    Way back when i was serving warrants we would see to it that :

    If its an arrest warrant we make every attempt to arrest away from the home .

    If its a search warrant we make every attempt to detain the prime VCA away from the home while we serve.. this is not simple to do , as it requires co-ordination of quite a few folks ( the raid entry team , the investigators , a patrol/traffic deputy or two , ect... ) since you have a narrow window on a detention while the possible problem is at a known location and distracted . Its worth a shot , but does not allways work , and is complex to co-ordinate . Again from experiance .. the Officers do not pick a No Knock ... but when one has to be served you do go into it secure in the idea that " they will shoot me first" and if you want to go home today you serve accordingly .
    IMHO NO Knocks are and have been abused , and the bigger jurisdiction you live in the more chance of abuse/screwup . None the less its a valid tool that is needed by LE . This incident tho does not have enough information to make an informed decision as to whom screwed up where to create this at this point . It may well be one of the LE teams , and it may well have been the suspect , at this time with the info given i cannot tell .
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •