This is a discussion on Bad Info Leads Cops to Wrong House, 2 Officers Shot: MN (Merged) within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Unfortunately, we'll probably never know "the rest of the story." I agree, though, something must have been going on to allow the homeowner to survive ...
Unfortunately, we'll probably never know "the rest of the story." I agree, though, something must have been going on to allow the homeowner to survive after shooting two members of the entry team. Maybe he (the HO) finally recognized that they were the po-po and threw his weapon down the stairs? Some sort of obvious and complete surrender, I'm assuming... I wish we knew more, so we wouldn't have to assume so much...
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.
So, GoAwayFarm, if we assume that a web site dedicated to abolishing NKWs is telling us the complete truth (like the Brady web site tells the complete truth about what they want to abolish), then we have 145 mistakes out of tens of thousands of warrant services, all of which are (as you know) inherently dangerous and difficult. It's still 145 too many, but it's not that high a percentage...
How many innocents have been killed by mistakes/negligent firearms usage over the same time span? More than 41, I'd wager. Does that mean that firearms are the problem, or that negligence/mistakes are the problem?
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.
The Cato Institute is hardly the rights version of the Brady Bunch. (I used their website, since they are the only ones who have collected this data...) They use quotes from news articles on each event, they didn't make them up. They also cover a wide group of subjects, take a look at the other areas of their site & you will see that, yes they have a conservative view, but they back it up with facts, not emotion.....Originally Posted by OPFOR
Yes, they are opposed to 'no knocks' AS AM I! We all here, on this forum, make a big deal over the Second Amendment....but what about the others...like the 4th?....
Are there times when 'no knocks' may be a good thing? Maybe in the case of imminent threat, but to use a 'No Knock' because some low-life might flush his stash is poor police work!.......To use the anti-gunners' line'....."If it costs just ONE life, shouldn't we ban them..." (in this case I'm referring to 'No Knocks')Amendment IV
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.
Think about this one next time you decide to do an office football pool on the Super Bowl!
Salvatore Culosi, Jr.
January 24, 2006—VA
A SWAT team in Fairfax County, Virginia serves a warrant on Culosi, an optometrist who is suspected of running a sports gambling pool with friends.
As the team surrounds him, one officer's weapon accidentally discharges, striking Culosi in the chest and killing him.
Culosi had no criminal record, no history of violence, and police found no weapons in his home.
Fairfax officials later tell the Washington Post that nearly all of the county's search warrants are executed with a SWAT team, even document searches.
Source:
Tom Jackman, "SWAT Tactics at Issue After Fairfax Shooting," Washington Post, January 27, 2006, p. B1.As to innocents being killed by mistakes/ negligence......That's comparing apples & cinder blocks. The law enforcement officials (& judges), MUST be kept to a higher standard. They must OBEY, as well enforce the law & not hide behind it. AVOIDABLE Negligence/ mistakes are what is causing loss of life.How many innocents have been killed by mistakes/negligent firearms usage over the same time span? More than 41, I'd wager. Does that mean that firearms are the problem, or that negligence/mistakes are the problem?
Go back & read some of the accounts of these home invasions by LEOs....Afterwards the INNOCENT homeowner (if uninjured & still alive), has NO recourse....The LEOs who fouled up, aren't held libel, since they were protected by a judge's warrant. In most cases, the resident doesn't even get an apology.
The good thing is that these foul ups aren't the norm....But they are increasing in frequency...We now average 25 foul-ups a year.(...sorry, I guess it's 26 now!)
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
So does Brady - it's the context and commentary surrounding the actual event that shows the bias.They use quotes from news articles on each event, they didn't make them up.
I hope you aren't serious about this one - how many things take at least one life every day? Cars, dogs, knives, chainsaws, hydraulic presses, bats, uneven sidewalks, wet floors...life is dangerous. We can't legislate away valuable tools because they can be dangerous or mis-used - we have to demand that they be used responsibly."If it costs just ONE life, shouldn't we ban them..." (in this case I'm referring to 'No Knocks'
I don't see the difference. ALL negligence is, by definition, avoidable. It doesn't matter if it's a cop with a gun or a citizen with a gun, if you don't take every reasonable precaution to ensure that your gun doesn't kill any innocents, then you are negligent. The LEOs may avoid civil liability because they are acting in good faith, but that doesn't change the fact that the original problem was not the gun, but the use of it.As to innocents being killed by mistakes/ negligence......That's comparing apples & cinder blocks. The law enforcement MUST be kept to a higher standard. They must OBEY, as well enforce the law & not hide behind it. AVOIDABLE Negligence/ mistakes are what is causing loss of life.
And, so 26 out of thousands. And a much smaller percentage that ends in death. It's bad - I will never argue that we should blindly accept these mistakes without working to eliminate them - but it's not that bad compared to so many other things out there. And the fact is that these warrant services work - we'll never know how many lives were saved by their use; it could very well be much higher than the 41 deaths attributed to bad NKWs....
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.
Array
Here is yet another example of same in which a homeowner shot a cop but take care to read _both_ stories as the situation is somewhat complicated...
Initial situation
One year later...July 14, 2006 11:10 pm US/Eastern
Shrewsbury Officer Shot By Homeowner After Alarm
SHREWSBURY (CBS4) ― A Shrewsbury Police officer is recovering from surgery after he was shot in the stomach by a homeowner who mistook him for an intruder early Friday morning.
Officers, Steven Rice, 25, and Ryan Chartrand, responded to 17 A Farmington Ave. around 2:30 a.m. for reports of a burglar alarm being set off.
A neighbor told the officers that the home owner, 39-year-old Mark Ragsdale, was on vacation and the house was empty. But Ragsdale had returned home and he was the one that set the alarm off.
He provided the proper password to the alarm company, but police said the company failed to notify officers that it was a false alarm.
The neighbor had a key to Ragsdale's home and let the officers in and they began to search the area. Police say Rice went to check the upstairs when he was shot in the stomach by Ragsdale.
Rice was taken to UMass Medical Center, where he was treated for a gunshot wound to the stomach. He's listed in stable condition and is expected to recover.
We're told the bullet entered Rice's abdomen just under his protective vest.
Ragsdale, who is licensed to carry a firearm, has not yet been charged.
Chief Wayne Sampson said both officers "were in full uniform, in a marked cruiser."
"We're definitely going to review the protocol that we use," he said.
The story wit associated video report can be found at; http://wbztv.com/local/Shrewsbury.Of....2.580104.html
- JanqMan who mistakenly shot officer seeks return of gun license
November 21, 2007
SHREWSBURY, Mass.—A Shrewsbury man who shot a police officer last year but was not charged with any crime is now suing to get back his license to carry a firearm.
more stories like this
The town's police chief and a district court judge denied Mark Ragsdale's application to reinstate his gun permit.
Ragsdale shot rookie police officer Stephen Rice on July 14, 2006 after Rice and another officer entered the car dealer's home to investigate a burglar alarm. Ragsdale said the officers came in unannounced and he mistook them in the dark for intruders.
A grand jury that heard evidence in the case declined to indict Ragsdale.
Shrewsbury Police Chief James Hester said Ragsdale was negligent in discharging the firearm and should not be allowed to carry one in the future.
Rice recovered from his wound and has since returned to duty.
The article can be found at; http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...of_gun_license
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
"A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing
Array
Interesting time for a lawful break-in...12:46 A.M. I'm glad this can't happen in America. Oh, wait a minute...
OPFOR,
I'm not blaming guns! I hope that isn't what you got out of my post.
I'm blaming poor police work leading up to a BIGGER mistake that can have disastrous results.
The big difference in banning guns & banning 'no knock' warrants boils down to the first (guns), being a Right enumerated in the Constitution. Banning NKWs on the other hand is limiting government, which is totally different than limiting rights of the people. All of the items in the Constitution refer to putting limits on government & allowing freedoms for it's people....not the other way around.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
You're right, it can't, without a special warrant that is much more difficult to get than even the regular warrant (which is what is required by the 4th Amendment - nothing more, nothing less.) It's not like a couple of cops decide to go kick a door in at oh-dark-thirty and then have at it - these warrants are sworn to a judge, who must be convinced that there are special circumstances that, well, warrant the special warrant.
Are they becoming over-used? Possibly. Are they legitimate tools that, when properly executed, SAVE the lives of cops and residents alike? Absolutely. Are they the black helicopter crowd protest de jure? You bet your grassy knoll...
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.
Of course I'm not suggesting that you advocate banning guns - but you are advocating banning a legitimate tool that saves lives because that same tool - when misused - can take lives. There is nothing inherently evil in a gun, and there is nothing inherently evil in an NKW. What me must do is ensure responsible use of BOTH, not ban them outright.
I will say that NKWs are constitutional. They fall well within the limits of the 4th Amendment, and have been upheld time and time again. I appreciate your distinction between rights of the people and powers of the government, but that's sort of besides the point. If the NKW saves just one life, shouldn't we encourage the practice? Just because it's a government power doesn't mean that it is intrinsically and utterly evil.
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.
Array
I don't like no-knock warrants. I can't discern the difference between that and a common home-invasion. Government-sanctioned home invasions don't sit well with me. But, if it costs one innocent homeowner, it's less than useful. And less than justified.
Knock & announce may let some bad guys get by, or some evidence to hit the toilet, but it's not as likely to result in killing innocent citizens.
Whatever happened to the good ol' days......
Where a UNIFORMED policeman knocks on the door & politely serves his warrant? I for one will respond a lot better than men in black at oh-dark-thirty busting in......
The NKWs have become the norm & not the exception.....
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
NKWs are NOT the norm, they are very much the exception in my experience. Also, there are no such thing as the good old days (of race riots, rampant corruption, genocide vs. the native americans, small pox, bootlegging gangsters - where exactly is the good here?), there is only the bad we know and the good we just heard about (while choosing to ignore the bad.) The gangsters of the 20s and 30s were simply gunned down in the street whenever possible - is this the type of police work you want to go back to? Or perhaps lynch mobs and posses?
And NKWs aren't about flushing an ounce of pot, they're about protecting the lives of officers. You 'politely' knock on the door of some of the hard-core BGs out there, tell him you're there to arrest him, and see how far you get. You will respond better to that sort of approach, but you are not the target of NKWs - armed, violent criminals are.
And as far as telling the difference between a SWAT team and a gang of home invaders... If the reflective POLICE markings all over, the M4s with lights mounted, the uniforms, helmets, and body armor, and the hundreds of shouts of "POLICE" don't give you a clue......I don't know what to tell you.
And still, this misses the whole point. NKWs save lives. We don't know how many, because you can't count the number of things that don't happen. Our defence of guns (a tool) is that they save lives, even though we all know that when they are used negligently they take lives. Why the change of opinion regarding this tool that saves lives, but when used negligently can take lives? "Ban them all because of a few bad apples!" is not a mantra I believe in, period.
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.
Array
We could argue that if banning guns saves one life then isn't it worth it? Oh wait, HCI already does that.If the NKW saves just one life, shouldn't we encourage the practice?
I do not like NKW's because the principle of our legal system is that, "It's better for 100 guilty men to go free than to put one innocent man in jail."
Yes, the cards are "stacked" in favor of the BG's. It's always been that way when you stop and think about it. BG's will be BG's, that's a given. It's our job to find ways to stop them within the framework of the law.
Are there times when NKW's serve a valued purpose? Without a doubt. However I do think that having SWAT serve all the warrants, like some jurisdictions do, and NKW's are bad precident. There are ways to get your BG without serving a warrant on the occupied dwelling.
Oftentimes we get in a hurry to get things done when time is actually in our favor. "Sit amd wait" is less dangerous, less stressful and allows me to eat a couple more donuts and finish my coffee.
Stay safe and Merry Christmas.
Biker
OPFOR,
We're going to disagree on this one. You see it from a LEOs perspective. I see it from a potential victim's perspective, should I be the unlucky target. (...I know the chances are remote, but they exist.)
NKWs may not be the norm for you, but MANY localities use them for serving ALL warrants. In one of my earlier posts in this thread:
Fairfax officials later tell the Washington Post that nearly all of the county's search warrants are executed with a SWAT team, even document searches.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
Array
No, they don't. NKW's provide for a "legal" break-in. In the instant case that break-in (home invasion) occurred after midnight. It's divine intervention that saved the homeowner and his kids. How the homeowner survived is truly beyond me.
I'd like to see the affidavit that was used to secure the warrant in this case. There's likely a "confidential informant" of easily questionable veracity cited in there. Judges sign these things based on the oath of the presenting LEO. It's repeated numerous times on any given day in most any jurisdiction.
What could one reasonably expect after kicking in a door in the middle of the night?
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
