[Chevy-SS]

To put it in perspective in 1780 the population of the United States was 2.78 million. Adjusted for population,(scale) that would be a total of about two warrants per day being served in all of the thirteen states. Do you really think the founding fathers would have objected to that?

LOLOLOL, is 70,000 to 80,000 raids per year NOT an incredible number to you? How many annual raids would you consider "incredible"? Just curious.

-

 

[DontTreadOnI]

You don't get it. The numbers aren't important. The principle is.

Hammer meet nail head. That's exactly it.

 

[mcp1810]

LOLOLOL, is 70,000 to 80,000 raids per year NOT an incredible number to you? How many annual raids would you consider "incredible"? Just curious.

-

I'll have to think about that. So you never answered my question. Do you think the founding fathers would have thought two search warrants like this per day in their entire country would have been excessive?

 

[P95]

It's about time..

 

[DontTreadOnI]

I'll have to think about that. So you never answered my question. Do you think the founding fathers would have thought two search warrants like this per day in their entire country would have been excessive?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Tell me, how much leniency do you attribute to the phrase "shall not be infringed", and I will also answer your question.

 

[mlr1m]

In my opinion both sides of this issue have legitimate concerns. It is more than likely true that if your home is invaded by armed individuals you will be harmed and possibly killed. If the invaders you presume to be bad guys are LEO's the chance of your being harmed are even greater if you resist.

That fact should not deter a person from resisting if they are doing nothing wrong and truly believe that it is some street gang or other criminals. But please lets not add insult to injury by prosecuting a person, who while doing nothing illegal that would cause the Government to invade, attempts to defend themselves.

Michael

 

[mcp1810]

"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 the rest of that is.....

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.

We are talking about officers in good faith executing properly issued warrants but making a mistake and hitting the wrong location. So like it or not this is not a 4A issue. It is a question of either someone reading something incorrectly or writing something incorrectly, unless you believe that officers are intentionally going to the wrong houses.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Tell me, how much leniency do you attribute to the phrase "shall not be infringed", and I will also answer your question.

Well let's see......
My oldest son will turn eighteen in a couple of months. Last week a doctor examined him for the courts. He is writing the letter to recommend the judge grant full guardianship (in all aspects) to me and my wife. I wont go into great detail but he suffered severe brain damage in the first forty eight hours of his life. His vocabulary is about three words. He can walk on level surfaces without assistance, and can eat finger foods but it still working on using a spoon or drinking out of a regular cup. Fortunately for us he is perpetually happy. Other than needing assistance in every manner of day to day life he is actually easier to deal with than a "typical" kid.

So, what firearm do you think he should use when he exercises his second amendment right in public? Maybe something full auto with a 200 round Beta mag?

Do I think his RKBA should be infringed? HELL YES I DO! Allowing him access to weapons would put his life, and those of everyone around him in jeopardy. Do I think the rights of convicted violent felons should be infringed? Yes I do. Do I think the rights of people who are habitual users of psychoactive chemicals should be infringed? Yes I do.

If we believe wikipedia and CATO there have been forty "bystanders" (wiki's word) killed in this kind of incident since the "mid 1980's". The CATO map has filters that don't work but the oldest year they have is 1986. So that is just over 1.53 people killed in this kind of incident per year, out of a population of over three hundred million.
Is that enough to say that officers should have to give people time to destroy evidence, grab a few extra magazines and put their armor on before the officers can open the door? I don't think so.
Yes it sucks that people are getting killed in incidents like this but like I said before life isn't fair.

 

[mlr1m]

We are talking about officers in good faith executing properly issued warrants but making a mistake and hitting the wrong location. So like it or not this is not a 4A issue. It is a question of either someone reading something incorrectly or writing something incorrectly, unless you believe that officers are intentionally going to the wrong houses.

Citizens should not have to give up their right to self-defense because of an error they had nothing to do with.

Michael

 

[Crowman]

I'll have to think about that. So you never answered my question. Do you think the founding fathers would have thought two search warrants like this per day in their entire country would have been excessive?

To answer your question, no. However, search warrants are not the issue at hand no knock warrants are.

 

[mcp1810]

Who says anyone is giving up that right? Actions have consequences. Our world.and the people that populate it are not perfect. When we buy or guns and ammo we are assuming some risk. When we decide we are going to carry weapons we assume risk. If we decide to employ deadly force against someone we assume risk. If we are right we win. If we are wrong we are dead.

This is serious business. Every time I load a weapon it is with the understanding that if I discharge that weapon it could result in me on a gurney in Huntsville with a needle in my arm. And I accept that.

 

[tacman605]

search warrants are not the issue at hand no knock warrants are.

Wow well I guess I don't need to say then a No Knock warrant is a legal search warrant then.

 

[tacman605]

MCP outstanding post.

 

[ksholder]

We are talking about officers in good faith executing properly issued warrants but making a mistake and hitting the wrong location. So like it or not this is not a 4A issue. It is a question of either someone reading something incorrectly or writing something incorrectly, unless you believe that officers are intentionally going to the wrong houses.

Let's go with your line of logic here for a minute and assume that all officer's motives are pure as the driven snow. This is still a 4A issue, front and center. Your protestations to the contrary don't change that fact one iota. For NKR warrants to actually meet the Constitutional definitions, they would have to say that "we are looking for 'so and so' and 'such and such' and, oh, BTW, if anything moves we reserve the right to blow it away."

In addition to a 4A issue, this is a life, liberty and pursuit of happiness issue. If the law-abiding HO actually lives through defending his castle from invading cops, he has probably killed or severly hurt more than one. More frequently, he will die in the process. In either case, his life as he knew it is over, he will not have liberty and he will have lost his happiness forever. All because the 4A does not mean anything to our government.

Yes it sucks that people are getting killed in incidents like this but like I said before life isn't fair.

Correct, but you seem to like it best when the cards are stacked in the government's favor. If the governed get the impression that you are indicative of how the government thinks as a whole, and they are getting there, slowly but surely, but getting there, you should expect to see the consent of the governed revoked. I pray that we do not get to that point, but we do appear to be headed there. I hope we can reform the government at the polls, I really do, we shall see.

 

[ksholder]

search warrants are not the issue at hand no knock warrants are.

Wow well I guess I don't need to say then a No Knock warrant is a legal search warrant then.

Legal - yes. Constitutional, not so much. Regardless of what 9 black robed government-employed lawyers say (and they, beinig 1/3 of the government have a vested interest in the growth of the government and its power), NKRs do not meet Constitutional muster.

BTW, you would have made a great soldier in King George's army. You seem to think just like they did.

In the United States of America, the government is not the sovereign, the people are.

 

[tacman605]

Ks you really need to research a little more on search warrants and the process to obtain them.

For NKR warrants to actually meet the Constitutional definitions, they would have to say that "we are looking for 'so and so' and 'such and such'


Well no clue, that is correct it is called an affidavit, it is required on every search warrant regardless of type in the US, so since they are done on every single warrant in the United States then all the said warrants meet the requirments set forth in the constitution. There is not some "search warrants are us" shop in the back of Best Buy where LE can go to buy a search warrant.
They have to go before a judge, present the affidavit and be sworn to it. Then and only then will the warrant be issued if the judge finds probable cause for the warrant. The officer can request all he wants for a no knock but if it does not meet the criteria it is not given.

That criteria includes very specific things that LE is searching for it simply does not say "We want to search Bill's house" specific items or materials are listed. Should they find evidence of another crime they would stop and obtain a separate warrant for that item. If I am searching for drugs and decide to run th SN on the TV and it is stolen it does me no good that is evidence obtained from "The fruit of the poisonous tree" and is inadmissilbe in court. There is not even a crime scene exception to the constitution, meaning at the scene of a murder you better get a search warrant to gather evidence or you may find yourself losing your case when it goes to court.


if anything moves we reserve the right to blow it away."


Please show me in text or by case law that this is anything more than your ramblings.

There are only three ways LE can enter your home. In active pursuit, he is chasing you and you run into your house he can follow you. Emergency circumstance, he answers a call to your house and sees someone stabbing you he can enter, he sees you laying on the floor bleeding he can enter or finally with a warrant issued by a judge anything else is unlawful.

Well not sure about being a good soldier in the King's army, as I type this I am sitting here with my counterpart, a former British Armed Police Officer with more than 25 years service in England and Northern Ireland. I let him read some of the replies and he has informed me that I am much to weak and liberal to have been a good soldier in the King's army or to be a Police Officer in the UK.
Whether you like the system or not we are luckier than other countries. In England for example if I am stopped and arrested for a "Serious arrestable offense" such as selling drugs, the officer then contacts a ranking police inspector who agrees, signs off and he can then search my car, house or anything else without a warrant or a judge involved at all. This includes the residence where I am simply staying at, doesn't even have to be mine and if they find evidence of another crime they simply arrest me on that charge and continue on.
Then when I say "Simon is selling drugs to and is my supplier" they can now go arrest him for "Suspicion of selling drugs" and continue to search all he owns without a warrant at all and the process will continue until someone gets tired of searching. The entry into the home can be by whatever means needed to complete the search.

Just for the hell of it I asked him if they were given a lot of false information that led to bad arrests and his reply was no, the system worked quite well. The officer makes an arrest, an Inspector signs off, the seach is done, evidence is found and they go to jail, "Quite simple really" in his heavy British accent.

Whether you like the Supreme Court or not the issue of warrants has been through several Presidential administrations of both parties, several supreme court justices, and have passed the test of time and the courts, they are still there. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about them. Is the system perfect? Nope. But it is all we have to work with and there will always be someone who will try to work the system or the worst of all abuse it for their own gain.

 

[Chevy-SS]

I'll have to think about that. So you never answered my question. Do you think the founding fathers would have thought two search warrants like this per day in their entire country would have been excessive?

You are attempting (by stating as "two per day") to utilize that well-known closing technique called "reduce it to the ridiculous". I am not 'buying' it. However, I do agree with your circa 1780 postulated number, which would be 700 to 800 per year. And yes, I think the Founding Fathers would have been against this type of behavior by police, who are really acting like a military group.

Please bear in mind - my main objection here is to full-blown military-style raids on a private civilian home for relatively minor offenses. I do believe there is a need for a select few of these style raids, just not 70k to 80k per year.

-

 

[NH_Esau]

I'll have to think about that. So you never answered my question. Do you think the founding fathers would have thought two search warrants like this per day in their entire country would have been excessive?

Yes.

 

[TedBeau]

Not to long ago a house in my area was invaded by men in full tactical gear & the occupants didn't resist at all or even go to a safe room because they assumed they were Police. They weren't Police & the way I remember it there were injuries. So will I assume anyone is Police at wrong address if they are trying to break in? NO NO NO I wont.

As for me being murdered for no reason by their mistake in my home that might happen but I will not go down without a fight. Also a few have said you can't win but that is a very arrogant stance since many people now days have home defense in place, reinforced security & even safe rooms. Oh & has anyone noticed some of the arsenals people here have at the ready? Come-on we aren't all sitting ducks now days with so many seeing what has been happening with


P.S. Lucky for me I live in an area with a smaller Police force & I know many of them including the Swat Guys which haven't made mistakes like this scenario we are talking about.

Lucky for me the dope heads around here don't spend their money on 511 tactical pants, body armor and tactical shotguns. They prefer to just buy pot and bath salts.

As far as being able to defend yourself against a forced entry team, I suppose IF you had an early warning alarm system like a driveway sensor and IF you went into the safe room immdediatly when the alarm sounded and IF you had a gas mask in the safe room at least you wouldn't get shot. They would just have to wait for you to run out of food and water.

 

[TedBeau]

To put it in perspective in 1780 the population of the United States was 2.78 million. Adjusted for population,(scale) that would be a total of about two warrants per day being served in all of the thirteen states. Do you really think the founding fathers would have objected to that?

But the numbers you are quoting is for ALL no knock warrents, not the number that involve an incorrect address, which is obviously A LOT lower, so the real question is using the percentage of no knock warrents that are served improperly, would the founding fathers have even lived long enough to see one happen?

 

[mcgyver210]

As far as being able to defend yourself against a forced entry team, I suppose IF you had an early warning alarm system like a driveway sensor and IF you went into the safe room immdediatly when the alarm sounded and IF you had a gas mask in the safe room at least you wouldn't get shot. They would just have to wait for you to run out of food and water.

Now your getting it there are pessimist types that have very little faith left in Government since they decided to declare WAR on Law Abiding Citizens that do have things in place that even have redundant backups. It just takes planning to be somewhat prepared for Disaster even though I don't believe there is away to prepare for every outcome.