|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Feb 5, 2014 12:02:17 GMT
www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/robert-farago/time-knock-raids-stop/#more-294347The reporter’s note above the whotv.com account of this Iowa SWAT team no-knock raid says it all (save Radley Balko’s WaPo takedown): “We have some new information regarding the story we reported Monday night on a search warrant that was executed at a Des Moines home. The search was conducted to recover about $1,000 worth of items purchased with a stolen credit card. Ankeny police spokeswoman Captain Makai Echer says they consider several factors when deciding whether to send officers similar to a SWAT team to a house to serve a warrant, or simply knock on the door. In this case . . . Echer says, officers looked at the suspects’ criminal histories and whether there could be firearms in the home. Of the three suspects that were present in the home, one has a violent arrest record for two assaults about 13-years ago and a domestic assault. Another suspect does have a permit to carry a weapon. Echer would not comment on whether that played a role in the decision. She would also not comment on whether it was appropriate for a police officer to rip a security [camera] from the front of the house after officers had already entered. Note to judges: it’s time to just say no to no-knock raids. LAPD Chief: Cops Who Fired on Newspaper Delivery Pickup Truck Violated Dept. Policy
By Robert Farago on February 4, 2014 “Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has found that eight officers who opened fire on two women in a pickup truck during a search for [cop killer] Christopher Dorner violated the department’s policy on using deadly force,” latimes.com reports. Wait. So it’s not standard police policy to open fire on unarmed civilians who aren’t posing a deadly threat to anyone? Who knew? “Beck will meet Tuesday with the Police Commission, which oversees the LAPD and has the final word on police shootings, to share his finding. The commission will then vote on whether it agrees the officers violated LAPD policy. It will then be up to Beck to decide how to discipline the officers, if at all.” If at all. Yeah, that’s always an option when it comes to police misconduct. One that requires a great deal of deliberation . . . For months, police officials have been deliberating whether the officers’ mistakes were reasonable in light of the extreme circumstances that led to the incident . . . A panel of high-ranking police officials that reviewed the shooting urged Beck to clear the officers of wrongdoing. Extreme circumstances, meaning someone was targeting their own – as opposed to “civilians.” An exigent situation that led the cops to fire on the wrong type of vehicle, the wrong color vehicle, occupied by two white women. John McEnroe had an expression for this: “You have got to be kidding me.” Sadly, no. Can you say wrist-slap? Okay, I'm very pro-cop. I'm taking beef with law and tactics. I think this is beyond wrong. These guys are dressing up playing Robo-Cop expecting people to not complain. I wonder how many people haven't complained about this tactic. I'm really having an issue with the military style tactics being used in civilian arrests. Yes, there are places for it but in this instance, I don't believe it is the case. The second case of opening fire on a vehicle without making postive ID on the operators of the vehicle is irresponsible and dangerous. They were in a neighborhood as well. Why they still have jobs is beyond me, why they're not criminally charged is baffling. If police want respect they need to combat this stuff in their own ranks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Browning35 on Feb 5, 2014 17:34:36 GMT
I can see keeping no-knock warrants as a tool in the toolbox. For instance I wouldn't expect the police to use the same tactics in trying to arrest some heavily armed bank robber with a history of violent crimes who's armed with an AK and three pistols who's known to be a heavy meth user as they would someone without all that suspected of credit card fraud.
I just don't think that it should be used nearly as often as it is.
No-knock warrants count on violence of action and the element of surprise to effect an arrest. The problem is that in fight or flight some will fight, even against overwhelming odds. There was this one case (in Arizona IIRC) where a Swat team did this and the home owner who thought that his home and his family were the target of a home invasion opened fire and wounded a number of officers. They finally killed him, which totally sucks since they had the wrong house. It was just an ordinary guy without anything on his record at all, the address just got mixed up. Simply waiting for him to go to work or to the store in the clear light of day and the whole thing would have gotten cleared up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Feb 6, 2014 16:34:41 GMT
www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/02/robert-farago/north-carolina-wildlife-resource-commission-and-united-states-forest-service-usfs-swat-suspected-poachers/#more-294485And not to be out done. The 4th Amendment matters.
Georgia Wildlife posted the above video, offering the official explanation of the genesis and “success” of a $2m anti-bear poaching law enforcement effort called “Something Bruin.” Get it? While the initiative seems on the up-and-up, that’s not exactly how a large number of North Carolinians see it – especially the ones who were on the sharp end of the investigation. That list includes one Linda Crisp, who wrote about the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission’s and United States Forest Service’s tactics for thetribunepapers.com. It’s an eye-opening exposé . . .
In 2009, Arnold (undercover alias “Chad Ryan”), and Davey Webb (alias Davey Williams), a wildlife agent from Georgia, visited a gun shop in Bryson City, N.C. According to the shop owner, they stated that they wanted to get involved in bear hunting and asked for recommendations of hunting guides in the area. However, according to subsequent reports, they were supposed to be infiltrating “known poaching circles”. The gun shop owner told them about some hunters he knew in Graham County, N.C. These agents hunted with men in Graham, Swain, Jackson, and Haywood from 2009-2012.
In late 2010 through 2011, under time constraints, and possibly due to not finding any illegal activity, Arnold and Webb resorted to various schemes to try to entice the hunters to break laws.
During one hunter’s trial in Haywood County, agents admitted to buying illegal bait for bears in Tennessee, and placing it in a hunter’s yard in Graham County. Hunters witnessed the officers killing at least four of the ten bears that were taken. These agents, against the advice of hunters, removed the bears’ gallbladders and called hunters from surrounding counties to try to get them to participate in the illegal selling of bear parts. The hunters refused to take part in this illegal activity. These are only two of the many tactics used in attempts to entrap hunters of Western North Carolina.
According to one attorney, Arnold admitted in court to violating 39 wildlife laws.
And then the SWAT team arrived . . .
Additionally, state and federal agents employed “Gestapo-like” techniques in search and seizure of so-called “evidence”, including improper service of search-warrants.
Men in bullet-proof vests, with M-16 rifles came into homes where women were alone.
In one house, more than 20 agents with guns drawn, terrorized screaming toddlers and left them unsupervised while the parents were roughed up, searched, handcuffed, and taken outside the home. To this day, these children display post-traumatic stress symptoms.
They left homes in disarray and removed items unrelated to bear hunting: a laptop computer, hunting picture of deceased family member, legally killed mounted deer and boar heads, duck and turkey calls belonging to a four-year-old boy, a boat and boat titles, a front-end loader, personal vehicles, and many other items, which have not been returned.
It must be noted that Ms. Crisp is referring here to her own experience. Grass Roots North Carolina’s Paul Valone helped organize a public forum for Crisp and other North Carolinians who feel wronged by the poaching pogrom [click here to watch]. Valone put out a press release condemning the state and federal “sting.”
Rather than pursuing legitimate poaching arrests, ‘Something Bruin’ reportedly exposed 81 hunters and their families to terrible abuses at the hands of the undercover agents and officers. Scores of arrests yielded very few convictions. State charges against most of the hunters have reportedly been dismissed, while only a few were later rearrested on federal charges. These are not the statistics you would expect to see from a legitimate undercover operation.
Valone, a professional airline pilot in his other life, is calling for an investigation. Once again, Big Government’s zeal to justify its existence has alienated the people paying its salary, citizens that it’s supposed to serve.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Feb 8, 2014 17:16:56 GMT
No-knocks and the overuse of 'tactical' response teams are a big topic in the LE world. Consensus seems to be growing that tac teams are overpriced and overused, and that no-knocks are often used just as an excuse to let the cool kids play soldier.
I actually read an article that detailed one cop's experience that LE used very low-speed alternatives to nab guys / gals they thought were REALLY dangerous. One instance was a extremely violent offender who cops were pretty sure would legit fight to the death if they assaulted his house. So, they waited until he left and went to run some errands then picked him up in a parking lot. No drama, and much less chance of anybody getting hurt. Doesn't make the evening news, though, and doesn't let everybody pretend that they're ass-kickin' tacticool law dogs.
No-knocks and tac teams have their place, but I think it's becoming an issue of having a big fancy (and expensive) hammer and that makes you want to hit alot of nails, whether they need hit or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Feb 8, 2014 21:41:02 GMT
Yeah, they do have their place and some people need to be shot in the face but not everyone. I'm glad they're recognizing that one size does not fit all. Thanks for that input, that's good.
|
|
|
|
Post by redeyes on Feb 15, 2014 8:23:31 GMT
No knocks scare me. I have a light I will use to identify threats if someone is breaking down my door. Trouble is, in a situation like this, it is on the end of an Ar-15. Police please knock. I will not resist if I know it is the police.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Aug 16, 2014 3:25:40 GMT
I consider all no-knock warrants to be excessive.
IMNSHO, SWAT/TAC team entries should only be used in cases where innocent members of the public are in direct and immediate danger of harm from the suspects; or in plain English you should only send in SWAT to rescue people. For anything else you can just sit on them, surround the location and wait it out. Worse case, the suspects have time to destroy evidence. So what? Even if it were to ruin the case being built against the suspects, which is more important; Jailing a drug dealer/unlicensed beautician/raw milk salesperson or not trampling on the principles on which our society was founded?
Frankly I think the no-knock warrants do far more damage to our society than the ills they are used to supposedly stop.
Think the suspect has a gross metric ton of cocaine hidden in his spice cabinet, but worried he might light you up with the minigun he keeps on the kitchen table?
THEN WAIT FOR HIM TO TAKE THE COKE OUTSIDE AWAY FROM THE MINIGUN.
Unless he has a magic wardrobe that leads to the Land of Narnia's analogue to Columbia he's going to have an awfully difficult time growing cocca bushes in his basement, let alone refine the stuff into drug form.
IIRC, no knocks actually came into existence during Prohibition to raid speakeasies. (Speakeasi ?) Prohibition, another horrible infringement of our freedom, one so bad they had to ram an amendment through to attempt to justify what they wanted to do (later repealed) and a pattern for things to come with the War on Drugs right down to the increase in crime, incarceration, corruption, and loss of trust by the public in the judicial system.
I had typed quite a bit more but deleted it because, frankly, I think it would be a hard pill for some to swallow.
In place of what I wrote I'll say this-
Despite what appears to be popular opinion among members of the LE community, it is your job to decide if a law is morally and ethically right, and within the limits of what the Constitution permits you as an agent of the state to do before you enforce it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Aug 16, 2014 14:00:55 GMT
Despite what appears to be popular opinion among members of the LE community, it is your job to decide if a law is morally and ethically right, and within the limits of what the Constitution permits you as an agent of the state to do before you enforce it. I generally agree with your post, you and I have discussed ( ad naseum perhaps...  ) via PM some of these topics. As far as the quoted portion, it's a slippery slope (and I would add, somewhate unfair) when we start leaving it to LE to decide which laws are constitutional or moral/ethical. Five-oh already has some leeway in how they handle certain misdemeanors and infractions - - not a single working cop I know is going to get all crazy train over some kids with a little weed on them. They'll have the kids toss it or confiscate it and toss it themselves, then they'll pick the next stupid run from the dozen holding in their system and go stick another finger in the dam. To force them to decide wholesale what laws they will and will not enforce based on their personal morals/ethics or their understanding of the constitution? A bridge too far, IMO. Consider... A) Murder is wrong. Unless it's one dirtbag shooting another dirtbag. Then who gives a shit? The world is a better place without said dirtbag, and a far better place if the dirtbags KEEP gunning each other down. I believe it is morally and ethically correct to allow criminals to slaughter each other wholesale, accordingly we won't be responding to any murders where we interpret that the person killed was a dirtbag. OR, I know you're not legally allowed to dump toxic chemicals on your property, but I'm a staunch proponent of property rights and think you should be allowed to do whatever you want on your own land - - it's up to the mutated kids parents that live next door to prove that the dumping caused harm, and even if it did that's a civil matter, not a crimal matter. Ergo, I'm not going to stop you from dumping said chemicals. OR, I am a practicing Muslim police officer and believe it is morally and ethically within the rights of a husband to beat his wife to death if she doesn't do whatever it is Shariah law says she should do. In my opinion the state has no business making laws with regards to my freedom to practice this portion of my religion or the religious freedom of another. I will accordingly neither investigate nor arrest the husband if he puts the righteous 2 x 4 of Allah across his wife's face and she bleeds out on their front lawn. She should have listened to her hubby... Etc. Etc. B) Police officers have a very extensive working knowledge about certain portions of the constitution as they pertain to their job, but their job is not to apply constitutionality arguments to laws. That is the job of the courts and elected officials. Arguably, by the time a law hits the books it has theoretically been vetted by the constitutional system we have in place to pass, enforce, and interpret said laws. If you want every individual officer to apply rigorously researched constitutional background justifications for every law that is passed in order to determine if they will enforce it or not, you will need to start paying them $110,000 per year to start, because what you are de facto requiring is an officer with a law degree and likely some post-graduate study in constituational law. We have lawmakers, lawyers, and members of the judicial system who have studied this stuff their entire lives who STILL disagree on constitutional matters - - want to throw another million or so LEO's into that mix making THEIR own official interpretations as well? Seems like a recipe for complete gridlock and anarchy. Put another way, if the second amendment is suddenly repealed (or if alcohol is prohibited) via the formal constitutional amendment process, it doesn't matter if you personally don't like it. The constitution has now been changed and it is NOT your right to own a gun or get hammered on your beverage of choice. Interpreting the constitutionality of prohibition was the easiest thing in the world - - the constitution was explicitly amended to prohibit alcohol! Liking or disliking or agreeing or disagreeing with the law is largely irrelevant at that point, and certainly has no bearing on whether a law is constitutional or not. FWIW, every cop I know would LOVE carte blanche to decide what they will and will not enforce, assuming they don't have a bunch of attorney's staring over their shoulders second-guessing every decision they make. Want to watch the crime rate drop to 0% in this country in the matter of a month or so? Ask a worn-out patrol officer which portions of the 4th Amendment, etc. they should trim a little fat off of, and then implement those changes and let po-po go weapons free... |
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Aug 16, 2014 23:14:16 GMT
Despite what appears to be popular opinion among members of the LE community, it is your job to decide if a law is morally and ethically right, and within the limits of what the Constitution permits you as an agent of the state to do before you enforce it. I generally agree with your post, you and I have discussed ( ad naseum perhaps... ) via PM some of these topics. Yes, we have, and I honestly think it's magnificent that you and are able to keep discussing this sort of thing without either one of us getting our panties in a wad or personally upset with each other. It seems a rare thing these days, especially in that other place. I believe it's called a mature conversation  I'll forgo copy pasta-ing portions of your post, I think we can both trust each other not to intentionally take things out of context,ect. I understand the theoretical examples you gave and the hazards they present, but the other side of the coin is that by not having individual LEOs decide which laws are NOT constitutional or moral/ethical we run into the whole (and forgive me for this, but it is germane), "I was just following orders" argument. Honestly I don't know what is the solution. I do know that the system as it is now isn't working well. The average person shouldn't feel alienated from their community's police, nor the police feel alienated from the majority of the people in their community, but that does seem to be the case in most areas. The unpleasant truth is that there are far too many officers and departments that trample all over peoples rights and commit varying levels of abuse. That doesn't need to be a large number of bad cops, and it doesn't have to be dramatic stuff and get dragged into court. It may not be a large percentage of LE in the US overall, but that small percent of dirtbags with shields does a disproportionate amount of damage to the civil liberties of society, individual rights, and very importantly the relationship between LE and the rest of the community. I suspect it's the small transgressions that do the most damage in the long run, sort of death by a thousand small cuts. Bullying, intimidation, ect. Stuff that's going to be hard to catch no matter who is trying to clean things up, good cops or regular Joe's. As something of a side bar- "Put another way, if the second amendment is suddenly repealed (or if alcohol is prohibited) via the formal constitutional amendment process, it doesn't matter if you personally don't like it. The constitution has now been changed and it is NOT your right to own a gun or get hammered on your beverage of choice. "Dannus, you know I respect you greatly so I hope this doesn't come off too negatively. The above text that I quoted from your post is absolutely incorrect. The US Constitution does not grant a single right nor is it (or our government) the source of any of our rights. The document merely recognizes some of the rights we have simply by our existence (it's a personal call if you feel those stem from the deity of your choice or nature). As it isn't the source of our rights simply striking something out of the Constitution doesn't remove that right, nor would adding an amendment stating (for example) that slavery was legal once more deprive those claimed by others as slave their right to be free. The worst that can happen to our rights by people altering the Constitution is that one or more of our rights may no longer be recognized by the administrative structure we set up to handle housekeeping for this country. What happens then? The same thing when the person you hired as a housekeeper refuses to properly perform the job for which they were hired and compounds that with stealing from you and hitting your children....you fire them and extract justice. |
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Aug 17, 2014 0:09:12 GMT
I get what you're saying about the constitution (nor any document) GIVING us rights. I am not a religious man, but I think it is my god (small 'g') given right to defend myself and my family and property from those who would attempt to harm them. Roger that, you'll get no argument from me. I don't know if I have a god-given right to use an AR to do so or not, or if I am just allowed to use what god gave me - - fists and teeth and feet and a generally surly attitude. If the state says I am not allowed to use a gun to defend myself, but I AM still allowed to defend myself in other ways, is the state interfering with that god-given right or just administratively dealing with a the methods that can be used to exercise that right? Dunno. I pull hoses off fire trucks for a living, my friend. I make no claim to the intellectual facility needed to make that determination.
I think you rightly point out that both LE and the communities they serve and protect frequently are alienated from each other. It has been my experience that people don't like mommy and daddy telling them not to do something, whether it is speed, litter, hit and kick each other, or any of the other myriad things our society has decided are not good to do. I have literally lost count of the number of times friends of mine have said something like "The drivers just race down this road! Jeez, it's a residential neighborhood! Why don't the cops set up a speeding detail here?!" and almost literally in the same breath bitch that they got a speeding ticket last week. It's amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Aug 17, 2014 4:04:12 GMT
I get what you're saying about the constitution (nor any document) GIVING us rights. I am not a religious man, but I think it is my god (small 'g') given right to defend myself and my family and property from those who would attempt to harm them. Roger that, you'll get no argument from me. I don't know if I have a god-given right to use an AR to do so or not, or if I am just allowed to use what god gave me - - fists and teeth and feet and a generally surly attitude. If the state says I am not allowed to use a gun to defend myself, but I AM still allowed to defend myself in other ways, is the state interfering with that god-given right or just administratively dealing with a the methods that can be used to exercise that right? Dunno. I pull hoses off fire trucks for a living, my friend. I make no claim to the intellectual facility needed to make that determination. I think you rightly point out that both LE and the communities they serve and protect frequently are alienated from each other. It has been my experience that people don't like mommy and daddy telling them not to do something, whether it is speed, litter, hit and kick each other, or any of the other myriad things our society has decided are not good to do. I have literally lost count of the number of times friends of mine have said something like "The drivers just race down this road! Jeez, it's a residential neighborhood! Why don't the cops set up a speeding detail here?!" and almost literally in the same breath bitch that they got a speeding ticket last week. It's amazing. Yup. Mind you, it's also aggravating to have mommy and daddy stop you and ask why you're out so late, where you're going, and who you're going to see when you get there...particularly when your decades past 18. Part of the problem is that too many real mommies and daddies apparently refuse to do their job and stick the police with trying to fill in as mommy and daddy whenever the little kiddies misbehave. It's unfair to the police, and sadly in some cases leaves some of them with the impression that they in fact are everyone's mommy or daddy and then become quite cross when told, "You ain't my daddy". As far as how one exercises the right to defend one's family and self....it's an absolute. Has to be otherwise it's useless, you need the ability to continue the escalation of force until it is sufficient to overcome the threat. Until someone comes up with a crystal ball that can, with perfect accuracy, tell you the worst threat you will ever encounter you will never know how much force you may need to use. If I could swing the financing and permits I'd have my very own orbital weapon system ...just in case of burglars. Lots of very large burglars. |
|
) via PM some of these topics. 