A No Knock Warrant Death

[pbearperry]

Knock or No Knock Warrant

It's a shame that this forum cannot stay focused on firearms and related issues.I am sure there is a wealth of knowledge here seeing as we all own different types of guns.Watching Police dramas on TV does not make anyone a Police expert,nor does knowing a cop make you informed enough to second guess everything Police Departments do.Drug raids are very dangerous and can be very volatile.People on both sides of the door are usually apprehensive and mistakes can be made.
The fellow who heard a bang on the door and fired through the door killing a Cop could just as easily shot a friend,family member or Pizza delivery guy.What he did is inexcusable.Now if the cops fired through the door without being fired at,I could understand concerns of everyone including members of THR.If I had my way in this world,I would stop raids looking for drugs altogether.Why have cops endangering their lives while all our courts have a revolving door policy in place?Until the Judges grow some balls,the cops should sit back and let all the druggies take as much of the stuff they want and maybe hopefully OD and do the world a favor.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I don't know all the facts about this so I'm not going to try to debate any one on what or who was right or wrong. I will say that I do believe that there is a place for "no-knocks" but that they like all tools must be used properly and in the correct instances.

I will also say that if someone came to my house and knocked the door in I'd shot them in a heart beat. One big difference between me and Fredericks though, I would not have illegal drugs in my house!

By the way, my son is a LEO.

 

[primer]

It is a strategy used to catch a criminal offguard. Get in before the subject has time to arm himself so that there is less of a chance that they have to kill him. And before he has a chance to destroy evidence that could convict him and keep him off of the streets so that he can't put drugs into the hand of our young people. The same young people who could in turn start dealing and repeating the process. If the cops just wanted to kill everyone in the house they could just use a grenade or go in there and shoot everything that moves. If they would have wanted to kill this guy he would be dead. He shot a cop. That's all that would be said.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I think drug laws are important. I don't think that bringing a person to jail for a little pot is stupid. I think it should be done. It's a law. If laws were a perfect solution there would be no problems today. Are you going to feel that way if some idiot gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone you love.

Well, you know that would never happen anyway because there's already a law against it.

You starting to get my point, Yet?

I, for one, still can't see your point.



And +1 to average shooter's post above (#45).

 

[RP88]

no-knocks are very unnecessary unless the person is an eminent danger, and can still be excessive. As said before, spying and waiting for them to come out and simply taking them then when they cant preemptively shoot is so much safer (at least on paper)

The news said 'unspecified amount' of pot, so the charges will depend on how much was found. If he had enough to be a dealer, then he's gonna fry; if he was just a pothead, and they rule that he was acting reasonably without knowledge of cops, then he still runs the risk of getting hit with lower charges just because it was a cop he shot.

I think it sounds like an accident, because if he intended on shooting out with the police, then he'd be in a body bag instead of a jail cell.

 

[JWarren]

He shot a cop. That's all that would be said.

Hardly.


I suppose that the elderly lady in Atlanta SHOULD have been charged with assaulting a Police Officer (well, if they hadn't killed her) when she shot at the cops bursting down her door with a wrong address?

I seem to remember some rather intersting stories of police corruption in your home state of LA. Something about a murder of witnesses by a NO police officer a bit back? Would the woman he killed have been permitted to shoot in self defense?

No... I am afraid there is MUCH more that should be said.


-- John

 

[primer]

Yes, there is a law against it. But it still happens. Does that mean that our government should just say oh well that didn't work and just let everyone do as they wish. I agree, the tactics that are used are not always successful. But what about the times that are. You don't hear about all of the successful drug raids because there is nothing juicy about them for the press to exploit. But you will hear about the unsuccessful ones that end in tragedy because the press use it as a tool for ratings. Just like the issue of guns. You don't hear about everytime a gun saves a citizens life, but you do hear about it when a citizen kills a cop.

 

[primer]

Who shot first? Would she be shot if she would have verified who she was shooting at? I'm not saying that you shouldn't shoot someone invading your home. I'm just going to know who I'm shooting at before I fire.

 

[average_shooter]

Peter Christ is a member and speaker for LEAP. He retired a Captain. Law Enforcement was his career.

Please watch these short videos and look for more on him and LEAP:
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfAro9-OejU

Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XlP5yrEmhvw&feature=user

These are just small bits from his speech. I had the opportunity to listen to him speak and talk to him afterwards just a couple weeks ago. He knows what he is talking about.

Edit to add: Here is a video from LEAP talking about what they do and why they do it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc

 

[Sage of Seattle]

primer, I try to operate on the principle of "no prior restraint." That means, in this case, that mere possession of an item doesn't warrant such a forceful response. Period. When this EXACT thing was tried in our history, called Prohibition, and it failed miserably and was finally repealed, our government decided that it would be even more effective this time around! Yay for the good guys, boo for the bad guys!

But this time they decided to ignore the pesky annoyance of a constitutional amendment and just say that the individual police agencies could set up their own rules of how they could prosecute this new war on drugs. Strange that they had to have a constitutional amendment to combat alcohol, but none to combat marijuana which has been proven by the government to have actual health benefits for some people and so far, there has never been one case on record of anyone dying of a marijuana overdose; the dangers of dying of alcohol are well-known and heavily documented.

But that's just me.

 

[Just Jim]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to pick on an individual and I'm not trying to get personal, but this idea is silly to me. It sounds quite a bit like "Ban all handguns and they will disappear." If we only do this one thing our problems will be solved.

I really don't get the disconnect between guns and drugs. Prohibition does not work. Whether it's alcohol, guns, or drugs. Prohibition. Does. Not. Work.

So why have any laws at all, people just break them Closing the border makes it more difficult to get drugs here. Yes there will allways be people who break the laws of the land but to slow it down and get better control of the border is a good step.

I think you might not see the connection between guns and drugs and prohibition. Do you want criminals to have guns? Should we make it easy for them to get guns or slow it down and make it hard?

Do you think we all should just get rid of criminal charges for drugs? How about to your kids? There is a strong relationship between guns and drugs and it is criminal behavior. Criminals missuse guns and shouldn't be allowed to own one. There are criminal uses of drugs too.

jj

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Actually, on second thought, I'm going to re-edit my doube-tap here and respond to jj above:

I know you weren't talking to me, but I felt the need to respond to this:

Do you want criminals to have guns? Should we make it easy for them to get guns or slow it down and make it hard?

So, by your very statement, the criminal will, fast or slow, get a gun if he/she wants it. So tell me why all of the non-criminals must be treated the same way and make it harder for them to obtain legal firearms.

Do you think we all should just get rid of criminal charges for drugs?

Yup.

Mere possession and use of a substance or item should not, in and of itself be prohibited.

How about to your kids?

Newp. My kids are legally and morally my responsibility; once they reach 18, no matter how I may dislike it, if they choose to ingest drugs (even alcohol) then that is their choice and I have no say. But, in this case, shouldn't there first be some kind of evidence or something that shows that this man was a terrible drug pusher and corrupter of children? If it's true that he had some marijuana for personal consumption, again, how does that justify the warrant service in that manner?

There is a strong relationship between guns and drugs and it is criminal behavior.

There is? How about all of those tens of thousands of people who use prescribed narcotics? How about the unknown number of legitimate medical-marijuana users in the (I think) ten states where it is legal? I guess since the feds still prohibit marijuana even for medical purposes, then I guess you're right -- they're criminals too.

 

[R.W.Dale]

keep him off of the streets so that he can't put drugs into the hand of our young people.

I'm sorry but you don't actually believe that crap do you? Aside from the legal pushers in white lab coats I doubt there's a single addict in this country that had their addiction forced apoun them. People CHOOSE to do drugs on their own.

That would be akin to someone catching an STD from a prostitute and saying it wasn't their fault.

 

[average_shooter]

So why have any laws at all, people just break them

I have no problems with laws that serve to punish those endangering or harming others. Doing drugs only hurts the individual. However, if a "high" individual assaults someone else, the assault is what hurts the other person, not the drugs. And assault is already illegal and I'm fine with that.

Please folks, at least watch the third video I listed above. Take the time to really understand the position.

 

[R.W.Dale]

keep him off of the streets so that he can't put drugs into the hand of our young people.

I'm sorry but you don't actually believe that crap do you? Aside from the legal pushers in white lab coats I doubt there's a single addict in this country that had their addiction forced apoun them. People CHOOSE to do drugs on their own.

That would be akin to someone catching an STD from a prostitute and saying it wasn't their fault.

 

[Blackfork]

Home raids.

Police tactics like this either ARE reducing the level of illegal drugs found in America or they AREN'T. Which is it? If they are NOT drastically and radically reducing the level, why are they still being done?

No word yet on the mother and baby they shot in Lima, Ohio? Drugs still available and cheap? Criminals still getting rich? Think doing MORE of this will help? Think repealing the Bill of Rights will do it?

Time for a new approach. One that works. This approach is dangerously and tragically flawed.

 

[primer]

I said "put". Not "push". And no I don't think that every person with a drug habit has a full comprehention of what drugs can do to them. My children know drugs are bad, but I'm not sure they realize the full scope of what it is to be addicted.

 

[average_shooter]

Addiction is a medical issue, not a legal issue. Addiction can happen to anyone, being addicted to anything.

There are people addicted to alcohol, should we throw them in jail for it? There are people addicted to computer games, sex, glue, the list is virtually endless.

The best way to deal with addiction is treatment in a medical facility, not being locked away and forgotten about.

 

[primer]

Thanks for the definition. But it's not the issue. The issue is weather or not he should have shot. I feel that he should have known what he was shooting at. I googled the topic. He admitted not knowing who he was shooting at. I know you feel that police home invasions shouldn't be conducted. Point taken. But the guy shot through a door that wasn't even open yet. I simply feel that I would find out who I was shooting first.

 

[jakeswensonmt]

He who acts like a home invader gets shot like one.

Amen.
As far as I'm concerned, that cop committed citizen-assisted suicide.
I'm a home invasion survivor. When your door gets kicked in, shoot to kill.

 

[Ready2Defend]

Wrong tool

The best reason for police SWAT teams is resolving/extracting a barricaded and armed suspect. So most police forces do need to have them in place as having a barricaded suspect can happen in any town. But using tactics of extracting a barricaded suspect to carryout a search warrant is using the wrong tool for the job. It really puts both sides at incredible risk. From the LEO side how do you sort out a true belligerent threat from a child with a plastic toy gun? Upon a fast entry into a home how many are threats and how many are innocent bystanders? This can make the LEO hesitate and it could cost him his life. The risk to the innocent residents has already been well discussed (And except in the case of escaped convicts they are ALL INNOCENT untill proven guilty). In the barricaded suspect situation both sides have better knowledge of who they are facing. Those on the inside know they are facing law enforcement officers. Those on the outside know that anyone inside still holding a weapon is a threat.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

Frederick faces charges of first-degree murder

I guess I am not all that familiar with how people get charged/what they get charged with, but 1st degree murder= premeditated murder...Since when is shooting somebody for kicking in your door premeditated?

I guess it is because cops are more special then us? I don't understand.

 

[primer]

From what I read,the swat team wasn't the ones who was busting the door in. They didn't arrive until after the officer was shot. Let me make sure my stance on this is clear. I do not think this guy meant to shoot a cop. I do think he has the right to shoot an invader. I don't think it was pre-meditated.I also think he should have at least seen who he was shooting at. But like I said, I wasn't there. I don't truely know everything that led to the shooting. For the record, I'm very surprised to see that the other cops didn't open fire once fired on. I quess they wanted to see who they were shooting at.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

He said intruders were pushing through the bottom panels of the four-panel door, he said. The lighting in the house was dim. Frederick said he didn’t hear anyone say “police” or see identification.

“I was like, 'Oh, God, if I don’t shoot, then he’s going to kill me’ … I think I shot twice. I can’t remember. It happened so fast. All I know is the gun jammed.”

Frederick said he then went back to the bedroom to get a telephone. When he realized police were outside, he walked out of the house and surrendered.

From the guy's account, it sounds like it was impossible to see who was coming in. However the method of entry, if accurate, does not scream "a friend,family member or Pizza delivery guy.". Keep in mind he was burglarized a few days earlier.

Text from this

 

[Erik]

"so 3 to 5 minutes would be the standard?"

Uh, negative. Usually something more like 30 seconds to a minute.

It can be longer, or shorter than that, or as mentioned, waived altogether depending on the circumstances.