A No Knock Warrant Death

[primer]

Ok, keep that in mind. They were pushing through the bottom panels of a four panel door. How long would it have taken him to shout on the top of his lungs "who is it" I have a gun. The door wasn't open. Again, I don't think this guy it a hardened criminal. But a split second could have saved a life.

 

[fireflyfather]

Now, if this guy was your next door neighbor and has been running pot out of his house and possibly selling it to the neigborhood kids or YOUR kids. Would you want him caught?

Caught? Sure. Dynamic entry? No effing way!. Going in locked and loaded, without residents having a few seconds to mentally catch up and figure out what's going on? That's a recipe for gunfire next door to my home. I NEVER want a dynamic entry to happen next door to me. And NEITHER DO YOU.

As for the dynamic entries saving officer's lives, that's a bunch of macho BS. Unless we are talking about people who already have a history of **violent** crime, a dynamic entry is MORE likely to cause violence than alerting those inside that a police raid is about to occur.

As for dynamic entries to preserve evidence, is it worth it to risk people's lives to preserve evidence? If we're talking about anything so dangerous that it is vital that the evidence be preserved (large stash of weapons, explosives, drugs), then it can't be destroyed quickly. End of story.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

Ok, keep that in mind. They were pushing through the bottom panels of a four panel door. How long would it have taken him to shout on the top of his lungs "who is it" I have a gun. The door wasn't open.

I agree...He might have had time to yell.

But if I am a bad guy, and I am busting in your door and you shout at the top of your lungs and say "who is it," I can tell you I'm Jessica Simpson, but that doesn't make it true.


OK, OK Jessica Simpson is a bad example. . .I have a much prettier voice than she does.

 

[yenchisks]

primer said: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.
I would'nt care if it was king kong or happy the clown trying to kick in my door ,stop the threat!!!

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Primer, its easy to see all the faults of your actions in hindsight. There are a lot of obvious things people don't realize under high stress situations. You also loose a lot of training unless you've repeatedly been thrust under stressful situations. Why do you think so many law enforcement shootouts involve so many stray rounds hitting nothing? You loose fine motor skills and go into a fight or flight mode.

Why do you think we have so many individuals here on THR post their encounters and ask for opinions and if they handled it correctly? Because many obvious things they should have mentally checked off at the time didn't. It is much easier to do a completely thorough analysis without the element of stress, fear, and time working against you. I'm sure many honest mistakes made by law enforcement also could be contributed by these high stress situations.

 

[yenchisks]

primer said: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.
I would'nt care if it was king kong or happy the clown trying to kick in my door ,stop the threat!!!

 

[primer]

No it doesn't make it true. But I would still do it. I would feel that being a responsible gun owner would demand that I try to find out before I shoot. I would hope that if I shouted I have a gun the police would pull back rather than getting shot through a closed door. If they did it would help to control a dangerous situation. I respect each one of your opinions, weather you believe it or not. But that is my opinion.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

quote:

A warrant doesn't have to be expressly issued as "no knock". If the officers have a reasonable belief that knocking would increase the chance for violence, or give the suspect an opportinity to destroy the evidence, the failure to announce their presence will be over-looked based on common law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock-and-announce. I know this is only wiki... but it references valid law and common law still used today.

true, but in this case it doesn't appear that the warrant was a "no-knock" warrant. so that clearly changes the circumstances upon which this discussion has assumed.

just because a neighbor down the street two houses down doesn't hear the knock and announce doesn't mean it didn't happen. the knock and announce was not directed towards him, his house, or his vicinity, so just because a guy came out and said he did not hear it doesn't make it a "no knock" situation.

i think this discussion has made a very poor assumption, with little to no evidence to support that it was a "no knock" warrant.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I feel bad for the homeowner/shooter just minding his business.
I feel bad for the officer who was shot who was following orders and lost his life for a bag of weed.

I mean, come on! An entire entry team for a guy who has some cannabis?

I'd have been firing at the uninvited guests too.

What an altogether unfortunate situation.

 

[primer]

I agree, I think it is an unfortunate situation. From what I gather the cops were tipped off that there were drugs being grown at the residence. A warrant was issued and served. The cops apparently tried to announce their presence. Given that the guy may have been in a dead sleep and not heard the cops. That together with the dogs barking could have made it hard to hear the cops. The guy woke up startled and remembered that someone had broken into his garage, grabed his gun and ran to the door. Without knowing or asking who was beating his door in he opened fire. A cop died and this guy may go to jail for the rest of his life or lose his life because he didn't verify who was on the other side of the door. So to make a long story short he may still lose his life even though he took the shoot first ask questions later stance. My opinion. It doesn't matter but that's what it is. I the big picture it's one more thing the anti-gun activist can use to take away our guns.

 

[orionengnr]

primer--

Since you are new around here, and about half of your total post count is in this one thread, I'll be brief.

Go read the Constitution. Particularly the 4th Ammendment. Key word: Unreasonable. As opposed to Reasonable.

Next, review a dictionary for the meaning of these terms. Any old one will do.

Then check back, and please post objectively. See you then.

 

[primer]

I'm not saying that they are indeed right in breaking down the door. What I'm saying is I WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHO I WAS SHOOTING AT or at least tried to find out. If I had my way there wouldn't be cops knocking down doors anywhere, but there also wouldn't be drugs or crime. In my opinion the shoot first way of thinking may have sealed his doom rather than saved his life. And another man lost his in the process. I'm not disputing peoples rights. But what could have been a slap on the wrist may now turn into a death sentence.

 

[makarovnik]

I wonder what the original search warrant was for? I don't like "no knock" warrants especially for petty crimes. Sometimes the cops actually get the address wrong and kick in the wrong door. As for the helmets marked "Police", anyone can get one of those. Just because someone wears a hat marked Police or ATF doesn't mean they are legitimate. I want positive identification and at least a few seconds to analyze the situation. Bummer it happened though. I feel bad for everybody, the shooter, the cop, and both families.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

"I doubt there's a single addict in this country that had their addiction forced apoun them. "

you would be mistaken in your doubt absolutes are almost non existent in the real world

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

primer wrote:

What I'm saying is I WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHO I WAS SHOOTING AT or at least tried to find out.

i think everyone is responsible for that. that includes the police and the homeowner.

why does the homeowner not have an obligation to have positive target identification?

i think the people would hold the police responsible should they have shot and killed a citizen.

 

[plexreticle]

Two more families ruined by the militarization of local police forces. When will people understand the police are suppose to be working for you?

I will suggest society is in more danger of these no knock tactics then petty drug users.

 

[orionengnr]

i think the people would hold the police responsible should they have shot and killed a citizen.

If only this were so, no-knocks would have been struck down long ago.

Unfortunately, "the people" get the info they are spoon-fed, and most have no idea what is going on. And as has been amply illustrated, most have no idea what the Constitution says, or how it relates to this discussion.

We are doomed. :banghead:

 

[Junkyard Dog]

I saw on Fox News this morning that starting Monday morning in
LA they are going to have marijuana vending machines for those
people with medical prescriptions for pot. You swipe a card put the
money in and your on your way. I guess that it just depends on what
state you are in as to how strictly the war on drugs is enforced.
Why is it ok in one place to sell it openly and in others it claims
someones life, be it leo or otherwise. Never mind I just remembered
how stupid our government is.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

orionengnr wrote:

Quote:

i think the people would hold the police responsible should they have shot and killed a citizen.

If only this were so, no-knocks would have been struck down long ago.

im not sure what you mean by this. can you explain the correlation between a no-knock warrant and the police not being responsible for who they shoot at?

 

[orionengnr]

Sure.

There are numerous cases of no-knocks gone bad.

There are none, that I know of, where the "responsible" fxxx-ups have been charged, prosecuted and sentenced.

Clear enough?

 

[ArmedBear]

a split second could have saved a life.

I may be a cold bastard, but if the Framers believed it to be a priority that cops should be able to storm into houses unannounced, without consequences, they wouldn't have included the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

Taken together, these amendments don't exactly suggest that a cop who enters a private home unannounced shouldn't expect to be shot, right?

Or do you know little of the history of the nation's founding?

 

[average_shooter]

...they wouldn't have included the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

Or the third.
Maybe this is a stretch, but I'd like to look at the third amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I take this as further evidence of the Founders' view that private property is private property, and trespass is trespass.

 

[primer]

I currently have 4 tabs open on my computer. Two are on gun websites, one is on the constitution website and the other is on the story about what happened that night. I can't see how you can see this as such a cut and dry case of this man shooting a simple intruder. Yes, this man has the right to bear arms, 2nd amendment. And the right to defend himself. But the cops felt they had probable cause since they had been watching the home since november. That's what I have read in the reports up to now. They had been watching the house. The rights of the people to be secure in their persons , houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall no 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. 4th amendment. Probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. He was a pot smoker, fact. If the cops have been wathing him that long, they probably saw him buy pot or objects that could be used in the growth of pot. They then have someone inform them or the possibility or the fact that he was growing pot. They had what they considered probable cause. But I'm not trying to argue about his rights. I'm not saying the cops were in the right. I just think he had a moral responsibility to know who he was shooting at when he pulled the trigger. When your dealing with someones life a lot needs to be taken into account that isn't written on paper

 

[primer]

And the simple fact is that no where in any of the statements that he has made has he stated that he tried to identify who he was shooting at.

 

[average_shooter]

But the cops felt they had probable cause...

Ah! Here's the thing; you can feel whatever you want, I don't care. What matters are logic and facts. The fact is this guy wasn't a crazed homicidal maniac hostage taker making tactical dynamic entry warranted. Personally, I've never met someone who gets violent after ingesting pot. Though I've known people who get belligerent or borderline violent when they're drunk on perfectly legal alcohol.

...they probably saw him buy pot...

Assumption.

The buying of pot isn't a violent act, and neither is the act of buying glassware with which to imbibe or lights to grow it. This guy wasn't a violent criminal. But now he gets to be labeled as one.

There is at least one other instance I recall in which a police officer decided it was a good idea to go up to houses shining his flashlight into windows. Well one guy, who I believe had been robbed already, saw a flashlight in the window of his back door and saw/heard someone giggling the knob. The homeowner shot and hit the cop. And the homeowner was found to have acted as any other reasonable person would have in that situation.