Dynamic Entries

[LawDog]

This thread will stay polite. Period.

The first sign of macho chest-thumping, any variation on the words "Jack Booted Thug" or any discussion about specific tactics either to facilitate or ambush a dynamic entry, and this thread gets shut down.

Now.

One of the things that makes a discussion concerning dynamic entries difficult, is that many people (esp. the Media) apply the term 'no-knock' to any dynamic entry situation, when it doesn't technically apply.

For instance, if I knock on the door, announce, "Sheriff" and wait 30 seconds, one minute or two minutes before giving up and kicking in the door, this isn't a 'no-knock' situation. The majority of people and all of the Media will refer to it as a 'no-knock', though.

So. What is a 'no-knock' warrant? A 'no-knock' warrant is one where the presence of law enforcement is not announced prior to entry of a structure. It may, or may not, involve a dynamic entry. For instance, I have had information that a suspect is at a certain address, I have gone to that address at 4AM with a warrant, picked the lock on the back door, drifted through the house behind a set of NVG's until I located my suspect, flipped on the bedroom light, causing the suspect to wake up and find the barrel of an HK pointed between his eyes. At which time I announced, "Sheriff's Office. Warrant."

No-knock.

A 'dynamic entry', on the other paw, is the use of surprise, speed, sensory overload, and overwhelming presence to effect entry into a location and place any suspects inside in custody before they can mount an effective counter-response. Please note that any time the presence of law enforcement is announced prior to entry into the structure, the entry is not a 'no-knock', it is a 'knock-and-announce'.

Why do we use dynamic entry? Safety.

Inside of his house, a person is relaxed. Outside, the person is more alert, aware and mentally prepared.

Inside of a house, the walls and other structures obstruct lines-of-sight, allowing officers to get that much closer. Outside, the subject may have 360 line-of-sight, and can see officers well outside effective containment range.

Inside of a house, walls and other structures act to contain the subject and aid in preventing escape. Outside, the subject has much greater area available to utilize to elude and escape.

Should things go wrong, the walls floor and ceiling of a house act to limit the threat of weapons to uninvolved citizens, bulletstops, to be blunt. Outside, stray weapon fire can has uninterrupted access to innocent bystanders.

The inside of a house limits the potential for hostage-taking or uninvolved citizens from being put in danger. Outside, the potential for hostages increases greatly, and Condition White people will, I swear to God, wander between four officers with guns drawn facing down a critter who also has a gun drawn. Inside of a house reduces the chance that Grandma Frickert will blithely walk in front of your muzzle because you're blocking her way into the grocery store.

And then she'll file a complaint on you because you used profanity and a harsh tone of voice at her but that's a story for another day.

Inside of a house limits and controls the number of allies, witting or unwitting, available to the subject. Outside on the street, the number of allies and potential allies increases greatly.

Many violent subjects will be more apt to resort to violence when in the presence of an audience. In front of an audience, their reputation or 'face' may be at stake, and some critters will do stupidly violent things to avoid losing 'face' or having their reputation damaged. Also worth noting, some critters and/or situations can turn a potential audience into a mob, -- this is a Bad Thing.

Inside the house limits and controls the audience. Outside, on the street, not so much.

There are many other reasons, but that's a brief overview of why a dynamic entry may be chosen over another form of arrest or search.

LawDog

 

[kbr80]

For instance, if I knock on the door, announce, "Sheriff" and wait 30 seconds, one minute or two minutes before giving up and kicking in the door, this isn't a 'no-knock' situation.

Who decides on what length of time to wait? Is there a standard? Or is it up to the commanding officer on scene? At o' dark thirty, a knock, announce police, wait 30 seconds, kick door in, might as well be a NO KNOCK. You are not giving the home owner enough time to answer.

I understand the need to surprise the occupant. The need for safety for the officers. Also safety needs to be placed on the occupants of the residence as well. Like the thread that got shut down, 6:15 am, sleepy home owner, knock on door, kick door in, home owner is dead. That outcome is not acceptable, for citizens as well as police. What can be done to ensure both officer safety and citizen safety?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Who decides if a warrant will be served ‘no-knock’ with or without ‘dynamic entry’? What factors/criteria go into that decision? How is the decision related to the resources of the particular department/agency, or it’s desire to justify budgetary allowances for SWAT-like units?

 

[vrwc]

lawdog Thank you for a well written post. I think a lot of people confuse no knock and dynamic entry your post will help clarify the difference.

Hopefully we can all agree that the purpose of a dynamic entry is to use speed and overweming force to minimize any resistance. Like any theory it doesn't always work out that way in application but most times it does.

Hopefully everyone can agree that the human instinct of self preservation of anybody that is on this bard is high.

Hopefully everyone can agree that a homeowner that does not have hostages or in the act of a violent crime should not be put in the situation where they have 5-10 seconds to fight or flight. If an entry team knocks and you dont answer in 30-45 seconds most likely the door is coming down and when you have 2 parties armed with the same goal (self preservation) the odds that there will be violence are very high.

Now what I have a problem with is:
I can't think of any evidence that is worth killing a human over in the context of domestic law enforcement. I have no problem with SWAT teams, I do think that sending them to do investigations is a poor policy. SWAT teams in my opinion should not be the first contact that a citizen has with law enforcment on a search warrant or 90% of arrest warrants


Ideas/Opinions please keep them civil we both agree LEO's and citizens are placed in extreme stress and danger when they meet up after a dynamic entry

 

[LawDog]

Part 2.

In order to get a warrant, be it for an arrest or for a search, officers have to file a Probable Cause Affidavit, this is reviewed first by an Assistant District Attorney and then by a judge, who reads it and then may or may not sign off on it.

This becomes important when you understand that a PC aff that will get you a search warrant, or an arrest warrant, probably won't get you a 'no-knock' condition on that warrant.

The PC required for the 'no-knock' is, as it should be, much higher and more restrictive than for a 'knock-and-announce'.

For a 'standard' search warrant, I understand that I will do one rewrite of my PC for the ADA, and one rewrite for the judge.

For a 'no-knock', I'm looking at having a sit-down with the DA - not an ADA - and the Sheirff and the judge, all of whom want to know exactly why this needs to be served as a 'no-knock'.

Trust me, "Because we want to" is not acceptable PC for a 'no-knock' to any one of the above, not to mention all three of them.

The standard is enough PC to cause a reasonable man to believe that serving the warrant by any means other than 'no-knock' would cause an unacceptable risk to officers or citizens, such PC including (but not limited to):

• Previous behavior and history;
• Verifiable threats towards himself, officers, or others and the means to carry out those threats;
• Observable behavior; and
• Any and everything else that would cause a Reasonable Man to believe that the suspect is a greater than normal danger.

In practice, I can get a search or arrest warrant with one, maybe two pages of PC. For a 'no-knock', we're talking four pages, plus another four pages of appended information.

LawDog

 

[taliv]

Lawdog, if some LEO "no knocks" the wrong house (or the right house for that matter), and gets shot, what does the citizen get charged with?

i mean, if it's dark, and all a reasonable man sees is a sillouette with a gun charging into his house, wouldn't that be self defense?

after you kick in the door, do you start shouting "sherriff"? how would a reasonable man, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, know that he wasn't shooting at a criminal intruder?

do you usually go in with a large group?

 

[LawDog]

Part 3.

Now that we've got a fuzzy picture on the relationship between a 'no knock' and a 'knock-and-announce' where does the dynamic entry fit into that?

A dynamic entry doesn't require a sign-off by the judge (around here, YMMV), however it does have to pass a Reasonable Man check by the DA and the Sheriff. In other words, we're not going to serve this one by way of a dynamic entry just because we want to -- we've got to get approval for a dynamic entry from the Sheriff or Chief Deputy.

As a point-of-fact, the majority of dynamic entry arrest warrants around here become dynamic entry because the Sheriff or Chief Deputy has ordered the officers to upgrade to a dynamic entry due to prior experiences with the subject.

To summarize: a 'no-knock' warrant requires a sign-off by a judge and the DA and the Sheriff, and takes a hell of a lot more PC.

A 'knock-and-announce' served by way of a dynamic entry requires the blessing of an ADA, the judge, good PC, a valid reason to upgrade, and a sign-off by the Sheriff or Chief Deputy.

A 'knock-and-announce' with no door breaking can be done at anytime, with the blessing of an ADA and a judge, and good PC.

LawDog

 

[taliv]

and does the county pay for the damage done to doors?

 

[LawDog]

Taliv, I honestly don't know. I've been in Law Enforcment since 1993 and of the 'no-knock' warrants I've served nobody has done more than twitch before I, or my team, had them under control.

This includes a dynamic entry on a mentally-disturbed man sitting asleep in a chair with a pistol in his lap 20 feet down a hall ninety degrees left from the door I kicked in.

In order for what you postulate to occur, two very bad things have to go wrong at the same time: 1)We have to be so careless that we get the wrong house to begin with. Given the care with which we dot the 'I's' and cross the 'T's as we approach this kind of warrant, I would hope that this would be impossible.
2) We would have to be so gormless as to allow the subject to awaken, orientate, locate his weapon, and deploy his weapon before we contact him. I'll quit if we even come close to getting that sloppy.

LawDog

 

[Jeff White]

RileyMC asked;

Who decides if a warrant will be served ‘no-knock’ with or without ‘dynamic entry’? What factors/criteria go into that decision? How is the decision related to the resources of the particular department/agency, or it’s desire to justify budgetary allowances for SWAT-like units?

The great majority of all search warrants served are knock and announce. Even if a tactical unit uses dynamic entry techniques to secure the scene and the occupants, they knock first unless they have a no knock warrant.

The officer in charge of the warrant service makes the call as to the method used to secure the scene around here. That decision is based on where the building is located, what kind of structure it is, where the contraband is located, how many people can be expected to be in the structure, if they are known to be armed etc. Any search warrant that is seeking evidence that is easily destroyed will probably be served dynamically. If it is served by a SWAT team or not is dependant on if one is available, if the officers conducting the investigation ask for one and other factors.

Contrary to what many people think, it's safer for everyone involved if a SWAT team is used to serve the warrant. The planning is usually better, the officers are used to working together and they have access to the right equipment. Many warrant services are done by ad hoc groups of officers, often from multiple agencies because that's all the manpower that is available.

SWAT teams aren't usually used to justify their budget in the eyes of the beancounters. Unless an agency has a full time unit, it normally costs a lot of overtime money to use the SWAT team. Because of that, rather then being overused to justify their cost, they are often not used enough because they cost so much.

I would guess that perhaps a thousand or more search warrants are served everyday nationwide. Usually only the ones that go wrong make the news.

Jeff

 

[Art Eatman]

Which says it comes down to training of the officers and the integrity of a local law enforcement establishment as to warrants and methods. We can see by the daily newspapers that most cities and counties do not have problems with training and ethics: There's a general absence of reporting of Bad Happenings.

For perspective: In just one borough of New York City, Queens IIRC, there are over 4,000 felony arrests per year. If you extend this to the many other very-large municipal areas that are in the U.S., it becomes rather obvious that Bad Happenings are indeed rare. The rarity is what makes them news.

Art

 

[F4GIB]

I've heard the theory and I've heard the anecdotes, and I'll concede that it's safer for the police officers involved, but ...

Question 3 Are there any studies or other evidence that dynamic entries reduce the number of non-police "participants" injured or killed as a result of police action in (a) serving search warrants, (b) executing arrest warrants, and (c) hostage situations?
Please identify the study, state the findings, and supply the URL.

[Comment. I suspect there is a big difference between the safety results to the non-police persons involved in these three situations. Almost all the innocent civilian injuries and deaths that were referred to in the closed thread occured during search warrant service. IIRC dynamic entry was invented to deal with hostage situations (the FBI has a "Hostage Rescue Team" that has never actually rescued a hostage, I'm told) and gradually extended to more and more instances.]

 

[beerslurpy]

I thought about it a bit more a work today. I dont think even a radical libertarian like myself has anything against uniformed police arresting suspects- it is how due process has to work.

I realized that my main objection is that I just dont like not being able to tell if an intruder is a cop or a criminal. When an armed man with a ski mask kicks in my front door at 4:00am, I dont want a choice between surrendering to a potential homicidal maniac or shooting a potential cop. And of course I dont want to get shot either. Not exactly win-win. Unless youre a lawyer.

As a Florida CCW holder I really dont like the idea that I am one paid informant away from experiencing such treatment myself, despite no wrongdoing on my part. It is pretty damn disturbing.

I realize this isnt represetnative of how police behave, but I really have to wonder how often things like this happen. On average, how many dynamic entries does a department do each year? How many result in deaths/maimings/injuries on one side or the other? How many turn out to be mistakes?

 

[Beren]

Beerslurpy and I share some concerns. Now, I understand that the chances a no-knock warrant are ever served on me, mistakenly or otherwise, are roughly the same or less than my getting struck by lightning. But what can I reasonably do, if anything, to further lessen the possibility?

The local police know I have applied to register NFA firearms. The Sheriff knows I have a carry permit. The state police have a "purchase registry" showing what firearms I bought retail. So, local law enforcement knows that I am an "armed individual." Worse, I'm armed with nasty black AR-15s which can punch right through body armor lower than Level III.

I've thought of telling my local police chief (I've talked to him a few times, like when I brought my Form 1 in for a sig) that if there's ever any question about me or God forbid a warrant, just to call me and I'd happily come down to the station to talk. But even having that conversation would probably make me seem a paranoid loon and therefore even more of a potential risk. It's a no-win situation!

So, in the end, all I can do is hope that the local SWAT guys are well-trained and can take me down before I reach any weapons. If they can do so, my chances of survival are high.

 

[Balog]

Kinda weird to hear about this in a civilian context. As an 0351 I'm tasked with using demo in dynamic entries vs hajjis. I'm more used to using frags than flashbangs; concern for killing innocents is of course present but it's not paramount.

Nothing to do with the discussion, really. Just makes me glad the stuff I do is only vs BG's of the Iraqi variety. Scary to think of this being done vs citizens, even the nasty ones.

 

[silverlance]

a thought

after reading all you've written, I thought about my own house. I have multiple security measures - alarm, dog, tripwire alarm, driveway IR sensor alarm, single easy-entry path (my garage is bolted on both doors, my glass sliding is secured by bars and is also double locked on patio and inside as well as tripwired)...

and I've come to the conclusion that in my effort to not be a victim I might come across as a very well prepared escaped felon, drug dealer, etc.

So..

I made a sign that reads:

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
You are WELCOME.
-BUT-
This house is ALARMED & SECURED.
(Please announce yourself before you enter
so there are no misunderstandings)

There is no illegal activity in this house.

I wish I could paint, but for now I'll laminate this thing and hang it up outside where it'll be seen. That way, on the ultra-rare occurance that someone f-ups royally and I'm put in the situation the earlier poster described, I'll at least have that much in my defense if I shoot first or that much in my offense if I get shot.

 

[GRB]

Law Dog,

While I agree on lots of things you said about the essence of a dynamic entry (every entry I make on a felony issue is a dynamic entry to some extent) I cannot agree, in fact I strongly disagree that arresting someone in their home is better than taking them outside their home. This is a mistake many younger officers/agents make and I am not saying you are young because many older ones believe this too. it just is not so. One of the best times to arrest a subject is when the subject has just left their home (in a city situation such as an apartment building) or after a subject has arrived at a known location on his daily routine. The reason for not arresting a subject in his home is primarily safety. Sure their are wall which YOU THINK YOU CAN SAFELY HIDE BEHIND but which may well be booby trapped. There are lots of potential pitfalls and the home is known to the bad guy, not to you unless you really did some great homework (and if the homeowner has not changed the layout). The home is where multiple weapons can be stashed, multiple booby traps can be set, multiple escape routes can be planned well in advance, multiple pit bulls can be loosed upon you, where other family members or gang members may reside and act as back-up for the bad guy. It is his or her turf. You are at a major disadvantage in the home of a bad guy. That is a fact despite the fact that we are often left little to no choice as where to target an arrest. Add to that that higher ups love arrests in homes because of the potential for big seizures and there is more incentive to do it therein.

The thing is though if you choose a location away from home, you take away much of strengths of the castle from the lord of the manner. You leave a bad guy fairly undefended if you are patient enough to surveil him long enough to develop his or her routine. Of course as I said earlier, we do not always have the liberty of doing it away from the home (even just outside can be away enough), but it actually is safer if done under well controlled conditions because you are in control as opposed to the bad guy (and please remember I am talking about a well planned and effected arrest plan). You take the initiative by arresting him at the time and place of your choosing. If he does not show up, wait till tomorrow. If not again, then go to his home or do some more surveillance. You arrest him as he heads into the dry cleaner, or as he heads for his car coming out of a supermarket with lots of packages (first having disabled the car), or as he goes for a jog, or at the barber shop, or just after he leaves his home. There are often (not all the time) lots of options that can be as safe or safer than in his home. You have lots of other officers in place behind good cover (not plasterboard or sheet rock). You set the traps for the bad guy, not the other way around. You have the perimeter controlled too to avoid potential unintended variables from getting in the way and so on. You have much more an element of surprise if you do it this way and have planned well. Sure something can go wrong with an outside arrest but so too can it inside. It is more likely to go wrong where the bad guy has the advantage over you before you even begin – as would be the case with a knock and enter entry. I don’t know what doors you have “kicked” in, as you say but; I can assure you that doors I have come up against on operations of this nature have often been reinforced and take minutes to open with entry tools, sometimes even with hydraulics. In that time a bad guy can have armed himself to the teeth. Maybe it is just a big city area thing where people have strong doors but man they have em. All the element of surprise goes right down the toilet. Arrest him as he jogs the home stretch and is pooped, or when he is totally immersed in some other action and away from his own element and, see the difference.


All the best,
Glenn B

 

[taliv]

In order for what you postulate to occur, two very bad things have to go wrong at the same time: 1)We have to be so careless that we get the wrong house to begin with. Given the care with which we dot the 'I's' and cross the 'T's as we approach this kind of warrant, I would hope that this would be impossible.

Lawdog, I appreciate that and totally support you. I was just curious, with basically the same concerns, as I'm sure you guessed, as Beren and beerslurpy, and like beren, the sherriff has signed my class 3 paperwork, and I hang out with all the LEOs in the local gun shop every day. So odds of a "mistake" are quite low. I'm not that concerned.

However, i can't help wondering how it would work in my circumstances. i have a 3-story house, almost completely alarmed, with three dogs. Odds of anyone getting to my bedroom before i'm coherent and well-armed are quite slim.

Since my house is hardly unique, I assumed you'd encountered armed, prepared suspects before, through no fault of your own (i.e. sloppyness).

The point isn't tactics or anything. It just seems like a lot could go wrong. Glad it hasn't.

 

[Jeff White]

F4GIB asked;

Question 3 Are there any studies or other evidence that dynamic entries reduce the number of non-police "participants" injured or killed as a result of police action in (a) serving search warrants, (b) executing arrest warrants, and (c) hostage situations?
Please identify the study, state the findings, and supply the URL.

Off the top of my head, I don't know, but I'll do a little research at work tomorrow night and see if I can come up with an answer for you.

I will tell you that every operation is planned so that having to shoot someone is a last resort. I will also tell you that unlike a military operation that would continue until the objective was seized, a police operation is planned differently and it's not uncommon for a dynamic entry and clearing of a structure to change to an operation to deal with a barricaded suspect if armed resistance is met. Regardless what you might read or hear in the media or on a website, no police officer wants to have to shoot someone. The people that have been shot during these operations almost always placed the officer in a position that he had to shoot because there wasn't time to back out and start negotiations, the officer would have been shot first. Yes, there have been instances where people have been accidentally shot, but they are the very rare exception. In most cases it's been a training problem, not anything that was malicious. As long as we rely on human beings to do that kind of work, those instances will happen. They are tragic, but quite frankly very rare.

beerslurpy said;

I realized that my main objection is that I just dont like not being able to tell if an intruder is a cop or a criminal. When an armed man with a ski mask kicks in my front door at 4:00am, I dont want a choice between surrendering to a potential homicidal maniac or shooting a potential cop. And of course I dont want to get shot either. Not exactly win-win. Unless youre a lawyer.

If you don't engage in the kind of illegal activity that would cause the police to visit your home in this manner or allow those who do to reside with you, the chances of an armed intruder breaking into your home in the wee hours of the morning being the police are virtually nil. In fact, the chances of an armed intruder breaking into your home at all are pretty slim. I'm not saying that you should live in condition white, but most home invasion robberies are criminals ripping off other criminals or well organized gangs preying on people they know keep valuables in the home. And I mean things like large amounts of cash, jewelry, art work etc.

Get the Uniform Crime Report for your city and see what kind of crimes routinely happen where you live. Check and see how many home invasion robberies happened in the entire state of Florida in the last couple years. Then do a little research into how many victims were people like yourself. You might find that there are more dangerous threats out there.

As a Florida CCW holder I really dont like the idea that I am one paid informant away from experiencing such treatment myself, despite no wrongdoing on my part. It is pretty damn disturbing.

If you aren't involved in any wrongdoing, the chances of that happening are almost zero. Another popular internet myth is that search warrants are routinely obtained on just the word of a criminal informant. That's not true. There have been many court decisions (we've even discussed some of them here at THR) that state that the informant's information has to be reliable. Did you know that when a confidential informant is used to make a controlled buy that (around here anyway) he's thoroughly searched to make certain he has no contraband on him, once the search is done, he's given marked bills with which to buy the contraband and is never out of sight of his handler until he is let off at the place he makes the deal. He's usually observed and often videotaped making the transaction, then he leaves, meets up with the handler and is searched again to make sure he gives up all the evidence. Usually a CI has to make more then one buy from a suspect before a warrant is even applied for. So if you don't deal in contraband, the chances of a paid informant setting you up are pretty slim.

As for the part about getting more careful treatment because you have a CCW, yes, you most likely will. With the kind of evidence it takes to establish probable cause for a warrant, everyone will be pretty much convinced that your CCW background check didn't prove that you are a good guy. Believe it or not, it's for everyone's safety. The police want to arrest bad guys not kill them.

Beren,
My comments to beerslurpy apply to you and everyone else. If you don't do the kinds of things that get the wrong kind of attention from the police or hang around with those that do you have little to worry about. The great majority of citizens have no contact with the police except for watching a marked squad car drive by. The great majority of those that do have contact with the police, do so because they are the victim of a crime, or are involved in a traffic accident or commit a minor violation like a traffic offense or the neighbor complains about their dog barking.

I once read a report that said only about 3% of the population were involved in serious criminal activity. For the most part, that's who we deal with.

Jeff

 

[chopinbloc]

i concur with beerslurpy and beren. lawdog, i'm willing to bet your department has NEVER served a warrant, no knock or otherwise on the wrong house. it also sounds like you guys get the job done safely every time. that's great. but because human beings are involved, mistakes do happen. i have read of cases where a warrant was served on the wrong house and the occupant was wasted trying to defend themselves. there are also cases where bad information leads to a warrant seved badly on the right house. (see here) i understand the difference between knock and no-knock, but often times a dynamic entry after waiting 30 seconds is about the same for the occupant of the house. it is my contention that NO evidence is worth human life unless we are talking "it puts the lotion in the basket" kind of evidence.

here's a question for you, since this is the strategies and tactics forum: you, as a civilian wake at 0 dark thirty to a loud crash followed by indistinct shouts. would you secure your defensive arm and hole up in a safe place with your family? what if you clearly heard the shouts as "police search warrant"? any reason crooks can't shout the same thing as they smash and grab? i'm sure it isn't common, but would you bet your life on it? should an honest citizen be put in that situation in the first place? my "family" includes myself and my s/o. if i were in that situation i would probably grab my pistol and cellphone and push her off the other side of the bed. the officers would be greeted by a light about as bright as their own and a naked man wielding a pistol. i would be shot dead.

my concern is that as these tactics gain popularity and public acceptance, eventually "mistakes" might happen to political undesirables or other undesirables. please understand that i'm sure no one here is arguing the occasional necessity of no-nock warrants or dynamic entries but that many people are critical of the fact that they are often allowed simply to preserve evidence.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

and Condition White people will, I swear to God, wander between four officers with guns drawn facing down a critter who also has a gun drawn

I've seen this happen, personally, and it blew me away. High speed chase came by my shop a few months ago, involving three agencies and at least 15 cruisers. As the chase went by, some idiot in a Jeep Cherokee drove through a green light RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE CHASE! Then he stopped, looked around, and his expression said: "But I had the green light!"

I swear...

 

[carebear]

I pretty much said my piece over on t'other thread. But it boils down to the fact I have a problem with the idea the whole burden is being put on Joe Citizen to (for example):

not have large amounts of cash or valuables or live how they choose

not, unawares to them, be associated in some way with real bad guys (they don't actually wear black hats and many have real lives outside of crime)

not have an address with a one number difference from the real bad guy and have a cop too lazy or rushed to check

NOT resist what could very reasonably be a random home invasion using fairly common "act like cops" tactics on the off chance a police oficer might be hurt.

Just as the military chooses to step into the line to take the rounds for the citizenry, so too the police by definition should accept more risk than Joe Citizen. It's part of the job.

The truth may sting, but just one innocent homeowner killed unintentionally is far worse than one cop hurt in the line of duty.

 

[Zak Smith]

Here is a post I wrote on another forum, in a different thread, in response to a LEO I respect (a DA as it happens). Some of the references might not make sense, and you might want to substitute "dynamic entry" for "no-knock"--

Regardless of whether or not no-knock warrants are allowed by the Fourth Amendment, they are a bad idea because when a mistake is made, both the victims and the police are morally and legally justified in using deadly force against each other. That is a lethal contradiction.

If I am a law-abiding citizen, I have no reason to believe I'll be no-knocked. I know criminals do home invasions and sometimes dress up like police. If my home is invaded at o-dark-thirty with crashing, yelling, and apparent gunshots, I therefore assume that it is a criminal home invasion, which must be defended with immediate and deadly force.

If the invaders are criminals, then defense is the right choice. If the invaders are police, then submission is most likely the right choice (agents of the government will argue as much, anyway). By executing a no-knock raid, you have put me in a Catch-22. Since I am law-abiding, I assume criminals are more likely and I defend myself.

You say that criminals like to talk big, but don't have the will to kill a bunch of officers. I'll agree since I have basically no experience with them. The whole point of thinking about self-defense and training is to have that will when you need to defense yourself. In Cooper's book "Principles of Personal Defense", he emphasizes the moral indignation one should feel when attacked and harness that feeling into an anger and will to win. This is diametrically opposed to "tend to chicken out and do what the nice safety officer is telling them to do" and more like "The true willing will inflict massive and decisive damage [...] -- only we won't know it's "officer friendly."

As the WY sheriff who taught part of our CCW class said "The right to self-defense always exists - even if it a city that is attacking you." I think that covers it from a moral perspective. From the legal perspective John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 said, "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." -- In other words, lethal force is legally justified against illegal arrest.

By design, no-knock warrants intend to surprise their victims when they are most vulnerable and in "condition white" They further attempt to confuse and disorient them with explosives and other devices such as 120 lumen lights to make accurate perception and judgement by the victim impossible. This fact alone refutes the inevitable reply that the victims should be able to recognize their assailents as agents of the state and comply. There is no time.

When a mistake is made, the only salvation is that a raid executed by professionals ought to completely surprise its victims before they have time to act. But your dogs might have been pre-emptively "hushed", your kittens stomped, or your wife caused to miscarry. You might get an apology afterwards, but I wouldn't put odds on it.

This post might be vaguely offensive to some. Too bad. It does not come close to expressing my offense and rage that no-knocks enable the possibility that I could, through no fault of my own, be put in a situation in which the best personal outcome I could hope for would be to kill a bunch of cops.

 

[Jeff White]

I have to ask if some of you walk around worried a metorite is going to fall from space and hit you in the head? Do you really think that mistakes happen that often?

Carebear, how common is the dress like the police home invasion ruse? How many examples of it can you find where it wasn't drug dealers ripping each other off? How's your google-fu?

For that matter, how common are home invasion robberies at all?

chopinbloc, if we ever get to the point where it's acceptable to do mistakes at the homes of political undesirables, we'll have much bigger problems then this.

If, after reading all the checks ad balances that go into this, you still feel like you're going to be put into a situation where you'll be in the shootout of your life with the local SWAT team, I suggest you all get busy electing representatives who will change the law. We're not going to fix it here.

Jeff

 

[Warren]

Suppose unknown to you the house is fortified.

What if you hit the door and bounce off?

This would give the occupants time to react, yes?

I'm sure this has rarely if ever happened but I am curious as to what your next move would be.

Another Q: Imagine that there is a wall or fence that you have to breach before you could get to the door. What do you do about that? It seems that would blow your suprise.

And what about dogs? Or, geese? (see Rome: history of)

Has there ever been an incident where upon entry a team could not move due to the conditions in the house? Like trash or dis-repair. What happens if the lead guy falls through the rotten floor?

I know these Qs are wacky but they are stuff I've been wondering about for a while now.