The Nice Men in Black Ski Masks.....
- Thread starter Justin Moore
- Start date
- Status
Edward429451
Moderator
All this seems to be making a pretty good argument for a loaded rifle and extra mags in the house. Some vermin have kevlar hides, and shotguns and pistols just wont cut it...
If you surround a house or apartment with enough officers, you have the "tactical advantage". Barging into the house is losing that advantage. The only reason for doing that would be to save the life of a hostage or preserve evidense. The second one seems dumb compared to the risks.
The state will not be bankrupted on this one...any more than with the Mena's incident up in Denver. And its not uncommon for Pueblo..especially in the Barrios for the police to behave like occupation troops. A wonderful means to mitigate any possible effectiveness they might have against crime. Reality check, in all likelyhood the LE in this incident...hit without enough evidence for a warrant..at the wrong place. (and warrants are public record..if they had one it would have turned up by now..if they get one after (now) likely it's been fabricated). The best than be said is two people were incarcerated for no reason,a woman was terrified and sickened, and a dog was kicked. If the house residents had attempted to fight this incursion...look at the woman/shotgun thread. However, the Ninja LE got some practice...there's now more reasons for the locals to distrust the PD even further...and while the LE was kicking schoolteachers dogs...no doubt Los Carnales and East Side Dukes are still freely engaging in their brand of social terror. Ninja's or Bangers what a choice...
There are pros and cons to warrant service inside a residence and outside a residence.
The pros are: walls block view of approaching officers, whereas a open parking lot or street can let the subject see; anticipate the officers and plan a (violent) response. Said response may or may not target officers, but what misses officers may hit bystanders -- especially without a wall to slow or stop a bullet.
The residence also contains the subject, giving him fewer means of exit and requiring fewer officers, whereas a parking lot or street gives the subject pratically unlimited escape routes, thus needing more officers.
A residential entry gives the officers more of a choice as to the time of warrant service, a street takedown relies heavily on the subject deciding to take a walk.
Ther are considerably fewer innocent walkthroughs inside of a house than on the street. In other words, someone who has a perfect right to wander down a street in Condition White (and may wind up a victim or a hostage) probably won't be wandering through a strangers house.
Guns are heavy. The criminals who carry guns during forays from their homes will most likely put the weapon down and wander away from it while at home.
Relaxation. Most warrant subjects are jumpy and wired while away from home, but relax once they get home. A stimulus (such as officers bearing down on the subject) which draws an immediate response away from home, draws a delayed one in the comfort of home. This keeps everyone alive.
There are other pros, but these are the ones that jump to mind at the moment.
LawDog
Thanks for that explanation, Lawdog. Clearly, it's not clear that serving a warrant away from the house is always the best thing.
I would guess institutional intertia plays into this too. "We've always done it this way." I'd bet there are cases where serving away from home WOULD be better, but it doesn't get considered because that's not how we do things!
But whatever the right or wrong of no-knock warrants, or the particulars of THIS case, it should be clear to all of us that there is a growing problem with out of control, militaristic police units. There are way too many misses. The percentage doesn't matter. And there is a severe lack of accountability.
THAT is a threat to us all.
I would guess institutional intertia plays into this too. "We've always done it this way." I'd bet there are cases where serving away from home WOULD be better, but it doesn't get considered because that's not how we do things!
But whatever the right or wrong of no-knock warrants, or the particulars of THIS case, it should be clear to all of us that there is a growing problem with out of control, militaristic police units. There are way too many misses. The percentage doesn't matter. And there is a severe lack of accountability.
THAT is a threat to us all.
"What is the purpose of a NO-Knock warrant?"
They are requested because they get a charge out of imitating GI Joe.
Don't make the mistake in thinking that most of these Darth Vader-Tactical-Commando-Walking Erections have some sort of extensive training. For the vast majority of agencies, I don't think they do.
I venture to say that there are a lot of abuses and/or screw-ups with these teams that the public does not know about.
They are requested because they get a charge out of imitating GI Joe.
Don't make the mistake in thinking that most of these Darth Vader-Tactical-Commando-Walking Erections have some sort of extensive training. For the vast majority of agencies, I don't think they do.
I venture to say that there are a lot of abuses and/or screw-ups with these teams that the public does not know about.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant
Yes, there is an advantage in safety to the officers, as compared to entry just after knocking or long after knocking. True enough that the best tactical advantage, in terms of safety, is to surround and ask for surrender, but this consumes large amounts of time/manpower/money in conducting a standoff/negotiation until surrender occurs - it simply isn't practical to utilized a technique that would result in standoffs a significantly high percentage of the time; hence the dynamic entry. That said, two points:
1. No-knock warrants, as mentioned, are flat wong IMO as well, and should never happen in our society. If I was a magistrate, I would never approve one - but they do, and the SCOTUS has OK'ed it.
2. Notwithstanding the slight tactical/safety advantage mentioned above and the excuse to gear up gestapo-style and get an adrenaline rush, the MAIN reason for them, as compared with the knock & announce a few seconds before entry, in the minds of the LEOs/LEOAs, is to PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE. They are primarily concerned with making the bust for their own glorification/justification; thus, they are primarily concerned with keeping the cocaine out of the toilet drain, which doesn't take long for the suspects to do. Ask the LEOs - that's why they do it - far and away the most important reason. They are under tremendous pressure to make a bust to further the captains career or whatever.
Bankrupting the state - mostly just an expression on my part, but good question come to think of it - obviously, taxpayers foot the bill in the long run, but if the plaintiffs obtained judgment and the state was involvent (did not have enough liquid assets to pay the claim), they certainly might seek bankruptcy protection - I know that municipalities (cities) can and do from time to time. The state's liability is limited typically under the tort claims acts of the various state, usually to 100K or 125K for negligence; hence it's usually not an issue. I'm not aware of a state which has ever filed bankruptcy, nor do I know if it is even theoretically possible, but I'm quite sure a state would try to file bankruptcy if it had claims which it was unable to pay, and had valuable needed assets being attached to satisfy them... As far as the general public policy of whether it's a good idea to hold the state accountable financially - well, it definitely is, because then the taxpayers get mad that they have to foot the bill (and rightfully so), and therefore vote out the idiots/scoundrels/nazis whose policies led to the wrongdoing. Not ideal, but something has to provide incentive to get rid of the pond scum when neeeded.
Yes, there is an advantage in safety to the officers, as compared to entry just after knocking or long after knocking. True enough that the best tactical advantage, in terms of safety, is to surround and ask for surrender, but this consumes large amounts of time/manpower/money in conducting a standoff/negotiation until surrender occurs - it simply isn't practical to utilized a technique that would result in standoffs a significantly high percentage of the time; hence the dynamic entry. That said, two points:
1. No-knock warrants, as mentioned, are flat wong IMO as well, and should never happen in our society. If I was a magistrate, I would never approve one - but they do, and the SCOTUS has OK'ed it.
2. Notwithstanding the slight tactical/safety advantage mentioned above and the excuse to gear up gestapo-style and get an adrenaline rush, the MAIN reason for them, as compared with the knock & announce a few seconds before entry, in the minds of the LEOs/LEOAs, is to PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE. They are primarily concerned with making the bust for their own glorification/justification; thus, they are primarily concerned with keeping the cocaine out of the toilet drain, which doesn't take long for the suspects to do. Ask the LEOs - that's why they do it - far and away the most important reason. They are under tremendous pressure to make a bust to further the captains career or whatever.
Bankrupting the state - mostly just an expression on my part, but good question come to think of it - obviously, taxpayers foot the bill in the long run, but if the plaintiffs obtained judgment and the state was involvent (did not have enough liquid assets to pay the claim), they certainly might seek bankruptcy protection - I know that municipalities (cities) can and do from time to time. The state's liability is limited typically under the tort claims acts of the various state, usually to 100K or 125K for negligence; hence it's usually not an issue. I'm not aware of a state which has ever filed bankruptcy, nor do I know if it is even theoretically possible, but I'm quite sure a state would try to file bankruptcy if it had claims which it was unable to pay, and had valuable needed assets being attached to satisfy them... As far as the general public policy of whether it's a good idea to hold the state accountable financially - well, it definitely is, because then the taxpayers get mad that they have to foot the bill (and rightfully so), and therefore vote out the idiots/scoundrels/nazis whose policies led to the wrongdoing. Not ideal, but something has to provide incentive to get rid of the pond scum when neeeded.
Justin Moore
New member
MOEAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
- Status