Officers shoot and kill man in his home during raid

[Hmac]

Blackstone's formulation, and the presumption of innocence seem to be at high risk in the practical execution of no-knock warrants…

People misunderstand how presumption of innocence works. It is applied to the courts, where the state must prove your guilt, instead of you needing to prove you didn't do it. You get to sit in the courtroom and basically say, "show me what you got,"

Law enforcement investigations provide evidence for trial. They don't prosecute cases.


"Presumed innocent" is NOT a law enforcement standard. That sounds evil on its face, doesn't it? It's not.

Our standards are reasonable suspicion and probable cause. You're not too likely to hear those terms at trial.

I agree with an earlier point you made...the ultimate fault lies with the judges that are signing off on these things. Perhaps too casual, without clear understanding of the overall competence of the agency that will be executing the warrant.

Over the years I have been on many, many "no-knock" warrants. No one ever got hurt, never a wrong address, all conducted with the utmost professionalism. The one I remember most clearly was the one where we set an explosive charge on the door, which failed. After then hitting the door (front door of a trailer home) several times with a ram, the occupant finally opened the door and said "can I help you?" In the meantime, his wife was in the bathroom in the process of flushing the methamphetamine down the toilet.

[OldmanFCSA]

And if it was a trailer home, why didn't someone crawl under to disconnect the sewer hose so evidence could be collected after flushing. Easy to do, before the assault on door began.

[Hmac]

And if it was a trailer home, why didn't someone crawl under to disconnect the sewer hose so evidence could be collected after flushing. Easy to do, before the assault on door began.

We've done that before but I don't know or remember why it wasn't done in this case. That was outside my purview. These mobile homes in this particular mobile home park were all skirted and I suspect that your suggestion is easier said than done. Had the warrant gone as planned, even the secondary plan, it would have been unnecessary.

[jshuberg]

The fact that no-knock warrants make it easier, more convenient, or more effective for law enforcement to do their job is an absolutely unconvincing argument. By the same argument eliminating the need for probable cause would be more convenient for law enforcement. By the same argument eliminating the need for a search warrant would be more convenient for law enforcement. By the same argument eliminating the need for recognizing miranda rights would be more convenient for law enforcement.

We as a society do not look to what is most convenient, effective, or even necessarily most safe for law enforcement when determining the balance between the rights of the people, and the powers of law enforcement. The rights of the people should prevail, and if that places a burden on law enforcement, so long as there still exists a reasonable means for them to engage in their duties, that burden on law enforcement does serve the greater good of the society.

When we look to law enforcement to set their own standards by which they operate, an unapologetic police state is the certain outcome. If the judiciary refuses to restrict the practice in the issuance of warrants, then the state legislature must step in, as they have done in Utah, and restrict the practice. No authority can be relied upon to self-restrict the exercise of their powers in deference to the public good, and this includes law enforcement. At some point, every authority will look to their own self interests, and unless they are restrained from doing so, the rights of the public will be violated whenever they don't align with the interests of the authority.

[Spartan]

wow an exciting thought provoking discussion involving the use of logic and the art of argumentation ...
.. FINALLY ...
. and I missed it ... just home from hunting Hoggs

[jshuberg]

The one I remember most clearly was the one where we set an explosive charge on the door, which failed. After then hitting the door (front door of a trailer home) several times with a ram, the occupant finally opened the door and said "can I help you?" In the meantime, his wife was in the bathroom in the process of flushing the methamphetamine down the toilet.

Are you suggesting that protecting physical evidence is sufficient justification for the police to escalate the level of violence? That the potential loss of evidence justified the introduction of explosives into an otherwise peaceful encounter?

Again, I do believe there is a time and place for these kinds of tactics. But I believe that the escalation of violence by law enforcement should be restricted to situations where a real and demonstrable risk of great bodily harm or death exists.

[greenfarmer]

When these "no knock warrants" are issued, do you have a right as a permit holder or otherwise to shoot to kill?

In the class, they say, if you feel you are in danger of loss of life, or that someone could inflict great bodily harm upon you, that first you need to try to retreat, and if that's not possible, you have the right to protect yourself.

So with that being said, the moment that an explosion goes off, and your home is breached. With the sound of an explosion and people rushing your house, does that mean if you fear for your life, you have every right to shoot first and ask questions later?

I'm asking because I know what's on my record, and there's nothing there to warrant anything. Unless they want to come after me for the speeding ticket I had in 2010, that was paid for. But if by mistake someone would break into my house, I know how I would react and what I would do. Because they are putting my life in danger. So, is the local DA going to walk up to those LEO's family and explain his mistake and that's why there are families without husbands, and children without fathers because I was protecting myself and my family?

[Hmac]

Are you suggesting that protecting physical evidence is sufficient justification for the police to escalate the level of violence? That the potential loss of evidence justified the introduction of explosives into an otherwise peaceful encounter?

Preservation of evidence is one reason why such warrants are sought and approved, but I didn't suggest anything one way or the other for you to be outraged at me about. Tactical decisions on any given warrant weren't part of my job.

[jshuberg]

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=48974

It's been known for at least 20 years that when police execute a no-knock warrant, that they create the situation where the suspect or another occupant might shoot and kill a law enforcement officer or federal agent in justifiable self defense. Multiple juries have found this to be the case, the earliest that I recollect were the surviving Branch Davidians who were found not guilty in the deaths of ATF agents during the initial raid in Waco, TX. They were found not guilty for reasons of self defense, and one juror stated to the San Antonio Express-News, "When we heard all that testimony, there was no way we could find them guilty of murder." He added that "We felt provocation was pretty evident. When the firestorm started, everybody was trying to cover their behinds...I thought two agents in plain clothes should have gone in there and knocked on the door (to issue warrants)".

The fact this is even more of a common practice today simply boggles the mind.

[jshuberg]

Preservation of evidence is one reason why such warrants are sought and approved, but I didn't suggest anything one way or the other for you to be outraged about. Tactical decisions on any given warrant weren't part of my job.

I am outraged. Not at you specifically, but at the practice itself and how commonplace it's become.

This is an area where the public needs to become more informed, and our lawmakers petitioned to correct. With all due respect to the LEOs on the forum, this is not a tool I want you to have at your disposal for anything other than extraordinary circumstances. Because a no-knock can and often has resulted in unnecessary death and damage to property, the least amount of force and violence should be utilized when executing a warrant.

[tman]

Because a no-knock can and often has resulted in unnecessary death and damage to property, the least amount of force and violence should be utilized when executing a warrant.

I dispute the assertion that it's often. It's like the instances of school shootings. Highly publicized but infrequent.


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

[Randygmn]

The fact that no-knock warrants make it easier, more convenient, or more effective for law enforcement to do their job is an absolutely unconvincing argument. By the same argument eliminating the need for probable cause would be more convenient for law enforcement. By the same argument eliminating the need for a search warrant would be more convenient for law enforcement. By the same argument eliminating the need for recognizing miranda rights would be more convenient for law enforcement.

We as a society do not look to what is most convenient, effective, or even necessarily most safe for law enforcement when determining the balance between the rights of the people, and the powers of law enforcement. The rights of the people should prevail, and if that places a burden on law enforcement, so long as there still exists a reasonable means for them to engage in their duties, that burden on law enforcement does serve the greater good of the society.

When we look to law enforcement to set their own standards by which they operate, an unapologetic police state is the certain outcome. If the judiciary refuses to restrict the practice in the issuance of warrants, then the state legislature must step in, as they have done in Utah, and restrict the practice. No authority can be relied upon to self-restrict the exercise of their powers in deference to the public good, and this includes law enforcement. At some point, every authority will look to their own self interests, and unless they are restrained from doing so, the rights of the public will be violated whenever they don't align with the interests of the authority.

This is an excellent post. Nothing more to be said, IMO.

No-knocks should only be issued for violent criminal suspects. Period. And law enforcement, along with the city should bear ALL the liability should a raid occur at a wrong address. Also, in these particular instances, there shouldn't be any prosecution should a homeowner shoot in self defense.

[bensdad]

No-knocks should only be issued for violent criminal suspects.

... when we fully admit that law enforcement (in these circumstances) treat us like military adversaries rather than like American citizens. Same tactics, same load-out, same gear, same mind-set, same training... same result (dead folks on both sides of the door).

It looks on the Kato map like cops are dying at a rate similar to innocents. I'm surprised they still want to do this.

[Evad]

When these "no knock warrants" are issued, do you have a right as a permit holder or otherwise to shoot to kill?

A permit isn't needed in your own home. So you have lots of homeowners with guns who don't know the law outside of their home. They know someone blew their door in and they are scared.

I dispute the assertion that it's often. It's like the instances of school shootings. Highly publicized but infrequent.


Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

I hope this is correct. I'd rather they are never used, but if your analogy is right...it makes me feel a little better. I wonder if we can get statistics on the granting of these.

[Hmac]

I hope this is correct. I'd rather they are never used, but if your analogy is right...it makes me feel a little better. I wonder if we can get statistics on the granting of these.

The Cato Institute estimates that there are currently 40,000 no-knock warrants issued every year, up from 3,000/year in 1891. They've compiled an interactive map that relates all botched SWAT raids since 1985.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap