No knocks - Murder or Self-Defense if Officer Is Killed in Raid?
- Thread starter Doc8404
- Start date
@thewheels
.308 Win
From the article:
“Our argument,” Ms. Renken said, “is that but for his illegal operation, our deputies would never have been there.”
Right. Because snagging the suspect anywhere else would have been against department policy?
“Our argument,” Ms. Renken said, “is that but for his illegal operation, our deputies would never have been there.”
Right. Because snagging the suspect anywhere else would have been against department policy?
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Waco 
S
stuck in ny
Guest
Shoot first. ID intruders later.
Toecutter
.308 Win
Self defence . The police escalated the situation to violence as they love to do and a man lost his life over 4 ounces of weed. Moreover the judge needs to be checked for signing a warrent on the word of a junkie with no other evidence? War on drugs keep up the good work. This shit need to end.
Jsmegs77
.308 Win
In almost all situations, I have a huge problem with no-knocks. There may be valid use cases, and I'm not LE, but from a citizen's point of view, they're rare edge cases at best. It seems to me to be so loaded with liability issues (mistaken identity, wrong house or apartment number just for starters), not to mention the officer safety, that I'm surprised it's even considered...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
The article is definitely bias. Like werevit said only an ounce of coke was recovered. It doesn’t say how much was flushed down the toilet. That’s a big reason for no knock on drug dens. Unlike a gun or a knife or even counterfeit money, it is too easy to flush the evidence.
Officer safety on a no knock is also a consideration. Sometimes it’s safer so the bad guy doesn’t get a chance to set up hid ambush which they often do. They often claim they didn’t know it was the police even when the lookout runs in just before the door is hit
Officer safety on a no knock is also a consideration. Sometimes it’s safer so the bad guy doesn’t get a chance to set up hid ambush which they often do. They often claim they didn’t know it was the police even when the lookout runs in just before the door is hit
The small town example is clearly an extreme case, one that shouldn't have happened. Unfortunately a lot of “yokel” departments get too excited when they have a chance to actually play cop.
Like everything else with policing, only the big screw ups like these get attention. No-knock warrants are an important tool for officer AND perp safety. Hitting the wrong door has nothing to do with the no-knock aspect.
Like everything else with policing, only the big screw ups like these get attention. No-knock warrants are an important tool for officer AND perp safety. Hitting the wrong door has nothing to do with the no-knock aspect.
I would venture a guess when houses start to explode because the battering ram activated the detonator the no knock raids will stop.
HighlandLofts
6.5 Creedmoor
If th eff are going to do a no-knock they better be damn sure they get the right house or apartment and think is their life worth the risk involved.
I any one kicks my door in they will be meet with deadly force unless I were involved in some illegal.act.
But to have my door kicked in because of their guck.up.it would be self defense.
If I were conducting some illegal crimes and shot them when they kicked my door in, then it would be murder.
___________________________________
They did a no-knock.out here about fifteen years ago, it didn't go to good for them.
They had the right apartment in a housing development, but the wrong building.
There was a single mom that lived there and had a slumber party for her young daughter(about 7 years old) they were all sleeping in the living room.when they kicked the door in, she got up to protect the kids and they shot her in her neck.and killed her.
They said it was an honest mistake, my fucking ass. Get you information correct and have it rechecked to be 100% positive you are hitting the right place.
Sorry doesn't do shit when a innocent person gets killed because of a police raid fuck up.
I'm all for the police, but when they fuck.up they need to be held responsible just like our elected officials in office.
I any one kicks my door in they will be meet with deadly force unless I were involved in some illegal.act.
But to have my door kicked in because of their guck.up.it would be self defense.
If I were conducting some illegal crimes and shot them when they kicked my door in, then it would be murder.
___________________________________
They did a no-knock.out here about fifteen years ago, it didn't go to good for them.
They had the right apartment in a housing development, but the wrong building.
There was a single mom that lived there and had a slumber party for her young daughter(about 7 years old) they were all sleeping in the living room.when they kicked the door in, she got up to protect the kids and they shot her in her neck.and killed her.
They said it was an honest mistake, my fucking ass. Get you information correct and have it rechecked to be 100% positive you are hitting the right place.
Sorry doesn't do shit when a innocent person gets killed because of a police raid fuck up.
I'm all for the police, but when they fuck.up they need to be held responsible just like our elected officials in office.
GunXpatriot
.40 S&W
I think as a preface, it should be noted that in many situations, it could technically be "legal" to resist arrest, fight an officer, even kill them if the situation was unlawful in the first place.
On the other hand, SCOTUS has given law enforcement a lot of leeway when it comes to "good faith" - the relevant case is US v. Leon (1984), just looked it up. This can happen when it comes to, let's say, a warrant that the officers believed to be valid at that particular point, even if it was not. Or, in a "reasonable" mistake of address, collecting evidence the wrong house and still having it be admissible.
Question is, who considers what is "reasonable"? I think there are a lot of judges who are too pro-police. But that isn't their job. In fact, a judge's job is really to be as skeptical of police activity as possible. Remember, each branch acts as a check on the other(s). Judicial checking the power of executive in this case.
There are situations where officers actually kill people, pets and otherwise in the wrong dwelling and actually get away with it. And it's often due to gross negligence. We're talking charges not even brought on officers who are clearly guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Remember, "good faith" only really applies to collection of evidence to my knowledge.
In theory, the resident should be 100% clear to shoot the intruders, whether they're officers or not. Especially in a stand-your-ground jurisdiction. First off, he has no idea whether they're actually police in the first place, so that's another thing worth considering.
In practice? He's likely screwed...
I think it's less of a question of whether it's justified or not. Which I think it should be.
But consider whether officers who do screw up... Who actually kill people in the wrong residence, due to negligence, are being held accountable...
Despite the situation with the dallas cop shooting her neighbor, and my admitting that it's a mistake that I think probably was a mistake rather than out of malice, I still believe she needs to be held accountable for her negligence...
Claims by Dallas Officer Who Killed Man in His Own Home Raise New Questions
On the other hand, SCOTUS has given law enforcement a lot of leeway when it comes to "good faith" - the relevant case is US v. Leon (1984), just looked it up. This can happen when it comes to, let's say, a warrant that the officers believed to be valid at that particular point, even if it was not. Or, in a "reasonable" mistake of address, collecting evidence the wrong house and still having it be admissible.
Question is, who considers what is "reasonable"? I think there are a lot of judges who are too pro-police. But that isn't their job. In fact, a judge's job is really to be as skeptical of police activity as possible. Remember, each branch acts as a check on the other(s). Judicial checking the power of executive in this case.
There are situations where officers actually kill people, pets and otherwise in the wrong dwelling and actually get away with it. And it's often due to gross negligence. We're talking charges not even brought on officers who are clearly guilty of criminally negligent homicide. Remember, "good faith" only really applies to collection of evidence to my knowledge.
In theory, the resident should be 100% clear to shoot the intruders, whether they're officers or not. Especially in a stand-your-ground jurisdiction. First off, he has no idea whether they're actually police in the first place, so that's another thing worth considering.
In practice? He's likely screwed...
I think it's less of a question of whether it's justified or not. Which I think it should be.
But consider whether officers who do screw up... Who actually kill people in the wrong residence, due to negligence, are being held accountable...
Despite the situation with the dallas cop shooting her neighbor, and my admitting that it's a mistake that I think probably was a mistake rather than out of malice, I still believe she needs to be held accountable for her negligence...
Claims by Dallas Officer Who Killed Man in His Own Home Raise New Questions
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
All that could be avoided by making drugs legal.
Notwithstanding my point above, there are other ways to apprehend a suspect without having to bust down the front door and quote unquote "risk officer safety."
GunXpatriot
.40 S&W
Agree with both, but do you really think that legalizing coke would be a net positive on society? I'm not so sure... Although cocaine is much less destructive and addicting as compared to other "hard drugs", but I'd still be hesitant to say it's worth it.
I mean arguably, medicinal marijuana is already basically legal in most states through use of CBD oil, which is the compound in marijuana that actually has medicinal properties. Although it's been argued that THC acts as a catalyst to the medicinal effects of CBD, but it can be 20:1 for example, so still very small amounts of THC.
My only issue with this is that I think most potheads lie about medicinal marijuana because they just want to get high, and not because they actually care about the industrial applications of these plants.
I think that should be within their right, but I can't respect the fact that they're lying for an agenda, and that goes for basically any issue.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
legalize it all .. kids are eating tide pod and who know what else .. tv show 1001 ways to die .. lets smoke everything we can .. well they smoked poison ivy .. DEAD ..
legalize it all ... let there family member deal with it and the morgue can sort it out ... crap the Justice System and FUAC just keeps releasing them anyways ..
are Liberals a net positive on society? LOL ..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I think the negatives of cocaine being illegal far outweigh the negatives of it being legal.
Because cocaine and other hard drugs are illegal, you fight an endless war against them. It creates organized crime and everything that comes along with it. Legalizing drugs along with gambling and prostitution would decimate that organized crime. It would save manpower, time, money, and lives if you no longer had to fight it. You wouldn't need the amount of law enforcement you currently have to fight it. The prisons wouldn't be packed.
It's worked in many countries.
Let the people do what they want to do and let natural selection work.
I don't see why a law abiding citizen should be prosecuted for shooting an invader in percieved self defense because law enforcement screwed up and busted in the wrong door. It's a big mistake with potentially dire consequences for all parties involved, the responsibility should be borne by whoever had oversight of the raid.
GunXpatriot
.40 S&W
Well sure, but what about the externalities of legalizing crack, meth, heroin and so on? The addiction, increased crime rate that comes with it, and the inevitable forced payment by government (the taxpayers) to treat the addictions to drugs we decided to legalize... I want to believe that most people are fairly smart, and that anyone who REALLY wants to use those drugs is already using them...
But then I turn on the news everyday and realize that people are pretty stupid. I just see the potential risk as costing a hell of a lot more on society than just legalizing weed for example.
GunXpatriot
.40 S&W
Oh absolutely, I think weed would be a huge attack on gangs and drug cartels to the point of really screwing them. Which is great by me. And I also happen to think that prostitution should be legal, at least in the way they do it in Nevada.
On the other hand, what would prices need to be for buying these legally? For example, I think that if being able to buy these puts an increased risk on society, they'll need to be taxed accordingly. What I mean by that is... Let's say we legalize heroin. I would argue that we now need to tax heroin to the extent that it would act as insurance for the externalities that come with addiction. Drug treatment, crime prevention (theft and so on).
Now by that logic one could argue that I'm calling for insurance on gun owners. I'm not. I think there is a huge difference between the near-absolute externalities of someone being a drug addict, as opposed to the rarity of a gun owner committing a crime with it.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
An armed populace would deter those addicts from committing crimes. As an example, you don't see many addicts robbing cops. You can also make robbery and burglary crimes extremely harsh. You'd have the room in prisons to house them since they wouldn't be full of gangbangers and dealers anymore.
I say focus on the major 4 crimes. Rape, murder, robbery, and burglary. It shouldn't matter if those crimes are committed by druggies or not. Focus on eliminating those crimes. Give the people the power to stop those crimes and those crimes wouldn't be an issue.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
if the Justice dept and FUAC would stop freeing them ..
crime with drugs .. GITMO .. bye bye long time ..
crime with gun ( with all gun laws repealed ) .. GITMO .. bye bye long time ..
years ago in the late 80's kids were popping R12 Freon cans in there cars to get a buzz .. DEAD ..
stop making me and others pay for bad choices for someone else ..
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
If you tax them too high, that opens up the black market again. Let the people do what they want. Like I said, natural selection would take care of them.
GunXpatriot
.40 S&W
Shoot, yeah that was my original point about having to tax it too much, but I totally forgot haha
GunXpatriot
.40 S&W
So on putting people in prison for possessing small amounts, I think that's stupid. On the other hand, it's worth noting that a significant amount people doing time for "possession" were actually plead down from distribution.
And again going back to the externalities, don't you think there's at least some increased amount of liability to distributing highly addictive substances that lead to addiction and crime, like I was talking about? At least in comparison to simple possession of the substance for use?
GunXpatriot
.40 S&W
Sounds good, but like I said, I fear that it may end up being a net negative to society (and therefore us the taxpayer) due to increased crime of a ton of crackheads running around.
See, it would be great to have a bunch of androids on an island try all this out and see how it works, but unfortunately it's hard to know exactly what will happen. We can only speculate, and remember that we're talking MASSIVE changes to our society. We just don't know. Things could be great, or the country could burn to the ground within a few years.
Would the risk of that change warrant trying it? I don't think it can be answered with a positive "yes".
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
People that have an addictive personality, and not much willpower, are going to find things to get them high and addicted to it regardless of legality.
If we at least legalized recreational drug use, the hope would be we could ensure people aren't lacing / padding their drugs with other chemicals to lower their black market costs. We might actually save some lives that way.
Also, I really do not give a damn what people do in their personal lives. The government needs to get out of life coach or nanny, and stay in the role infra building, protecting the country, and preventing violent crimes where possible.
If we at least legalized recreational drug use, the hope would be we could ensure people aren't lacing / padding their drugs with other chemicals to lower their black market costs. We might actually save some lives that way.
Also, I really do not give a damn what people do in their personal lives. The government needs to get out of life coach or nanny, and stay in the role infra building, protecting the country, and preventing violent crimes where possible.
On the fence about this...imo no knocks should be limited to the most egregious of violent criminals with triple checks in place not stupid shit where a judge just lets them off anyway.
Back on topic... I’d just like to point out that both of the examples given in the article where directed at the correct person and location, and both persons were in fact committing the accused crimes.
While both seem like overkill, I don’t see how the first guy got off on self-defense.
While both seem like overkill, I don’t see how the first guy got off on self-defense.
speedkills27
6.5 Creedmoor
so
sounds like the defense lawyer made a good case to the grand jury about how the police failed to clearly identify themselves, and placed enough doubt on whether a no knock was even warranted. 2 good officers lost their lives for 4 oz of weed and some "cocaine residue" seems like a huge loss to me, for that reason Id argue the war on drugs is extremely relevant to this thread. The first perp, "trailer guy", didnt even have a violent history. Why not just pick him up in a neutral space?
Last edited:
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Make drugs legal and then how then will.they get a
