Rand Paul introduces Justice for Breonna Taylor Act to ban "no-knock" warrants

[DoD1776]

Can’t go wrong with Rand, gotta love him!

Rand Paul introduces Justice for Breonna Taylor Act to ban "no-knock" warrants

There's now a bipartisan consensus in Congress that police reform is necessary.

www.axios.com

 

[Marine Cpl]

Good. This is overdue. I do not know how anyone who believes in their own safety in their own home cannot support this.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Way overdue.

 

[Blimey]

There have been too many incidents of police going full SWAT on people over ridiculously petty shit, so reform there absolutely is needed.

 

[meketrefe]

Everything is illegal now...

 

[Truebeliever]

No knock warrants are necessary for both to save lives and the evidence they seek. It’s that simple.
It goes beyond drugs. Imagine a recording of an incident is in the house. You don’t want to give them time to wipe it. That evidence might keep an innocent person from going to jail.
Or that drug that could be flushed down the toilet was used murder some one.
more evidence of a child porn ring that could lead to where the children are.

And let’s add terror cells to a need for a no knock.
It’s a long list of actual examples that the general public never sees.

 

[Marine Cpl]

No knock warrants are necessary for both to save lives and the evidence they seek. It’s that simple.
It goes beyond drugs. Imagine a recording of an incident is in the house. You don’t want to give them time to wipe it. That evidence might keep an innocent person from going to jail.
Or that drug that could be flushed down the toilet was used murder some one.
more evidence of a child porn ring that could lead to where the children are.

And let’s add terror cells to a need for a no knock.
It’s a long list of actual examples that the general public never sees.

When the right’s and lives of many are compromised for a recording or evidence or a drug flushed down the toilet for a few, then it’s absolutely not necessary. Especially for drugs and guns.

 

[Curmudgeon]

No knock warrants are necessary for both to save lives and the evidence they seek. It’s that simple.
It goes beyond drugs. Imagine a recording of an incident is in the house. You don’t want to give them time to wipe it. That evidence might keep an innocent person from going to jail.
Or that drug that could be flushed down the toilet was used murder some one.
more evidence of a child porn ring that could lead to where the children are.

And let’s add terror cells to a need for a no knock.
It’s a long list of actual examples that the general public never sees.

I would guess 90% of it is drug related. Victimless crime.

 

[ProgSpear]

While we’re at it, asset forfeiture (and the rampant abuse of it) should also be addressed.

 

[Truebeliever]

I would guess 90% of it is drug related. Victimless crime.

It’s not a victimless crime.

 

[Truebeliever]

While we’re at it, asset forfeiture (and the rampant abuse of it) should also be addressed.

I agree. That property should automatically be returned if they aren’t convincted. And if not evidence of a crime, it shouldn’t be taken in the first place.

 

[Curmudgeon]

It’s not a victimless crime.

How so? If I smoke weed or do a line, who's the victim?

 

[spat]

No knock warrants are necessary for both to save lives and the evidence they seek. It’s that simple.
It goes beyond drugs. Imagine a recording of an incident is in the house. You don’t want to give them time to wipe it. That evidence might keep an innocent person from going to jail.
Or that drug that could be flushed down the toilet was used murder some one.
more evidence of a child porn ring that could lead to where the children are.

And let’s add terror cells to a need for a no knock.
It’s a long list of actual examples that the general public never sees.

There are a few examples where they are necessary.

The police were given discretion to use no knock warrants rarely and only when absolutely necessary.

They have massively abused that discretion.

The costs of allowing them to continue outweigh the costs of eliminating them altogether.

For every person they save, they have destroyed 10.

 

[Saltwater60]

There are a few examples where they are necessary.

The police were given discretion to use no knock warrants rarely and only when absolutely necessary.

They have massively abused that discretion.

The costs of allowing them to continue outweigh the costs of eliminating them altogether.

For every person they save, they have destroyed 10.

I agree they shouldn’t be banned totally but only in extreme cases of very violent people or packed drug houses should they be used. In those cases the cops need to make sure no innocent parties remain in the house so only those involved in the crime are home.

 

[Celt]

Only place I see for no knocks is in true life or death scenarios, or kidnappings.

 

[spat]

I agree they shouldn’t be banned totally but only in extreme cases of very violent people or packed drug houses should they be used. In those cases the cops need to make sure no innocent parties remain in the house so only those involved in the crime are home.

That's the only times they are justified. But police have proven that they will not limit their use to those scenarios.

So, if the choice is what we've got now, or none, then I choose none. Better to let a few bad guys get away than what we've got.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Only place I see for no knocks is in true life or death scenarios, or kidnappings.

This.


No knocks are really only justified in the most extreme life and death imminent threat situations. Like .1% of their current application.

In order to get a no knock there has to be extreme and immediate risk.

Not drugs, not evidence, not an informant said_______, etc. None of that crap.

Kidnapping, terrorists etc. That's it.

 

[Saltwater60]

That's the only times they are justified. But police have proven that they will not limit their use to those scenarios.

So, if the choice is what we've got now, or none, then I choose none. Better to let a few bad guys get away than what we've got.

I fully agree. Sad everything gets abused.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I would rather see 100 drug dealers go free than 1 innocent lose their life.

I am pretty sure people have a right to life, I think it was written somewhere????

 

[ApexerER]

No knock warrants are necessary for both to save lives and the evidence they seek. It’s that simple.
It goes beyond drugs. Imagine a recording of an incident is in the house. You don’t want to give them time to wipe it. That evidence might keep an innocent person from going to jail.
Or that drug that could be flushed down the toilet was used murder some one.
more evidence of a child porn ring that could lead to where the children are.

And let’s add terror cells to a need for a no knock.
It’s a long list of actual examples that the general public never sees.

I agree with this for the most part. I really have no idea how often no knock warrants are given but I am not sure totally eliminating them is the way to go. You knock on the door with armed gang members and announce yourself it sounds like you are setting yourself up for a disaster. If you were a police officer, would you want to knock on the door if you are sure the people inside are armed and willing to shoot?

Its the same with banning choke holds....If you are fighting hand to hand with a bad guy and you get them in a choke hold waiting for back up....are you going to say...I can't choke hold so ill let him up and start over.

I;m not saying some reform isn't necessary but its all a gray area and not so black and white......

 

[SomeSoldier]

I agree with this for the most part. I really have no idea how often no knock warrants are given but I am not sure totally eliminating them is the way to go. You knock on the door with armed gang members and announce yourself it sounds like you are setting yourself up for a disaster. If you were a police officer, would you want to knock on the door if you are sure the people inside are armed and willing to shoot?

Its the same with banning choke holds....If you are fighting hand to hand with a bad guy and you get them in a choke hold waiting for back up....are you going to say...I can't choke hold so ill let him up and start over.

I;m not saying some reform isn't necessary but its all a gray area and not so black and white......

Killing innocent people is not a gray area.

 

[pjzwtl]

This case is particularly sad because it’s the result of a lack of communication and or a clerical error. The entry team was given that address it was apparently and old address and the target of the warrant was apparently already in custody.

“
Hankison and the other two officers –Sgt. Jon Mattingly and Det. Myles Cosgrove – were serving the no-knock warrant in a narcotics case involving a suspect who allegedly received packages at Taylor’s address years earlier.
The suspect had been apprehended at another location hours before the fatal shooting of Taylor, unbeknownst to the officers who opened fire on her, Crump said.”
Officer involved in EMT Breonna Taylor's shooting fired

 

[Stuckinny]

Why would the cop be fired? Why not the person who issued the warrant, or approved the warrant? Cops bust in the house, homeowner thinks it is a house invasion and shoots, cops shoot back. Both were in the right here to some extent, what was wrong was the use of this type of warrant in the first place that created this situation. If no knock warrants continue, the ones held responsible should be the ones who approved it. But I guess they are judges who can do no wrong.

 

[pjzwtl]

Why would the cop be fired? Why not the person who issued the warrant, or approved the warrant? Cops bust in the house, homeowner thinks it is a house invasion and shoots, cops shoot back. Both were in the right here to some extent, what was wrong was the use of this type of warrant in the first place that created this situation. If no knock warrants continue, the ones held responsible should be the ones who approved it. But I guess they are judges who can do no wrong.

Convenient the Mayor or Chief can’t talk about it but I’m sure the officers are being fired based on political pressure. The true blame here is administrative which is really fucked up

 

[Jsmegs77]

As mentioned above, I am not opposed to no-knocks in EXTREME circumstances. Far and away, drug offenses do not fit this criteria. There are exceptions to everything, but the use seems to be much wider than warranted.

<tangent>I do not support the assertion that drug addiction is a victimless crime however, as I have experienced the fallout from it firsthand (ex wife has been a heroin addict since 2006, hence ex). Her habit has resulted in a whole lot of collateral damage to my life and the lives of her children...I'm sure there are others but they are not my immediate concern. Here are a few, to say nothing of psychological effects...

1. Her kids have physically and materially suffered neglect and abuse, with one (that we know of) being raped repeatedly and groomed to be a sex toy for her assorted male companions, no doubt in trade for the next hit.
2. I have incurred significant cost to divorce her, only to be dragged into family court every 6 months or so (since we have a child together) following her whims. Get clean, petition for custody, fall off the wagon, lose custody, repeat. Of course, SHE doesn't pay a red cent for all this, but I sometimes feel like I'm single handedly paying my lawyer's mortgage. The court system that enables this is a cruel fucking joke, but that's another thread.
3. I have experienced significant material losses due to her misbehavior... our house, our car, my job, and my credit (EVERYONE asks me ever since if I am related to her, followed by swift denial). Thus, I cannot buy property or anything else for which I can't pay cash out of pocket.

Sore subject. I and the kids will survive, but the effects are wide and long indeed, all for someone wanting a momentary high.

 

[pjzwtl]

 

[Criticalt]

As mentioned above, I am not opposed to no-knocks in EXTREME circumstances. Far and away, drug offenses do not fit this criteria. There are exceptions to everything, but the use seems to be much wider than warranted.

<tangent>I do not support the assertion that drug addiction is a victimless crime however, as I have experienced the fallout from it firsthand (ex wife has been a heroin addict since 2006, hence ex). Her habit has resulted in a whole lot of collateral damage to my life and the lives of her children...I'm sure there are others but they are not my immediate concern. Here are a few, to say nothing of psychological effects...

1. Her kids have physically and materially suffered neglect and abuse, with one (that we know of) being raped repeatedly and groomed to be a sex toy for her assorted male companions, no doubt in trade for the next hit.
2. I have incurred significant cost to divorce her, only to be dragged into family court every 6 months or so (since we have a child together) following her whims. Get clean, petition for custody, fall off the wagon, lose custody, repeat. Of course, SHE doesn't pay a red cent for all this, but I sometimes feel like I'm single handedly paying my lawyer's mortgage. The court system that enables this is a cruel fucking joke, but that's another thread.
3. I have experienced significant material losses due to her misbehavior... our house, our car, my job, and my credit (EVERYONE asks me ever since if I am related to her, followed by swift denial). Thus, I cannot buy property or anything else for which I can't pay cash out of pocket.

Sore subject. I and the kids will survive, but the effects are wide and long indeed, all for someone wanting a momentary high.

Almost nothing bothers me more than people saying drugs are a victimless crime. This comes from people who have never dealt with junkies and dont realize the amount of murders, kidnapping, rapes, extortion and many other crimes commited directly connected to the drug trade.
Its unfathomable to hear people say this.
People who say this are usually either trolling or looking for an argument.
That is why this is one topic I wont argue or debate.

 

[spat]

Almost nothing bothers me more than people saying drugs are a victimless crime. This comes from people who have never dealt with junkies and dont realize the amount of murders, kidnapping, rapes, extortion and many other crimes commited directly connected to the drug trade.
Its unfathomable to hear people say this.
People who say this are usually either trolling or looking for an argument.
That is why this is one topic I wont argue or debate.

Drugs *are* a victimless crime.

You listed a bunch of crimes that drug users frequently commit. But none of those crimes are the drugs.

You act like the junkies would become upstanding citizens if only they hadn't smoked that first joint. That's preposterous.

You have the cause and effect exactly backwards. People who are pieces of shit are attracted to drugs, drugs do not convert honest upstanding citizens into pieces of shit.

You are trying to get rid of the standing water by killing all the mosquitoes. It works the other way around.

Lock up all the "real" criminals, and the only people left doing drugs will be the few who can manage it and still remain productive members of society.

 

[Criticalt]

Drugs *are* a victimless crime.

You listed a bunch of crimes that drug users frequently commit. But none of those crimes are the drugs.

You act like the junkies would become upstanding citizens if only they hadn't smoked that first joint. That's preposterous.

You have the cause and effect exactly backwards. People who are pieces of shit are attracted to drugs, drugs do not convert honest upstanding citizens into pieces of shit.

You are trying to get rid of the standing water by killing all the mosquitoes. It works the other way around.

Lock up all the "real" criminals, and the only people left doing drugs will be the few who can manage it and still remain productive members of society.

Talk about preposterous.
Ive lived this life for over 3 decades, you are incorrect on most points.

I have personally dealt with junkies who have done everything from robbery to prostitution for drug money.
Many of these people had ZERO issues with these crimes before drugs and ZERO issues after getting clean.
I know of dozens of users who have commited battery, assault, attepted murder....and many other crimes with little to no memory of the crimes.

Ive known people who have been assaulted and robbed due to owing money for drugs.

A guy who I now call a friend had a 30 year battle with addiction and violence he commited for drugs. He has now found religion and has transformed.

I know many people who have lost their children, lost their jobs and lost themselves 100% because of opiate addictions.

My best friends wife died of an overdose 25 years ago leaving him with 2 daughters to raise.

The only thing all of these have in common are drugs. Most of these people are not bad people, just addicts.
Also, recovering addicts often go through years of near torture fending off cravings and bad influences.

Now do we want to talk about the toxins in many street drugs that can cause lifelong brain and other physiological problems?
How about the children who lost a parent to overdose?

The use and abuse of drugs directly affect many lives leaving VICTIMS and damage along the way. Even if the user isnt a victim, the many people they hurt are absolutely victims.
The person killed when a junkie fades out behind the wheel is a victim.

VICTIM

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

 

[spat]

Talk about preposterous.
Ive lived this life for over 3 decades, you are incorrect on most points.

I have personally dealt with junkies who have done everything from robbery to prostitution for drug money.
Many of these people had ZERO issues with these crimes before drugs and ZERO issues after getting clean.
I know of dozens of users who have commited battery, assault, attepted murder....and many other crimes with little to no memory of the crimes.

Ive known people who have been assaulted and robbed due to owing money for drugs.

A guy who I now call a friend had a 30 year battle with addiction and violence he commited for drugs. He has now found religion and has transformed.

I know many people who have lost their children, lost their jobs and lost themselves 100% because of opiate addictions.

My best friends wife died of an overdose 25 years ago leaving him with 2 daughters to raise.

The only thing all of these have in common are drugs. Most of these people are not bad people, just addicts.
Also, recovering addicts often go through years of near torture fending off cravings and bad influences.

Now do we want to talk about the toxins in many street drugs that can cause lifelong brain and other physiological problems?
How about the children who lost a parent to overdose?

The use and abuse of drugs directly affect many lives leaving VICTIMS and damage along the way. Even if the user isnt a victim, the many people they hurt are absolutely victims.
The person killed when a junkie fades out behind the wheel is a victim.

VICTIM

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

Not a single one of them was the result of the drugs. Every criminal act was the responsibility of the criminal who commited it, nobody and nothing else.

You are attempting to absolve the criminal of responsibility by blaming an inanimate object.