Gwendolyn: robbiex0r: Really Really hope this goes to the Supreme Court. Time to realize the war on drugs isn't make anybody safer.

No but it's making police departments rich. That was the point to begin with I thought.

And jails and prisons and funds our court systems, and lots of other correlaries. FBI, DEA, etc. Helps provide revunue for cities that don't want to raise taxes, but need the money. It's all about money, it has nothing to do with protecting us from ourselves.

It makes me wonder about the following hypothetical:

if a government official breaks into someone's house in order to plant a secret microphone or camera (which has been authorized by the court), and the homeowner shoots the official, is it assault/murder?

slayer199: You might want to check out the case of Cory Maye. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted him a new trial.

Yeah, but not only is it unclear whether he'll be acquitted this time around, he's still been rotting in jail for almost TEN YEARS. And he didn't do ANYTHING wrong, there isn't even any questionable-possibly-planted-evidence, nothing. Open and shut case.

Oznog: Azlefty: I really hope this goes to SCOTUS. Current no knocks are actually more dangerous to the officers! all they do is insure a better chance of finding evidence in drug cases!

Smacking the door with your palm and yelling "police, search warrant" and then knocking the door in while repeatedly screaming "police, search warrant" is a lot safer than playing police ninja and just knocking the door in like a home invader!

A good friend is the Under Sheriff of an AZ county, they only time the do a no knock is when there is a possibility of Hostages. The rest if they make the flush oh well they will get them next time! This could be why the last officer that died in the line of duty was killed in a auto accident!

It's not really "safer". If the police knock on the door and wait for you politely, someone could arm themselves. Few people carry a loaded firearm at their side while in the can, so total surprise does act in the officer's favor. And suspects fleeing out the back or flushing pot down the toilet also acts against the officer's interest. People disappear into individual rooms with locked doors and you don't know which rooms are thusly occupied and this complicated matters. That's why they want this jackboot tactic; it works.

The difficulty in allowing this excuse is that it's hard to disprove what a person believed at the time. Thus it could be used as a carte blanche to shoot officers who catch you by surprise.

Unless they have hostages, or are some mafia overlord, they are going to leave their house at some point, you can arrest them then.

Azlefty: all they do is insure a better chance of finding evidence in drug cases!

No they don't. Anyone who has a large enough quantity of drugs on the premises to have a No-knock warrant issued couldn't possibly dispose such an amount in the time it takes police to announce themselves and enter.

The 'disposal of evidence' excuse for these raids is utter nonsense - just an excuse for cops to play army and bang down the doors of minorities (and often enough, wrong addresses).

The War on (some) Drugs has nearly collapsed our system of justice, while helping no one save the criminals it enriches.

slayer199: You might want to check out the case of Cory Maye. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted him a new trial.

Thanks for the link. You might want to learn that when adding a link to your post, the little link symbol with the arrow means open link in new window, which is preferred by most people.

slayer199: Gwendolyn: Holy shiat that's awful. The guy thinks some crazy people are breaking in so he runs to his kid's bedroom to protect her and ends up with the death penalty.

If you read the details (read the Radley Balko article on Reason.com), it's worse. The cop that was killed was the son of the Chief of Police. There were no details as to how he got the warrant to search the duplex next door. I'm not the first to cry foul when it comes to cops, but this most certainly looked like a case of Southern Justice. The entire case stinks to high heaven.

Link?

So, what do you suppose the guy did to get a no-knock warrant issued in the first place?

/TFA had too many words and not enough pictures

"Mere factual innocence is no reason to overturn a death sentence properly reached."



Scalia's gonna jizz himself while writing the opinion affirming this decision if writs are granted

Its not Fair, and he's not Jolly.

/got nothin'

Looks like someone doesn't understand the benefit of killing the intruder. You have a ripe opportunity to dispose of the material identifying the deceased as a police officer, and can then argue that he was illegally executing a warrant, thus making it an illegal entry and a legal defensive action.

howdoibegin: slayer199: DamnYankees: You didn't answer the question. The Castle doctrine does not let you simply murder trespassers.

Depends on the state. In my state, if someone breaks in I can use deadly force.

Actually, you can't (always). Let's say the police knock on the door to serve a search warrant. You try and avoid it by not answering the door. They break the door down. They're on your property. You shoot them. Clearly, that is illegal. In effect, you *always* have to at least have *some* idea of who you are shooting at. You can't just shoot nilly willy because you think it *could* be a criminal.

Actually you always can, whether or not it's legal is up for lawyerly types to debate. As Oznog said, if someone comes busting down your door at 2am you're not going to sit down and have a pow-wow to determine who they are. If they have ill intent you're already farked by that point. Even if they are yelling police it's no guarantee they are the police. Nobody have ever impersonated the police...and police have never robbed or burgalarized anyone.

No one is asking the right question if they are evaluating this case. What they should be asking is whether the defendant is a minority? Only then can we evaluate whether criminal liability is deserved.

In other news, people get charged with "assaulting a police officer" because they have the effrontery to strike said officer's fist with their face. Cops are scum. There are no "good cops" because they don't stop the bad ones, or stand up against BS like this. We'd be better off without them.

Wow, well that's just farked up.

Snargi: slayer199: You might want to check out the case of Cory Maye. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted him a new trial.

Thanks for the link. You might want to learn that when adding a link to your post, the little link symbol with the arrow means open link in new window, which is preferred by most people.

CrazyCracka420: Gwendolyn: robbiex0r: Really Really hope this goes to the Supreme Court. Time to realize the war on drugs isn't make anybody safer.

No but it's making police departments rich. That was the point to begin with I thought.

And jails and prisons and funds our court systems, and lots of other correlaries. FBI, DEA, etc. Helps provide revunue for cities that don't want to raise taxes, but need the money. It's all about money, it has nothing to do with protecting us from ourselves.

Just got my property tax bill, my city of 50,000 spends 10 million on the PD. Does that sound right?

/first time home owner

The cops know the job when they take, it and know the risks of kicking in doors.

That said, who is the victim here?

At the risk of being called a crazed militant, some helpful info to protect against forced entry and home invasion.

1: Don't depend on the chintzy standard door lock and deadbolt. They're only held in place by unreinforced soft wood in most places. Upgrade your jam to steel. If you can (renting, whatever) get a security door stop/jam, they're less than $20.

2: Robbers can dress up like cops. If you are going to shoot, make sure you can stop the threat. Most body armor is rated to stop anything that you can reasonably fire from a pistol or shotguns. Most hunting rifle rounds will go through those vests. A milsurp M-1 Garand can be bought for $500-900 (depending on grade, but they all shoot) from the Civilian Marksmanship Program (new window) and delivered to your door. It is a semi auto rifle that can be reasonably handled by most adults, and many adolescents, and holds eight rounds of 30-06. Commercial ammo runs about a buck a round, but you can get milsurp from the same place for about half that, and it shoots just fine.

3: The M-1 Garand, to my knowledge, is legal in every state in the US, including CA.

Duh. You know they're police once they shoot your dog.

Oh, it's illegal to shoot a cop? Really? What a fabulous, sophisticated country we reside in.

Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

It is also this man's moral obligation to escape and kill everybody involved with putting him behind bars.

tricycleracer: slayer199: DamnYankees: You didn't answer the question. The Castle doctrine does not let you simply murder trespassers.

Depends on the state. In my state, if someone breaks in I can use deadly force.

Hell, in Florida you can kill anyone you feel is a threat.



The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

* It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

* In any other place where a person "has a right to be," that person has "no duty to retreat" if attacked and may "meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

* In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

* If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

This is why I'm always polite when visiting Montana. I always knock very loudly before entering a friend's home there. I always wait for them to open the door. Self preservation > expedience in some cases.

EdNortonsTwin: The cops know the job when they take, it and know the risks of kicking in doors.

That said, who is the victim here?

The comma, the comma is the victim here.

HotWingConspiracy: Oooh, which side do the conservatives pick?

A fair question, but it can also be asked which side the liberals will pick. Here we have cops -- the supposedly thuggish enforcers of racist, capitalist hegemony -- in conflict with armed homeowners who are probably just redneck Republican NRA members and shouldn't be allowed to have guns to begin with. You can see how easily the accusation of hypocrisy can be inverted.

What both conservatives and liberals need to realize, and soon, is that the ever- expanding power of the State over individual citizens is a threat to everyone, whatever your political orientation may be.

Hey, cops.
You'll still be dead.

Do the reasonable thing and knock on my door.
You'll find we both breathe easier if you do.

Welcome to your banana republic, Amurika!

Rincewind53: Relevant portion of the actual ruling:

"Under the trial court's interpretation of the statute, the term "reasonably believes" and, thus, the reasonable belief standard,[3] in the introductory clause of the statute applies only to an actor's perception of the amount of force necessary to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry or attack; consequently, the entry or attack itself must have been in fact unlawful, regardless of what a defendant might have believed, in order for the statute to apply. Therefore, because Deputy Whitehead's entry was not unlawful, the trial court never considered whether the defendants were justified in using "force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm" ("deadly force") under subsections (1), (2), or (3)."

Basically, you're allowed to shoot to kill if you feel threatened, but only if the entry into your home is unlawful. The police have no burden to announce themselves to prevent being shot at, because their entry is by definition lawful and the statue only applies to defense against "unlawful" entries.

How farked up is that?

Now, if they're busting down the wrong door, i.e. the warrant says 'unit 1, 123 street' and they're kicking down the door of unit 2, 123 street, is it still lawful entry?

dudemanbro: This drug war bullshiat's got to end. Police should never be able to execute a no-knock warrant unless someone's life is in immediate danger.

evidently, someone's life was in imminent danger... the now deceased cop.

ha-ha-guy: MurphyMurphy: It's called government monopoly on use of force.

It's very very real and it's why we feel like we are in a police state.


What's sad is the government has a monopoly on force and they use it like a moron. I have my military training, various semi automatic weapons and three large dogs but the county cops have the full on paramilitary gear, a freaking refitted M113 APC and a pair of helicopters. Plus of course flash bangs, teargas, etc. There is absolutely no reason they can't easily lay siege to a house. The guys in close are protected by the tank and they can have sharpshooters on the heli and further back.

Yes it costs a little more and is annoying since you have to spend some time talking the guy into coming out with his hands up, but its better than kicking down the wrong door and scaring the crap out of some little old lady and killing her dogs. If you drive the tank onto the wrong lawn its humiliating, but its better than blasting down the wrong door and killing people.

Or instead of acting like a military organization they could do some actual police work. Police work might include such things as monitoring the suspect and arresting him when he is vulnerable.

Allowing the militarization of our police force is a big part of the problem.

Military tactics and Police tactics should almost never overlap.

vudukungfu: Hey, cops.
You'll still be dead.

Do the reasonable thing and knock on my door.
You'll find we both breathe easier if you do.

FTFY

Well, maybe next time they'll knock.

That is farking ridiculous.

Ever think about how great the world would be if we didn't have a war on drugs? Because let's be honest, 99% of the time that's the reason the police do these raids.

What happens if we legalize all drugs - like all of them, even the really bad ones? Whatever you think the world would be like with legal drugs, is that world better or worse than the world where the police randomly stop you, search you without consent or a warrant, confiscate your money if you happen to be carrying cash, break down your door if they think you've got drugs - and everybody calls them heroes because they keep children safe from drugs.

pudding7: clutchman1971: Someone breaks my door down and enters my house unnanounced, im going to shoot first and ask questions later.

End of story.

But before you do any shooting and asking of questions, make sure you get 911 on the phone and express how scared you are that the people kicking in the door are going to hurt/kill you and your family. Sound scared and make sure they get it all recorded.

"Oh shiat, they're gonna kill us. I think they're gonna kill my kids! Oh, lawdy lawdy, they're going to kill us, so I guess I better shoot the shiat out of them first!"

/mostly serious

You wouldn't have time. It takes 2 seconds to kick in a door. A cop with one of those door breaking rams would be in your house in half a second.

Smeggy Smurf: It is also this man's moral obligation to escape and kill everybody involved with putting him behind bars.

*blinks*

Damn homey, you're hard core.

I think no-knock warrants are incredibly dangerous, but for a bizarre reason.

You see, my husband, while a very brave and dedicated man who would sooner die than see his family threatened or his civil rights infringed...well, he just doesn't happen to like guns. He doesn't mind that I like them, but he does not care to use them himself, and as such, he has Other Ideas about home defense.

Unfortunately for the rare, tragically unlucky cop who might, conceivably, confuse our modest suburban abode with that of a drug suspect and attempt to enter using a no-knock warrant, my husband is an engineer. He likes to make things and to design...well, systems for home defense. His favorite weapons are electric shocks, powered blades and frangible projectiles. He loves automation, especially in security, considering our family and friends will all know the system is there and in a state of constant improvement.

He's also a great believer in CCTV cameras, stream-to-web video and offsite archiving.

So yeah. Unless the public is willing to run the risk of YouTube or LiveLeak showing an officer being run through the automatic Cuisinart of a security system before we have a chance to disable it, I think no-knock warrants should be rethought as a strategy for catching drug offenders.

/and yes, it's a terrible idea, having what amounts to a KillBot bouncer, but so far, there are no laws against one
//but if I get to decorate, he gets his KillBot. S'only fair.
///I can't be the only woman who married a mad scientist

alltandubh: What both conservatives and liberals need to realize, and soon, is that the ever- expanding power of the State over individual citizens is a threat to everyone, whatever your political orientation may be.

Agreed, the problem is each side fails to see the expansion of government power that they support for what it is... Most people of all political backgrounds more or less don't give a crap about what others do provided it doesn't impact them and want to be left alone; unfortunately those are not the types of people that become involved in politics.

bush: slayer199: Gwendolyn: Holy shiat that's awful. The guy thinks some crazy people are breaking in so he runs to his kid's bedroom to protect her and ends up with the death penalty.

If you read the details (read the Radley Balko article on Reason.com), it's worse. The cop that was killed was the son of the Chief of Police. There were no details as to how he got the warrant to search the duplex next door. I'm not the first to cry foul when it comes to cops, but this most certainly looked like a case of Southern Justice. The entire case stinks to high heaven.

Link?

Reason on Cory Maye.

Oznog: It's not really "safer". If the police knock on the door and wait for you politely, someone could arm themselves. Few people carry a loaded firearm at their side while in the can, so total surprise does act in the officer's favor. And suspects fleeing out the back or flushing pot down the toilet also acts against the officer's interest. People disappear into individual rooms with locked doors and you don't know which rooms are thusly occupied and this complicated matters. That's why they want this jackboot tactic; it works.

The difficulty in allowing this excuse is that it's hard to disprove what a person believed at the time. Thus it could be used as a carte blanche to shoot officers who catch you by surprise.

It's not a wait politely thing, it's an announce you are officers of the law, then mash down the door. This immediately creates a necessary atmosphere of both their lawful authority and for you to make sure you aren't currently keeping your hands suspiciously in your pockets (pants) when they enter. Loosing evidence is preferable to losing life. Losing a suspect is the same balance.

If an officer surprises you with a gun, without identifying them self as an officer, and you can't identify them as such visually, I would recommend defending yourself. Officers control the environment and means by which they approach a suspect, they should ensure that their authority is clearly identifiable before approaching.

DamnYankees: You can't just kill anyone you think it breaking into your home

The hell I can't.

TheCenturion: Rincewind53: Relevant portion of the actual ruling:

"Under the trial court's interpretation of the statute, the term "reasonably believes" and, thus, the reasonable belief standard,[3] in the introductory clause of the statute applies only to an actor's perception of the amount of force necessary to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry or attack; consequently, the entry or attack itself must have been in fact unlawful, regardless of what a defendant might have believed, in order for the statute to apply. Therefore, because Deputy Whitehead's entry was not unlawful, the trial court never considered whether the defendants were justified in using "force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm" ("deadly force") under subsections (1), (2), or (3)."

Basically, you're allowed to shoot to kill if you feel threatened, but only if the entry into your home is unlawful. The police have no burden to announce themselves to prevent being shot at, because their entry is by definition lawful and the statue only applies to defense against "unlawful" entries.

How farked up is that?

Now, if they're busting down the wrong door, i.e. the warrant says 'unit 1, 123 street' and they're kicking down the door of unit 2, 123 street, is it still lawful entry?

I know this is gonna sound like CSB of a CSB and all, but that just happened to my wife's hairdresser's husband this year. They busted in, he came downstairs but nekkid (I don't judge other people's sleeping habits) and he ended up shot in the side. It was just a graze, the docs stitched his sorry ass up and sent him home, but it cost the city a pretty penny.

He was over at our house a week later for BBQ. It was a bit awkward as the wife works for dispatch for county so there were a few deputies munchin on ribs here at the time.

Couple plates of ribs and he figured out sheriffs aren't city police and all was well.