Recent NRA PPH Students: Sound Familiar?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Marc and I recently taught an NRA Basic Personal Protection in the Home course at PSC. The subject matter in the link below came up through a question from one of the students. I thought folks might find this article interesting.

I know nothing about the case, the parties, or the rather strong hint of racism being a factor in the verdict. I certainly didn't hear/see the evidence presented to the jury, so I cannot second guess their decision. The author of the post may be 100% accurate in the facts stated, or they may be totally bogus. I am posting this link solely to get people thinking about this real-world possibility.

I do find the entire tragedy very disturbing. The frequency of LEO impersonator crimes is increasing, including those committed by multiple assailant kick-burglars. Anyone could face this exact situation.

Regards,
Chas.

Here's the link (it is on PDO): http://www.theagitator.com/archives/025962.php#025962

[stevie_d_64]

I saw that over there as well...

It is extremely trouble-ing...

I think the only way to solve this issue is to remove all "no knock" warrants or need for them ever again...

I know we don't have those here...But not everyone knows that I guess...

I wonder how well those appeals are going for this person...

[Lumberjack98]

If this account is accurate, this is a horrible injustice.

[Paladin]

Watching all those SWAT shows, I had one idea that could distinguish a genuine no-knock police raid from a criminal home invasion where the criminals pretend to be police.

SWAT likes to use flash-bang grenades. I don't think the criminals have got these... so if one or more flash-bangs goes off, it's probably the police. If not, it's probably the criminals.

Just a thought

[tomneal]

I read the account on another pro-rights web page this morning.

I wonder how many "No-Knock" "SWAT Style" warents would be issued by the folks in this group, if our approval was required?


Of course not everyone agrees with my view that the "war on drugs" is really a war on the bill of rights.

[tomneal]

Aren't Flash bangs are classified as a "Less Lethal" devices?

Don't they sometimes set the house on fire?

A while back, I read an article about a black lady that died of a heart attack when SWAT used a flash bang when they raided her home by mistake.

[Paladin]

Of course not everyone agrees with my view that the "war on drugs" is really a war on the bill of rights.

Watching those SWAT shows with SWAT raid after SWAT raid against drug houses/apartments, and knowing that some other drug dealers would step up in their place... it struck me at just how hopeless the current strategy is.

[Paladin]

A while back, I read an article about a black lady that died of a heart attack when SWAT used a flash bang when they raided her home by mistake.

Here's a list of casualties. Don't know if she's on it:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/ ... ctims.html

[tomneal]

She was on the list

Her name was Alberta Spruill


You have to wonder if the war on drugs is worth even one of these lives.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There are far more innocent victims killed by junkies trying to rob someone, or committing burglaries, to get a fix than are killed by raid mistakes. I think Holland's experience with "legalizing" drugs proves it doesn't work.

Generally, I don't have a problem with the war on drugs, but I have serious concerns about "no knock" warrants (and, to a lesser degree, certain overly broad forfeiture laws). The initial justification was that drug dealers would destroy evidence, if the police had to knock before entering. The current justification seems to be both destruction of evidence and officer safety. In view of the increase in crimes committed by LEO impersonators, I think the danger to honest citizens outweigh both of those justifications, in all but very limited circumstances. Frankly, I don't buy the evidence destruction anyway. Maybe a guy with a small amount of marijuana could flush it, but a dealer with any "inventory," cash or lab equipment and supplies isn't going to be able to flush it before the raid team enters. Remember, knocking doesn’t mean the officers have wait for an invitation to enter.

I know I’m going to catch some flack for this one, but people who know me know I’m not the least bit anti-LEO! Saying something is for “officer safety� is much like saying “it’s for the children.� Anti-gunners have been using both of these lines for years and it is not a viable excuse to do anything you want.

I agree that knocking and announcing before a raid to serve a warrant may, in some cases, increase the danger to the officers by allowing those inside to arm themselves. It is reasonable to want to avoid that increased danger to the officers. However, the widespread and growing use of police badges, uniforms, raid jackets, etc. to impersonate LEO’s in order to commit violent crimes against citizens, along with increased incidents of multiple assailant attacks and home evasions, must be considered when deciding how often and under what circumstances “no knock� raids will be conducted. In years past, a homeowner could be confident that people suddenly entering their home yelling “Police� really were the police. If there was a mistake in the address, then it would be sorted out and everything would be fine. Homeowners no longer have that assurance.

Everyone agrees that citizens have the right to defend themselves from violent intruders and that police officers conducting raids have the right to defend themselves when faced with deadly force. Honest citizens and peace officers are “on the same team� and have the same goals with regard to crime prevention and apprehension of criminals. Both citizens and officers must acknowledge the risk each face and balance those risks when deciding whether and under what circumstances “no knock� raids will be conducted. No citizen wants an officer to be hurt or killed during a raid and no officer wants to see an honest citizen hurt or killed by mistake or by a LEO impersonator.

In my opinion, “no knock� raids should be conducted very rarely and only after extraordinary efforts are made to verify they have the correct address. On the rare occasions when the wrong house is entered in a “no knock� raid, if a homeowner kills one of the officers believing he was defending himself and/or his family from unlawful intrusion, then no charges should be filed against him. The agency that employed the officer should appropriately compensate the officer's estate and his family. Conversely, if an officer on the raid team shoots and kills the homeowner, he too shouldn’t be charged, so long as proper efforts were made to get the correct address and the officer reasonably believed he had to use deadly force to protect his life. However, the agency for whom the officers work should be liable in damages to the deceased’s estate and his family. Ultimately, the government should shoulder the financial risk of such a catastrophic mistake. Such scenarios, while extremely rare, are terrible and neither the homeowner nor the officers should shoulder the entire risk.

Regards,
Chas.

[flintknapper]

There are far more innocent victims killed by junkies trying to rob someone, or committing burglaries, to get a fix than are killed by raid mistakes. I think Holland's experience with "legalizing" drugs proves it doesn't work.

Generally, I don't have a problem with the war on drugs, but I have serious concerns about "no knock" warrants (and, to a lesser degree, certain overly broad forfeiture laws). The initial justification was that drug dealers would destroy evidence, if the police had to knock before entering. The current justification seems to be both destruction of evidence and officer safety. In view of the increase in crimes committed by LEO impersonators, I think the danger to honest citizens outweigh both of those justifications, in all but very limited circumstances. Frankly, I don't buy the evidence destruction anyway. Maybe a guy with a small amount of marijuana could flush it, but a dealer with any "inventory," cash or lab equipment and supplies isn't going to be able to flush it before the raid team enters. Remember, knocking doesn’t mean the officers have wait for an invitation to enter.

I know I’m going to catch some flack for this one, but people who know me know I’m not the least bit anti-LEO! Saying something is for “officer safety� is much like saying “it’s for the children.� Anti-gunners have been using both of these lines for years and it is not a viable excuse to do anything you want.

I agree that knocking and announcing before a raid to serve a warrant may, in some cases, increase the danger to the officers by allowing those inside to arm themselves. It is reasonable to want to avoid that increased danger to the officers. However, the widespread and growing use of police badges, uniforms, raid jackets, etc. to impersonate LEO’s in order to commit violent crimes against citizens, along with increased incidents of multiple assailant attacks and home evasions, must be considered when deciding how often and under what circumstances “no knock� raids will be conducted. In years past, a homeowner could be confident that people suddenly entering their home yelling “Police� really were the police. If there was a mistake in the address, then it would be sorted out and everything would be fine. Homeowners no longer have that assurance.

Everyone agrees that citizens have the right to defend themselves from violent intruders and that police officers conducting raids have the right to defend themselves when faced with deadly force. Honest citizens and peace officers are “on the same team� and have the same goals with regard to crime prevention and apprehension of criminals. Both citizens and officers must acknowledge the risk each face and balance those risks when deciding whether and under what circumstances “no knock� raids will be conducted. No citizen wants an officer to be hurt or killed during a raid and no officer wants to see an honest citizen hurt or killed by mistake or by a LEO impersonator.

In my opinion, “no knock� raids should be conducted very rarely and only after extraordinary efforts are made to verify they have the correct address. On the rare occasions when the wrong house is entered in a “no knock� raid, if a homeowner kills one of the officers believing he was defending himself and/or his family from unlawful intrusion, then no charges should be filed against him. The agency that employed the officer should appropriately compensate the officer's estate and his family. Conversely, if an officer on the raid team shoots and kills the homeowner, he too shouldn’t be charged, so long as proper efforts were made to get the correct address and the officer reasonably believed he had to use deadly force to protect his life. However, the agency for whom the officers work should be liable in damages to the deceased’s estate and his family. Ultimately, the government should shoulder the financial risk of such a catastrophic mistake. Such scenarios, while extremely rare, are terrible and neither the homeowner nor the officers should shoulder the entire risk.

Regards,
Chas.

A big +1.

Well said!

[cxm]

After a 30 year war on drugs (makes it the longest war in our history...) drugs are more available than ever and more accepted.

Reluctantly, I have concluded we have lost the war and should admit it... which leaves only one alternative... that being to legailize drugs and tax them like tobacco etc. (and no, I don't use drugs at all.) The majority of drug laws are not enforced (or enforceable) and having them simply fosters disrespect for law in general.

There is a limit to how far we should or can go in giving up our Constitutional rights in the name of hte war on drugs.

Maybe we could earmark the tax revenue from drug sales to reduce the school tax?

FWIW

Chuck

There are far more innocent victims killed by junkies trying to rob someone, or committing burglaries, to get a fix than are killed by raid mistakes. I think Holland's experience with "legalizing" drugs proves it doesn't work.

Generally, I don't have a problem with the war on drugs, but I have serious concerns about "no knock" warrants (and, to a lesser degree, certain overly broad forfeiture laws). The initial justification was that drug dealers would destroy evidence, if the police had to knock before entering. The current justification seems to be both destruction of evidence and officer safety. In view of the increase in crimes committed by LEO impersonators, I think the danger to honest citizens outweigh both of those justifications, in all but very limited circumstances. Frankly, I don't buy the evidence destruction anyway. Maybe a guy with a small amount of marijuana could flush it, but a dealer with any "inventory," cash or lab equipment and supplies isn't going to be able to flush it before the raid team enters. Remember, knocking doesn’t mean the officers have wait for an invitation to enter.

I know I’m going to catch some flack for this one, but people who know me know I’m not the least bit anti-LEO! Saying something is for “officer safety� is much like saying “it’s for the children.� Anti-gunners have been using both of these lines for years and it is not a viable excuse to do anything you want.

I agree that knocking and announcing before a raid to serve a warrant may, in some cases, increase the danger to the officers by allowing those inside to arm themselves. It is reasonable to want to avoid that increased danger to the officers. However, the widespread and growing use of police badges, uniforms, raid jackets, etc. to impersonate LEO’s in order to commit violent crimes against citizens, along with increased incidents of multiple assailant attacks and home evasions, must be considered when deciding how often and under what circumstances “no knock� raids will be conducted. In years past, a homeowner could be confident that people suddenly entering their home yelling “Police� really were the police. If there was a mistake in the address, then it would be sorted out and everything would be fine. Homeowners no longer have that assurance.

Everyone agrees that citizens have the right to defend themselves from violent intruders and that police officers conducting raids have the right to defend themselves when faced with deadly force. Honest citizens and peace officers are “on the same team� and have the same goals with regard to crime prevention and apprehension of criminals. Both citizens and officers must acknowledge the risk each face and balance those risks when deciding whether and under what circumstances “no knock� raids will be conducted. No citizen wants an officer to be hurt or killed during a raid and no officer wants to see an honest citizen hurt or killed by mistake or by a LEO impersonator.

In my opinion, “no knock� raids should be conducted very rarely and only after extraordinary efforts are made to verify they have the correct address. On the rare occasions when the wrong house is entered in a “no knock� raid, if a homeowner kills one of the officers believing he was defending himself and/or his family from unlawful intrusion, then no charges should be filed against him. The agency that employed the officer should appropriately compensate the officer's estate and his family. Conversely, if an officer on the raid team shoots and kills the homeowner, he too shouldn’t be charged, so long as proper efforts were made to get the correct address and the officer reasonably believed he had to use deadly force to protect his life. However, the agency for whom the officers work should be liable in damages to the deceased’s estate and his family. Ultimately, the government should shoulder the financial risk of such a catastrophic mistake. Such scenarios, while extremely rare, are terrible and neither the homeowner nor the officers should shoulder the entire risk.

Regards,
Chas.

[tgt_usa]

When my wife's brother was a sheriff's deputy he was often seconded by city police to help execute no-knocks. Apparently the city police noticed on more than one occassion that suspects recognized him from playing basketball. With their hands already under the cushion of the sofa, on a pistol, they'd recognize him, calm down and the search would proceed w/all participants intact.

But the stories behind the no-knocks solidified my thinking that no-knock warrants have no place in a free society. They were often based on stories told to the police as revenge on an enemy of the "informant". Certainly no citizen should ever be held criminally liable for defending their home against a violent attack; which a no-knock search is.