TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:As another who has made a living chasing criminals, and now studies crime in a more academic fashion, I think Excaliber put it very well indeed. They are dangerous to everyone involved and help erode public support of the police. They are also a necessary tool for specific situations, just an overused tool.

Excaliber and srothstein are two of the more level headed posters on here and I I agree with them on this. Overused is the key word. There are times when such tactics are warranted but not near as often as they are used in this day and time.

nightmare69 wrote:If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

Why not snag them when they are out and about away from their guns, or at least most of them? After you arrest the suspects then you can go search the house and seize whatever? I think the storming in by surprise is better in theory than practice.

I realize it makes for a more dramstic appearance for promoting the war on drugs and is much more exciting. I just don't think it appropriate the majority of the time it is used. Now, if I as a cop getting to use all the cool equipment and storm in like that, I may have a different opinion. I bet it is one been of an adrenaline rush.

Creates a pretty precarious situation for the mere citizen when the highly trained paramilitary assault cops show up at the wrong address.

"Officer safety" is used as a justification. I didn't say it was effective or necessary for officer safety. Many claim the element of surprise improves officer safety.

I would suspect it is dependent upon the court and judge. If they can convince the judge it will improve "officer safety" and preservation of evidence to not knock, I can see a judge granting it. Whether or not he/she should is another discussion in my opinion.

I think "officer safety" can be used to justify just about any level of action one wants to justify.

I think this is a very astute observation.

When you can't stop people in prison from getting drugs there is no way you can stop everyone on the outside from getting them.

I haven't quite thought of it in these terms and it hit home as I read it.

nightmare69 wrote:Once the police cross a threshold they identify themselves. For many deptments this applies to every room of the house.

They were coming through the window. Also, we hear of criminals impersonating cops fairly often. Who thinks a gang of thugs can't holler P O L I C E as they are breaking in to your house?

I see nothing to indicate he would have started shooting if they would have just knocked. I also didn't see anywhere that he saw people running around in full tac gear outside. I did just skim the story so I may have missed some details.

If they did indeed execute a no knock entry, he could have thought it was a home invasion.