Well, I started out arguing with Lissa and she’s so damned reasonable that I can’t seem to work myself into the appropriate spit-spraying frenzy. I’ll have to work on that.
I understand there are exceptions and wouldn’t for a moment doubt that there are some real, honest to God crazies running around and believe they should be assaulted with everything available.
As far as this saving lives goes, I’ve never seen any numbers on this one way or the other and I’d think it would be incredibly difficult to actually determine this with numbers to back it up.
OTOH, this kind of assault does seem to assume the same level of craziness on everyone’s part. After all, assuming someone isn’t being arrested for murder, the legal system isn’t going to execute them whereas shooting it out with the police is an almost guaranteed death sentence. I’d think this would be a very good argument against doing this sort of thing.
I take your point about being point, certainly. The police really need a better public image though. This is important to everyone. Ordinary people, not all of which are criminals by any means, distrust and fear the police. There is an “us vs. them” attitude on both sides that seems to be growing. This kind of assault hardens that attitude, again, on both sides.
People see police dressed and acting like a light military assault force and react poorly to it. It looks more appropriate to some third-world-hell-hole. I think distrust and fear cover it pretty well. I’m not claiming it’s a rational thing on the part of the public or that the police are acting with evil intent. It’s just the perception.
The tactic (from your posts) seems to be recommended and may be used more frequently than is actually required. My own suspicion, and that’s all it is, is that frequent use of this kind of tactic affects the attitude of the police toward others, probably in a negative way. I’d really dislike seeing this become more of a “default” method of apprehending someone.
In some ways this seems to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I do see some of your point. As for it becoming the “default” method, there is some checks and balances here. Doing a no-knock or knock then enter entry is not just a tactical decision. It is a legal decision that has to be approved by a judge. This requires an officer to present the reasons under oath. Lying under oath is against the law. Even though some posters believe in the evil motives of the police, most will not willingly or knowingly do things which will cause greater danger to themselves or others or put their jobs at risk.
I addressed that before you posted this. I don’t know if you saw that. My comment would have been justified if I had addressed it to someone who showed a callous attitude towards the lives of the police. Since wring did not do so I apologized to him. If he doesn’t accept that’s up to him.
I understand the checks-and-balances and don’t at all subscribe to the “the cops are all evil and arrogant assholes” school of thought. I’ve known too many that were just average, decent sort of people.
So, what is necessary to obtain one of these “no-knock-kick-the-door-in” kind of warrents? I would think that a reasonable suspicion of danger would be adequate.
Of course, given the armed US populace this could arguably be claimed in a lot of circumstances. A lot of people have guns and it could be argued that they were, at least potentially, a menace.
The other question is; why has this suddenly become popular? Was there a sudden increase in officer fatalities? (On a per-arrest basis) Some kind of Homeland Security fallout?
What’s the issue wrt capitals?
I at least attempt standardized usage. but am using a remote keyboard which doesn’t always cooperate (also w/spacing). if you’re talking about my user name, there’s a long, not particularly interesting story about it. I try and address folks by their chosen name, complete w/their choice of capitalization, don’t care if folks capitalize mine or not. Does that address the issue?
I don’t know if there has been any increase or if it is suddenly “popular”. It’s no different now then before 9/11 as far as I know so nothing to do with DHS.
For a no-knock warrant there is usually a specific reason to expect violence. Could be guns in the house, could be the suspect’s previous record of violent behavior or gang affiliation. Each one is a bit different. For the knock-then enter warrant there is usually more of a destroy evidence element to it, although there may be more also.
Just being a bit snippy about the capitals at the beginning of your sentences. I’m allowed to be snippy, this is the Pit after all. Of course this is coming from someone who probably has the highest typo to letter ratio on the board. Typing with one finger gets tiring.
Well, previous violent behavior and gang affiliation would be reasonable.(IMHO) OTOH, if just having guns would do it then these warrents could become much easier to get, possible too easy. Nobody would have to do any lying, just emphasize that firearms are a possibility.
As far as the popularity of these warrents goes, are there any firm stats on this? Am I concerned about something that is actually incredibly rare? I wonder what it looks like over time, increasing or decreasing?
This might make a really interesting GD if there was hard information either way.
Anyway, thanks for the info and I’ve got to hit the rack. It’s 01:14 over here. I’ll surely read anything you have to say in the morning though.
Has Lissa ever explained why her husband, The Prison Guard (or Deputy Warden, now), gets to go on police raids. In every jurisdiction I am familiar with, these are separate roles in the criminal justice system as they say on Law and Order.
Since we in the US have the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world, it can’t be that he needs the business. Frankly, it seems to me that the level of danger executing his normal job would be higher if some con recognized him from that con’s initial bust.
So, how does what is essentially a civilian from the police perspective end up busting down doors? Does he get to carry a firearm, and what statute allows it if he does? He would not be considered a sworn officer here, and would not have the training to support legitimate LEOs.
I find this whole line of involvement irregular. Bottom line: What is some wannabe doing on real arrests? What arrest power does he have if he catches some perp sneaking out the side door? Why the hell is he there in the first place.
In many jurisdictions the county police run the jails. In many cases they are sworn police officers. In many jurisdictions the county police also run warrant squads to go after wanted felons. They may also run the county drug task force. I don’t know what the story is here but it probably isn’t how you describe it.
Every state is different and many times each county runs things a bit differently. State corrections is different than county jails. Those running the county jails may be county police officers, not just guards.
I have never seen a no-knock warrant where the number one reason was not officer safety, with specific reasons for it. The cops may ask for one but the judge would knock it down to a knock then enter warrant, which is apparently the kind they had in the OP.
I believe that she has, and that it was because the raid was connected to the prison, smuggling or some such.
Dunno about where she lives, but here in Denver, jail guards are Denver County Sheriffs, and are, technically, police officers. (It’s an oddity; we have a combined city and county government, and the Denver Police (cops) work for the City of Denver, the Denver Sheriffs (guards) for the County.)
The implication I got was that it wasn’t a one shot (so to speak) deal, that he had numerous occasions as a ride along.
Yes, I understand that different jurisdictions handle things differently, hence my statement “in my jurisdiction”. I have more than a passing knowledge of the system, have worked w/offenders for nearly 30 years, visit routinely at prisons and jails, both adult and juvenile.
I, too, got the impression that this was a regular thing, and that her husband was separate from the police, since she talks about them differently. That’s why I asked.
Yes, I have addresed my husband’s involvement before, probably hundreds of times. But, I will do so again.
I know you are trying to make me angry by calling him a guard, enjoy yourself along with Catsix. The funny thing is that you are even using an outdated term which simply shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. They are called Corrections Officers, not guards. However, my husband is not, nor has he ever been, a Corrections Officer.
Now, the reason why my husband has been on raids and search warrants, including reversals, is because he used to be an investigator with the Department. Much of the crime that occurs inside of a prison is linked to external criminal elements. For example, for every illegal drug inside of a prison, there is a person who must convey it, or lend assistance in the conveyance. For every gang member in the prison, there are typically street leaders who order activities.
Thus, inherent in the job to enforce the law inside of the prison, comes a responsibility to join up in partnerships with local law enforcement, including, but not limited to, parole/probation, local police and especially the state police. My husband has helped catch potential escapees, those who have escaped, rapists, child molesters, murderers and people who choose to help convey drugs into a correctional facility. His old office, when he was in this role, was the same office as the State Police.
Thank god we have people like him, and the thousands of others, who realize a simple fact that has eluded you: Prisoners, and parolees, continue to commit crimes and talk about their crimes, even after they are incarcerated. Furthermore, these crimes effect the community by victimizing its members.
For the record, he is very enlightened about drug laws and is one of the few outspoken in his field against the War on Drugs. He lectures on the subject and has even written a book on the social construction of drug laws. Although he still argues for the prohibition of narcotics in prisons, he has long supported the notion of ending this unwinnable war. One, which he feels erodes civil liberties and increases incarceration rates by up to 30-50%. It also improperly targets the lower class by criminalizing substances that are primarily used by the lower class and continuing a tradition of criminalizing the powerless. So, he is not some jack-booted, nazi thug. He helps enforce the law that the members of this Republic create. As a public servant, he does not feel it is his right to selectively enforce the law based on his personal opinions. This is why he has been a part of execution teams even though he does not personally support the death penalty, or life without the possibility of parole or conditional release, for that matter.
His role is more limited now, but because of his roots, and the fact that he is in charge of all security in the facility, he still lends assistance when necessary. For him, it is regrettable though, that he usually bows out when it comes to serving the warrants anymore. He still has the authority to participate, but the operation and management of a prison takes higher priority, typically. Still, sometimes, he may go out in the field, but not normally.
Once again, I know your “wannabe” statement is designed to anger, but alas, facts outweigh fiction. When he did participate in these activities he was under the authority of the state police and had to follow the same rules and regulations. He had to qualify with weapons and be trained just like anyone else.
Any perpetrator, for him to be involved, must be related to an internal case. This gives them jurisdiction. The use of froce policies are established and set in law.
It is regrettable that you get your information about the Criminal Justice System, as you say, by watching “Law and Order”. Perhaps this will assist in understanding it all a little better.
Now, as for the OP. I have laid out my arguments and I have received many insults in response. That is cool, it is the pit and all. But, the focus has turned personal rather than on the subject and I am going to bow out.
In the end, I have simply called for the holding back of judgment until the facts are in. I have demonstrated how many, not all mind you, of the opinions against the police, in this case, are spurned by a hatred for the police in general. Thus, that is where I will end this debate, or pitting as it is.
As my husband has always told me, and he carries this concern with him everyday.
“I must make life and death decisions on a daily basis. I assure you, that after I make a decision that results in public attention, I will be questioned, maligned, vilified and second-guessed. I welcome being questioned, that is my job. As a public servant, I welcome it and believe that questioning authority is inherent in the maintenace of a free society. However, I remind all parties that hindsight is 20/20 and irrational hatred for anyone with authority breeds irrational assertions, jumping to conclusions and false judgments. To many of those people, I sarcastically declare, don’t let the facts get in the way- go with what you feel, it is what you intended to do in the first place.”
Why in the world should you think anyone was trying to make you angry by this? I should think that most of us who are not professionally involved would think of them as guards. Sorry if I’m not up to date on the latest jargon.