You’ve maintained this perspective through this entire thread. Is it really so hard to understand that in reality there are shades of grey, as opposed to your over-simplified black and white view, and that is why people are concerned?
Okay, gotcha. I still question this, as the odds, as a law abiding citizen, of me being subject to a legitimate police raid are small enough that they might be competitive with a home invader scenario in terms of chances. In any case, my point was that yelling “POLICE!” is not, in itself, conclusively meaningful.
Fair enough - I didn’t try to misrepresent you, I just didn’t want to go digging through the whole thread, so I was going on memory.
I would rather it be that police did not put themselves in such a situation that law-abiding, good people are tempted to shoot at them.
Where do you get that? Some of the quotes that have been cited haven’t been clear but none said specifically it was bought at another location. “Thanks for the crack. By the way where do you live? No reason, just asking.”
well, frankly it wasn’t me making the argument, so, no, once again you’re wrong about me pulling things out of orifices. I was just pointing out the idiocy of demanding recorded data about criminal activity not likely to have been reported to the cops. Some one else has (thoughtfully) provided a link to an occaision when the bad guys did exactly this, but got the wrong house (regular homeowners vs. the drug dealer they expected) and that crime was reported. So, it can happen, did happen and there’s not a ghost of a chance in hell that there will be data to look at for how often it happens (which is what you were demanding).
and, as some one else has mentioned - if I’m a law abiding citizen in my home, and armed men come crashing through my door, since I’m law abiding, I’m more likely to assume those loud crashing armed men are bad guys, than “gosh, it’s may be police officers mistaking me for the bad guy”.
They are not taking them at there word like you would be to any one you may be talking to. They are taking a sworn statement from a police officer. A sworn statement with all the legal weight behind it of courtroom testimony. If any intentionally false information is given to the judge either orally or in the affidavit then the officers would be charged just like someone would be if they were on the stand in a trial. Of course the testimony of the officers is the main part of the probable cause. Personal observations and information received from informants are important. I don’t know why you think that should be taken away. They might be able to get away with something like leaving out important information, but they would only be able to do it once. The judge will see to that.
Loach
Good to see you back. After our conversation over the last few days I started poking around on the net for some info on no-knock warrants and came up with something interesting. I do not doubt that no-knock raids are sometimes necessary but if you recall, my concern is that they are becoming more prevelant, more of a default position. If you check this site:
it seems to bear this out.
I’m unsure how authoritative this site is but they casually mention that since 1981, the number of no-knock raids has risen from 3000 to over 50,000. That’s a pretty substantial increase. It would seem that no-knock raids are indeed becoming more prevelant.
Regards
Testy
It’s a pretty good cite which I will take as being authoritative until I see something different. I have not seen an increase over the last 10 years in my neck of the woods but I can’t answer for the whole country. Not coincidentaly it seems to correspond with the rise of crack and meth.
Fair enough, and it may indeed have something to do with crack/meth. Prior to around that time I’d never even heard of crack aside from Richard Pryor burning himself up with the stuff in 1980. I’d heard of meth but I believe it was some different form from that commonly sold today.
As far as meth goes, I have little sympathy for makers/dealers. My wife is from Thailand and that damn stuff was an absolute scourge for a while. The recently-ousted Prime Minister got tough on it and there was a low-grade war for about a year. Most of the serious dealers wound up shot. I can’t really find fault with the Thai police over it. They were trying to arrest people that were mostly jacked-up and usually armed. In any event, my wife lost a neice to it so my sympathy for the poor meth dealers is limited.
So maybe that’s why. I would not begrudge someone a no knock warrant when trying to bust a meth dealer/manufacturer. According to the DEA stats,
http://www.dea.gov/statistics.html#arrests
the amount of meth seized in 1986 was 234 Kg and as of 2005 was 2100 Kg. This tracks fairly well with the increase on no-knock warrants.
Nevertheless, I don’t like the damn things and there has to be a better way to rid the US of crack/meth than turning our police officers into public enemies. As (I think) Shodan pointed out above, assuming the APD did everything correctly and had no choice but to shoot the old lady, and the FBI says so, . . people are still going to say there was some kind of cover-up.
Loach
In all honesty I shouldn’t bitch if I don’t have a better suggestion, and unfortunately I don’t. I do know that Thailand managed to rid themselves of meth (more-or-less) but it was extremely bloody for a while. There were rumors of summary executions by the police which is not something I think we need to copy.
Regards
Testy
I think it was Richard Pryor who said (maybe it was Rick James), “Poor people do crack, I freebase.” It’s a whole different thing although both are coke. Freebase is expensive and hard to do. Crack is cheep and easy. That’s why it spread. As the article you cite also states, the pressure to clean up the bad neighborhoods comes from those that live there. And no I don’t have a better suggestion. I wish I did.
Well, you defended the point - I thought you agreed with it.
But again, “shoot first and ask questions later” was not a successful strategy there either, unless I misremember the link.
But if all we have is anecdotal evidence, I assume you realize the number of legitimate police raids vs. clever gangstas dressing up in cop uniforms and yelling really loud before breaking down the door is probably disproportionate.
A home invader scenario where the bad guys dressed up like a SWAT team and yelled really loud before they broke in, you mean? That’s what I would think is rarer than a no-knock warrant being served.
Especially in that neighborhood, apparently. ISTM that people in black uniforms shouting POLICE!!! and breaking down the door are more likely to be police than in a lower-crime part of town.
Sure, it’s not conclusive. But the balance of probability, I would bet, is what it turned out to be - it’s The Man busting down your door, and if you refrain from shooting at them, things tend to turn out better.
Well, so would we all, but as I mentioned way back at the start of my participation in this thread, this seems to be a situation that is going to spring up in any society that has both crime and no-knock warrants. No matter what the basis for the warrant.
Assume that the War on Drugs is something we should not pursue, or at least something we should not use no-knock warrants in pursuit of. If there is ever any other crime that would justifiy a N-KW, then mistakes like this are going to happen. And not because the police are fascist pigs Amerikka sux power-to-the-people etc., etc.
Not that you are making that accusation. But it does seem to recur, especially amongst the race pimps.
Regards,
Of course if the phony cops are there to rob an illegal operation, as the pair in the Chicago incident were allegedly trying to do, who’s going to report it?
What does it matter? This wasn’t a situation where the old lady necessarily had time to identify what the police were shouting and think through the relative likelihoods of them being police vs. intruders. When confronted with danger, people react instinctively to protect themselves or their loved ones, and make snap judgements or assumptions based on their preconceived ideas and fears. If you live in a bad neighborhood, you probably worry about people breaking in and hurting or raping or killing you, even if such events are still statistically rare. Kicking down someone’s door is likely to trigger all those fears and may provoke a reaction before the person can process what you’re shouting or read the words on your jacket.
Police actions should default to minimizing the risk that people will be startled into action before they can process what is happening, unless there is compelling evidence that suspects are dangerous enough that giving warning will risk the lives of police or other civilians. Simply trying to prevent evidence disposal is not sufficient grounds to justify the risk in this type of raid, in my opinion.
Well, certainly. She was scared, and reacted by shooting three people.
It is really hard for me to clear her of all blame, and not do the same for the police. They were serving a legitimate warrant, someone started shooting at them (hitting three), and they returned fire and killed the shooter.
Maybe it is possible not to blame anyone. Excrement occurs. An old lady made a (bad) mistake, and is now dead. Maybe she isn’t to blame. But maybe the cops aren’t, either.
Regards,
Shodan
And cops don’t lie.
Has there ever been a case where a cop played fast and loose to get a search warrant and they were brought up on charges?
Really? You have an example of this, I’m sure.
The little old lady was scared, possibly for her life, and shot three people to try to defend herself. You don’t think that absolves her of blame?
The little old lady didn’t create the situation. The cops did. And if they’d made any actual effort to be sure that their kick-the-door-down raid was necessary, it’s hard to fathom that the situation the cops created would ever have existed. The 92 year old woman didn’t create this situation, she only reacted to it as best she could with the facts she had.
In general, sure. Specifically, not so much. I’d be willing to bet that I’m far more likely to be the victim of fake-cops breaking in than a legitimate no-knock police raid, as I can’t imagine doing anything that would warrant the latter. There are probably a few old ladies out there who would make the same bet.
Did this woman have any reason to expect the cops to raid her house in particular?
It wasn’t too many years ago that a co-ed in Lincoln,NE was raped, mutilated and, killed by two guys who gained her trust by claiming to be undercover police officers.
So let’s see our options here: disbelieve people in plain clothes claiming to be policemen and risk being shot dead; or believe them and risk being kidnapped, molested and then being shot dead.
:shrugs:
The cops were scared, possbily for their lives, and shot one person to try to defend themselves. You don’t think that absolves them of blame?
Of course, someone like you doesn’t think at all, so that is certainly a rhetorical question.
I would bet that I am more likely to be the subject of a no-knock raid than fake cops breaking into my house after yelling “POLICE!!!” really loud at seven o’clock in the evening, and I live in the most white-bread suburb you can imagine. I doubt that fake break-ins are much more likely to be stealthy rather than loud.
But maybe that’s just me.
Based on her neighborhood, and the fact that drugs deals apparently went down in her vicinity, it seems more likely than it might be in the 'burbs. Again, just a guess.
But that is not quite the right question. Did this woman have any reason to expect gangstas to fake being cops and break down her door in the manner described vs. being the subject of a legitimate raid? That’s a better question.
And as long as it is more likely to really be the police, then she shouldn’t be attempting to pop a cap in anyone’s ass if black-uniformed people yelling “POLICE!!” break down her door.
If a criminal busts into a house, sees the homeowner with a gun, and shoots him, you could say that he understandably shot back. Does the absolve him of blame? No, it was their fault that the situation was created.
Now, the analogy obviously isn’t very broad - there are legitimate reasons to bust into someone’s house for a warrant, while there isn’t to commit crime in that sense.
However, through negligence, bad tactics, bad policy, and bad leadership, the police can create situations that result in someone’s death that should’ve never occured. Are they automatically absolved of blame? They shouldn’t be - there should be investigations and consequences.
No one is blaming the police for firing back when fired upon. People are questioning the merits of creating that situation, which they were responsible for.
She didn’t exactly have days to debate the merits of this, maybe not even seconds. As has been discussed, the police seem to take little effort to actually disambiguate the threat they pose. With modified tactics, they could induce far fewer people who have no inclination to shoot at them to not do so.
Quote from Article: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/11/in_atlanta_some.html
Radio news reports this morning said that the victim shot only once. The other two officers were injured by either friendly fire or schrapnel. Will look for additional link.