A no-knock for pot is retarded, as judges and cops well know. You can’t “destroy the evidence” in any meaningful way before the cops execute a warrant in the normal way.
There is no information missing, you stupid, stupid, man. The whole article describes how the warrant WAS FOR THE TWITTER PARODY. And how a judge , in what I can only assume was a drug induced stupor, decided that was honky dory.
We often have a hard time believing it the first time we realize how corrupt and incompetent our justice system can be.
Sometimes, we even resist it, and complain about the people who point out the flaws.
But now that you have seen, with your own two eyes, a situation that you cannot believe would happen, does that change your mind at all?
The things that you cannot believe are true, and what your would think the issuing of the no-knock warrant tells you is untrue.
I also question whether it’s worth it.
You really ought to have enough evidence to show a judge before he issues a no-knock warrant that if you don’t get any evidence from the scene, you can still convict.
In any case, no-knocks shouldn’t be done for non-violent criminals in the first place. Kidnapping, hostages, even serial murders or rapists, if you need to surprise them do what you have to do to get them off the streets to make them safer.
Make damn sure your warrant is right. Make damn sure that everything and all procedures have been followed. Make everyone in the chain liable for any mistakes, then they all make sure that it’s all correct and necessary.
Though, to be honest, just ending the war on drugs would probably stop 90%+ of these.
I would suggest that in this case, they’ve volunteered to suffer the consequences by working for an agency that gets things wrong. It’s implied consent. If you’re willing to work then you’re willing to be shot in legitimate self defense. If you’re willing to drive, then you’re willing to be subjected to the breathalyzer. If you don’t like it, work for a department that doesn’t risk your life foolishly.
Well, if you are willing to live in a home, then you are willing to be shot by the police serving a no-knock warrant. If you don’t like it, then don’t live in places that police shoot up.
In any group of people, you will find a bell curve distribution. There will always be a few under the left end of the curve who pee in the pool and ruin it for others.
Let’s turn it around. You listed a handful of incidents and used them to declare all police as being untrustworthy. There are nearly 63 million contacts between citizens and police a year (original figure from 2011, revised 2016. PDF here.). If we take out your contacts, that leaves us with 62.8+ million contacts where the police did not run amok and slaughter people indiscriminately as you would have us believe they do. You stand a better chance of being hit by lightning (1 in 700,000) than you do of being shot by a cop.
Yes - we should trust them. Deal with it.
They do do this, and in the vast majority of cases no-one is harmed. Maybe there’s room for improvement, maybe the increases you suggest would be an expensive and pointless exercise that would make no noticeable difference.
No matter how many checks you put in place, there will be occasional mistakes.
In rare cases, yes. In the vast majority of cases, you.
No matter how occasional the mistake, you should still learn from it, and implement policies or procedures to help to prevent it in the future.
And, in how many cases did the grieving relatives see anyone at all in the police department held accountable for their loved one’s death?
Depends on the nature of the mistake. If it’s an individual making a mistake sometimes what will need to happen is for that individual to be sacked - something neither side in this argument seems to accept. On the one hand there are the unions who will fight hard to get terrible cops reinstated, and on the other the anti-police idiots here who think nothing less than a life sentence is sufficient punishment for carelessness.
My point is, and remains, that even if the police make a mistake, you don’t somehow get the right to compound that by making further mistakes, such as shooting at police officers doing their job. There is no way that should be controversial.
I don’t have statistics available, but just based on the cases mentioned in this thread, I can confidently say that some of them did.
I don’t know of any cases, at least recently, where relatives have claimed wrongful death of some sort but there’s been no investigation. There may have been a tiny number, but I would expect them to have been mentioned here already.
You shoot at people invading your home. If they happen to be police officers impersonating home invaders, then hopefully, they made damn sure they were in the right house.
Show me the affidavit that was the basis for the warrant. I don’t go by simply what the media spins about police.
How is a dark blue or black outfit easily recognizable in the dark?
Another alternative: You call them and while you are talking to one of them, the other gut shoots you and you fucking die.
Fuck Peoria.
Cops with a warrant aren’t invading. Don’t shoot them.
The whole thing is was a total clustefuck by the city, and shows government and police at their worst. If you’re trying to find something as an example of media bias against the police, this is not the incident to pick.
The city ended up settling for $125,000.