Police dont need to knock, justices say...

Page 4 of 4 First ... 234

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    If it's a legit raid and the cops are fired on then I think it is legal to fire back. We're using the word legit to mean that there are bad guys behind the door. Bad guys firing guns at the good guys will usually result in people dying.

    thats exactly what im getting at here. people are going to fire on cops that dont announce themselves. It is in the cops best interest to announce themselves BEFORE they break down the door. if cops come crashing through the door and wake someone up yelling a half hearted "cops" probably wouldnt get the job done either.

    again, do you think this 92 year old woman would have tried to blow these guys away if they had yelled and announced themselves as police? keep in mind a lot of undercover and narcotics officers arent necessarily wearing street cop uniforms. they are just asking for it.

    this BS is going to result in a lot of innocent people and cops getting killed.


    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?


  2. Jesus people, are you reading the actual law and looking at what the law was prior to the change or are you going with a gut reaction? This law was put into place to minimize risk to law enforcement prior going into a place by announcing who they were which was leading to people being able to get a chance to prepare themselves to attack the police.

    No cop in their right mind wants to die. They don't run in yelling cops in a whisper. Adrenaline is pumping and the pucker factor is +10. Anything yelled is yelled loudly.

    again, do you think this 92 year old woman would have tried to blow these guys away if they had yelled and announced themselves as police? keep in mind a lot of undercover and narcotics officers arent necessarily wearing street cop uniforms. they are just asking for it.
    This was a mistake! There were crooked cops...How many no knock warrants were served and how many situations like this? This is one story reported and it would not have been reported had the cops not been planting evidence and faking ifo to obtain warrants. Do you think a 92 year old woman would of had time to make sense of the situation to put her gun down if POLICE would of been yelled seconds before hand?

    Except for few instances like this lady who was killed, the only people this no knock policy effects are the bad guys who use the announcement to get ready. This wouldn't effect 99% of the rest of the population.
    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?
    Good guy/bad guy was a easy way to describe the scenarios...But what the hell does that statement have anything to do with anything? Innocent until proven guilty? The hell does serving a high risk/felony warrant have anything to do with innocent/guilt? Those are based off evidence of a crime to be or has been committed.

    From my living room to my front door if someone knocks on it, it takes about ~10 seconds to answer from a sitting position. If I heard COPS OPEN UP. It would probably take 15-20 because it would take a few seconds to wrap my head around the situation. My door would be off the hinges by the time I could respond. After I'm in bed it would be off the hinges before I made it down stairs. There would be no difference in my case between a no knock or knock policy.

    If anything this saves lives on both sides. If cops are at the wrong house and announce themselves I would be willing to bet that most people would get up and grab something to protect themselves with until they verified what was going on. I would rather be surprised with no time to grab a knife, gun, or object prior to them entering with guns pulled than give them a reason to fire. With multiple police, once one fire is shot then you can be sure many more shots will be fired.

    If I had illegal activities at my place with guns all over etc. then that 10 seconds could/would be spent preparing to kill the police about to come through the door they just announced at.

    Except for rare situations like the 92 YR lady who was shot to death, this is a needed protection for the police. Hell, you should want laws that help the police so they can feel a bit safer. If you have concerns maybe it should be in the process up to that point. Maybe make it mandatory to have a on duty/present Judge to sign off on the warrants versus being on call. Maybe force all these things to be video taped with no ability to edit them...Who knows but i would put more energy into making sure the cops are doing the right thing instead of taking away a technicality that did nothing but alert people they are about to arrest which door they are coming through.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    the only way your method would work would be to totally change the system freom ground up. Now i'm not saying that this would be a bad idea more than something that just wouldn't happen. Without serious reform in a lot of areas then just making drugs legal would open all kinds of worms. I think it would anyways.
    Perhaps, but to blame those worms on drugs when it's the system, and to use those worms as an excuse to keep destroying people's lives unnecessarily is something I can't abide.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?
    It went out the door with a lot of other protections in the drug war.

  5. Let's not mix up the flaws in the system with it just being about drugs. It just so happens that everything is mixed together in some form or another. You change one thing and it's possible to have a domino effect. There are things that need to be changed all the way through. Changing just one area you disagree with without examining the whole effect from top to bottom first would be the wrong way to go about it.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Let's not mix up the flaws in the system with it just being about drugs. It just so happens that everything is mixed together in some form or another. You change one thing and it's possible to have a domino effect. There are things that need to be changed all the way through. Changing just one area you disagree with without examining the whole effect from top to bottom first would be the wrong way to go about it.
    So we should keep locking up people regardless of the merit of doing so because it's just too hard to change. Good call, Jay.

    I have to make this my last post on this. I find the policy of prohibition ridiculously disgusting and consider it one of the most prominent and unbelievably stupid things in history. I can't countenance this ****, I can't believe people of any intelligence believe it's a good thing, and I can't believe you would say better to lock people up and kill a few innocents to preserve the status quo because that's what the majority wants. I find that position sickening, plain and simple.

    Prohibition is the most aggregious violation of freedom we're currently dealing with domestically. It has served as the excuse for the erosion of what are supposed to be inalienable rights. It has destroyed the lives of millions of people without cause. It is based on flawed logic, mistaken premises, and does nothing positive in the end and only leads to an unwinnable war that makes continuous work for government drones and gives the government an excuse to grab more and more power over the population as time goes on.

    It should end now. I never should have started to begin with.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Except for rare situations like the 92 YR lady who was shot to death, this is a needed protection for the police. Hell, you should want laws that help the police so they can feel a bit safer.
    from what i have seen just about anything can be legalized or justified when it comes to making the police feel safe.

    it is the reason i do not feel safe around cops, and i spent a couple hours of every day inside police stations and a prosecutors office.

    And yes i agree with the idea of videotaping, but i dont feel it changes this situation.

    btw i have seen more than one video and sat in on more than one case where a seriously injured person has been handcuffed by the cops, including mentally retarded individuals, individuals cops have just run over with a car, and a man with a broken arm in a cast.

    and now they hand cuff a 92 YEAR OLD WOMAN who has just been shot multiple times. what the eff is up with that.

    officer safety...right?

  8. heres a prime example
    http://thatvideosite.com/video/1303

    you can see at least one of the guys arms visibly snap after being run over. he cannot even move. still the cop runs over like rambo and cuffs him.

    is this right? no, it is repulsive and disgusting.

    but it is justified because of "officer safety".

    im all for officer safety, but not at the expense of my own.

  9. Because police are trained to do this and it is signed off on by officials etc. You don't handcuff the guy and miss a gun and you can still be shot. injured criminals are still criminals. In the event they aren't a crminal then there are other issues to address. That's what I mean when you point out a case where something looks bad. Are you pointing out the right thing?

    For those of you arguing against this policy of no knock then what is your supposed position on minimizing the risk to officers who are entering houses and being killed/injured? How many cops have to die before change is justified? because they are cops and not a 92 year old lady do they deserve any less protection and safety?

  10. Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    heres a prime example
    http://thatvideosite.com/video/1303

    you can see at least one of the guys arms visibly snap after being run over. he cannot even move. still the cop runs over like rambo and cuffs him.

    is this right? no, it is repulsive and disgusting.

    but it is justified because of "officer safety".

    im all for officer safety, but not at the expense of my own.

    So a traffic stop is made and the guy has his arm broke or is obviously injured in some way how do you suggest the cops handle them? Seriously, if you have an issue with the way things are done then what is your solution? What if there is a gun on this guy and in the event of pulling it out while screaming and crying he misses the cop and shoot a innocent person across the street? How does the cop search this person for weapons that could injure him/her or incoming medical personnel? What is your solution?

    Edit: okay I watched the video...Did you listen to it? It follows what I said exactly. He was charged with robbery and could of easily still had a weapon on him. He was rightfully handcuffed. First of all if he is to be flown to shock trauma, for example, he won't be allowed to fly without being searched and cuffed. Just because he was hit doesn't make him a nice guy all of a sudden and erase the fact he just committed several crimes including running from the police.

  11. jay the man just got run over by a truck are you ****ing kidding me? his arm must have been shatterred in 3 or 4 places, not to mention one of his legs looks like its made of rubber its so wobbly. he couldnt even get up or move he just got run over by a vehicle weighing several tons.

    would you like to have your shattered arm shoved behind your back and cuffed?

    A relative of mine was involved in prosecuting an individual who was in a car accident. this person had some type of warrant out for his arrest and when the police arrived they turned him over on his stretcher and cuffed him.

    the EMTs informed the police that unless they removed the handcuffs they could not treat him. he ended up losing one of his arms.

    justified? for officer safety?

    jay believe it or not, people that arent police officers are people too. our safety matters just as much as yours does.

  12. jay the man just got run over by a truck are you ****ing kidding me? his arm must have been shatterred in 3 or 4 places, not to mention one of his legs looks like its made of rubber its so wobbly. he couldnt even get up or move he just got run over by a vehicle weighing several tons.
    And is still considered a possible threat. there's a reason why everyone is treated as a threat and why everyone is handcuffed. Too many deaths and injuries have resulted because of feeling the small girl or injured person was no longer a threat. Notice that in that video the only thing being looked into is the vehicle hitting the suspect and not the handcuffing afterwards. it's because this is SOP for depts.


    would you like to have your shattered arm shoved behind your back and cuffed?
    No, no I wouldn't. I also wouldn't rob someone and flee from the police who were chasing me whith a vehicle while I was on foot. I would not of put myself into that position to be handcuffed with a broken arm. Had he not handcuffed the guy and the cop was shot and killed or the EMT arriving was shot and killed what would be your answer, outrage or solution?

    the EMTs informed the police that unless they removed the handcuffs they could not treat him. he ended up losing one of his arms.

    justified? for officer safety?

    jay believe it or not, people that arent police officers are people too. our safety matters just as much as yours does.
    In some cases that is very true but upon arrival the EMT's will want to know if they have been searched and will still usually require them handcuffed to something. When looking at the big picture and everyone involved the one's who do this every day and you may one day need, you have to consider their safety too.

    It almost seems as if you're arguing for the guy who just robbed someone and fled from the scene and police. Out of all this the only outrage is after the guy was injured AND still moving should not of been cuffed but I have yet to hear of a solution.

  13. Except for a very early post, I've remained silent because I don't expect anyone to change his or her mind based on anything I say here. BUT - I've got to call you out Jay, on a point that you keep reiterating with regard to Ms. Johnston - the 92 year old woman that was murderd by a couple or three thugs parading as legitimate law enforcement.

    You question whether she should have been allowed to have a gun "because of her age" - whoa dude, talkin' about a frickin' bias! Regardless of whether a person has the reflexes and/or physical capacity to drive a car has zero correlation with an individual's mental capacity to preceive a threat to their existence. More importantly, your statement is irresponsible since there is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Ms. Johnson's mental falculties were any worse than yours or mine. Equally importantly, even folks with diminished mental and/or physical capacity deserve protecetion, and the ability to protect themselves, and if it requires a legal firearm to do so, then so be it.

    Since I reside in a metro Atlanta 'burb that's smack dab in da hood, I feel compelled to reiterate my earlier point: At night, knock or no-knock, announcing you're the police or the tooth fairy while kicking in my door will only ensure that the situation is going to end badly for everyone involved (operative words here: "kicking in my door").

    The news is chock full of stories about violent home invaders identifying themselves as the police, then raping and/or shooting everyone in the dang place.

    As long as the State of Georgia allows me to keep firearms legally in my home, I will do so because quite frankly, the risk of being a victim of violent crime in my own home is probably as great as the risk Ms. Johnston faced daily. It is quite real for me and mine, and I sure as hell know from experience that I should not rely on local law enforcement to protect me. The reality is that law enforcement is at it's best responding to crime - not preventing it, and anyone who believes otherwise is a datgum fool.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    For those of you arguing against this policy of no knock then what is your supposed position on minimizing the risk to officers who are entering houses and being killed/injured? How many cops have to die before change is justified? because they are cops and not a 92 year old lady do they deserve any less protection and safety?
    Simple: get rid of the laws that 'require' such ridiculous paramilitary actions on the part of the police.

  15. Regardless of whether a person has the reflexes and/or physical capacity to drive a car has zero correlation with an individual's mental capacity to preceive a threat to their existence. More importantly, your statement is irresponsible since there is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Ms. Johnson's mental falculties were any worse than yours or mine. Equally importantly, even folks with diminished mental and/or physical capacity deserve protecetion, and the ability to protect themselves, and if it requires a legal firearm to do so, then so be it.
    I have personal experience in dealing with people and their perception of what they can do with a firearm vs. what they are actually capable of doing. The woman did fire first right? So she was unable in a fraction of a moment, able to not fire her weapon. She was committed to firing on whoever came through that door, imho.

    Make no mistake that this woman was a victim regardless of whether or not I believe she should have a gun because as of now it is legal for her to do what she did. It was the police that broke the law.

    The fact that both are potential deadly weapons yet one requires much higher regulations to hold a license for. I would feel safe in assuming a person unable to operate a vehicle because of age would be any more capable to operate a handgun in self defense scenarios.

    So you believe that someone with a dimished mental capacity should be able to defend themselves with a firearm? Interesting.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post

    So you believe that someone with a dimished mental capacity should be able to defend themselves with a firearm? Interesting.
    To the extent of being allowed to keep a legally acquired weapon in the home - yes. License to carry concealed? No IF you've got legal evidence of diminished mental capacity that has been determined by the courts - otherwise, the answer is still "yes." Elderly would-be gunslingers are generally less prone to unprovoked violence than the young ones who have permits for all the wrong reasons, IMHO - so equal protection under the law and all that jazz!

    People have been keeping guns in the home for ages, including some of my older, allegedly "nutso" relatives and probably some of yours as well, and most without incident because the firearm generally stays in the bedroom drawer. If you're gonna take away the firearms, then what about the baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc...

    The difference between driving versus keeping weapons in the home hinges on the the public aspect of the former (ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY(s)), as opposed to the private aspect of the latter (i.e., IN THE HOME). Also, as I've previously stated, there is no evidence I'm aware of that shows Ms. Johnston had any legally-determined diminished mental capacity, so in this specific case, it's a moot point.

    Just so we're clear - under the circumstances that have been reported with regard to Ms. Johnston's death, I would have died the same way. I would have fired at the first sign of intrusion - period - and kept on firing regardless of what the intruders were saying or wearing. Ya know why? Because except for occasional speeding, I am a straight arrow, law-abiding person - period. In my mind, there would be no legitimate reason for law enforcement to come crashing through my door (especially in the middle of the night), so my assumption would be it's the bad guys attempting to do a job on my black ass.

  17. Under the same situation I probably would of died as well except for the fact I don't keep my firearms close enough to me that I could of got to it in this particular case. I teach my guys to keep their firearms far enough away to wake from a sleep and let their thought process kick in.

    I'm glad you explained your position a bit better. I can agree with some of it...Most of it.

    If you're gonna take away the firearms, then what about the baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc...
    My stance on firearms for self defense is that there should be a better system to keep people licensed. Too many people who carry that think situations through their head without knowing anything about how it usually happens. Hollywood and all.
    Elderly would-be gunslingers are generally less prone to unprovoked violence than the young ones who have permits for all the wrong reasons, IMHO - so equal protection under the law and all that jazz!
    I do agree with this 100%

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Under the same situation I probably would of died as well except for the fact I don't keep my firearms close enough to me that I could of got to it in this particular case. I teach my guys to keep their firearms far enough away to wake from a sleep and let their thought process kick in.
    That's a good idea. I've moved my thermonuclear weapons to the far side of the room.

  19. My pool filled with sharks with freakin' laser beams attached to their foreheads is all the protection I need

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    My pool filled with sharks with freakin' laser beams attached to their foreheads is all the protection I need
    Must be a ***** to reload.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 11:18 AM
  2. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 04-05-2009, 12:37 PM
  3. All You Need To Know About Fina!
    By Blindfaith in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-03-2006, 07:30 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2003, 04:38 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-07-2002, 04:02 AM
Log in
Log in