It's time for another outrageous story of injustice from Texas

Karen Junker said:

I'd be interested in hearing from a police perspective about the tactical advantages and disadvantages involved in a 'no knock' raid. I wonder if they thought it would give him less of an opportunity to use any possible stockpile of weapons?

Click to expand...

I'd imagine it's that and/or worrying about him having a chance to flush the evidence, but I could be wrong.

Karen Junker said:

I'd be interested in hearing from a police perspective about the tactical advantages and disadvantages involved in a 'no knock' raid. I wonder if they thought it would give him less of an opportunity to use any possible stockpile of weapons?

Click to expand...

There's an argument in the two links I posted that they knew he had a 9mm and that the no-knock used that as part of the justification.

The main justification of no-knocks in general seems to be that they are intended to prevent the destruction of evidence.

It just seems so unlikely to me that a person could flush any sizable amount of cocaine (plus, pouring it into a toilet would still result in residue all over the place) in the time it would take from a loud knock to when you answered the door (when the police knocked on my door they didn't call out 'police' and I was only 30 feet from the door and they were already knocking a second time by the time I got there, so maybe 15 seconds?) -- if they were dealing (and it sounded like they were and that they had a pretty big bag). I mean there would still be the bag to deal with -- those don't flush, they clog.

It seems to me that calling out "POLICE!" before entering the home would negate the whole purpose of a no-knock warrant. The point of which is to surprise the occupants and move into the house quickly enough to prevent the destruction of evidence or the retrieval of firearms.

Plus this is Texas, seemingly one of the strongest proponents of the idea "arm everybody" and the home of Open Carry. I want to know why the hell the police honestly don't expect to get shot when they break into people's homes unannounced at 5:30 in the morning, in the dark.

rugcat said:

There are plenty of instances of police misconduct and overreach. But I'd be very sure of my facts before I jumped on the police are all jackbooted thug psychotic killers bandwagon.

Click to expand...

I did not see anyone accusing the police of being psychotic jackbooted thugs. But no-knock warrants are another creeping indicator that has people legitimately becoming less comfortable with the role police are playing in modern society.

I'm guessing that the first degree capital murder charges are to scare him into pleading out, since the DA certainly doesn't want this going to trial and risking the possibility of another man being acquitted after shooting a cop.

At least this man LIVED through a no-nock entry in which shots were fired. Many others do not - here's a famous case from Atlanta:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting

As the story says, the police involved were convicted of criminal charges, but that was over a period of years. This woman's life was lost in a moment. Here are two news stories years after the incident:

Ex-Atlanta officers get prison time for cover-up in deadly raid
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/24/atlanta.police/

Family of woman killed in botched drug raid to receive $4.9 million
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/16/georgia.botched.raid/


I wonder if this case will get the attention of federal investigators and courts. IMHO it certainly deserves it.

ShaunHorton said:

It seems to me that calling out "POLICE!" before entering the home would negate the whole purpose of a no-knock warrant. The point of which is to surprise the occupants and move into the house quickly enough to prevent the destruction of evidence or the retrieval of firearms.

Click to expand...

A no knock warrant allows immediate entrance. A regular warrant requires the officers to not only identify themselves, but also knock/ring the bell, identify the purpose of their warrant, and wait for the resident to open the door.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/knock-and-announce_rule
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant

rugcat said:

I've been on no-knock warrents. They're scary and dangerous. Judges won't issue then unless you can show some damn good cause, at least when I worked.

Every raid I've been on we wore windbreakers with POLICE emblazened across them in large letters.

Every raid I went on, we were yelling POLICE! P0LICE! at the top of our lungs. You know why? Because nobody wants to get shot by mistake by a paranoid tweaked out meth head.

And I know it hard for some of you to believe, but no one on these raids wanted to kill anyone either.

I don't know the facts of this case. But the idea that these were innocent petty criminals (who just happened to have weapons in their house and were quick to use them) and that the officers never identified themselves, is hard for me to believe.

There are plenty of instances of police misconduct and overreach. But I'd be very sure of my facts before I jumped on the police are all jackbooted thug psychotic killers bandwagon.

Click to expand...

I can definitely buy that most warrants involve probable cause. But considering there have been multiple cases where police accidentally went to the wrong house, or got a warrant based on false information, I think there's legitimate concern about innocent people reacting against the police in self-defense.

It's not even just a matter of police incompetence. For example, I've heard about multiple cases of "swatting," where people call police on opponents in online video games, making up stories about hostage situations or other dire emergencies. Believing that there's a hostage situation going on inside a house is a just cause to send in the SWAT team, I think. But if it turns out that the report was false and the people in the house have no idea that anything's amiss, then there's a significant chance for innocent people to get hurt or react the "wrong" way.

I don't see a lot of details about what led to the warrant in this case, so I agree that it's best to hold out until all the details are present. But while I understand why assaulting and injuring cops has to be treated very seriously, I also think there needs to be some understanding that, when threatened, people sometimes act impulsively or instinctively to defend themselves. And with a no-knock warrant, the police are often the ones making the situation more intense and threatening.

It seems to me that such an act, busting unannounced into a building that may have one or more armed people, should ONLY be done by the military, as in the raid on Osama Bin Laden's home where he was killed and many similar military operations.

But of course the military should NEVER have its actions directed toward our own citizens. Thus this should never happen.

But it appears the Fourth Amendment got repealed due to the War On Drugs.

benbradley said:

But it appears the Fourth Amendment got repealed due to the War On Drugs.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should go back and read the fourth amendment again.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Just because an individual disagrees with a law does not make its enforcement constitutionally invalid.

In this case, a magistrate issued a warrant based upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. That's what the fourth amendment requires; that's the procedure that was followed.

People involved in criminal enterprises do not get a free pass because they're doing them out of their own home.

DancingMaenid said:

I can definitely buy that most warrants involve probable cause. But considering there have been multiple cases where police accidentally went to the wrong house, or got a warrant based on false information, I think there's legitimate concern about innocent people reacting against the police in self-defense.

Click to expand...

I agree. Many departments engage in sloppy police work and cutting corners and the results can be tragic.

But in this particular case, which is what I am commenting on, this man was in his 40s, not some stupid panicky kid, a known major dope dealer who had been surveilled by police for quite a period of time.

They knew exactly who he was and what he was up to.

No knock warrants are generally used in narcotics cases because the evidence can be so easily destroyed. If you knock on the door and announce that you are the police with a warrant what exactly do you do when the person inside refuses to answer the door but instead starts destroying evidence? It really doesn't take that long.

The police did not storm the apartment in the middle of the night. They chose 5:30 in the morning when there is some light. More importantly they chose 5:30 because that's the time when even dope dealers who may have been up all night will be asleep, and hopefully at their most vulnerable and confused – too shocked by the unexpected raid to offer resistance.

Another reason for a no knock warrant is when a person is considered dangerous, i.e., the man is known to be armed, knocking on the door can provoke a hail of bullets right through the door at the officers.

Criminals armed with guns often use them, and people, especially people involved with drugs, do not always act rationally. You can try to plan for every contingency, but when you're facing armed suspects, no operation is without risk.

robjvargas said:

The agents aren't getting any leeway from me anymore. *They* know what happened, and this attempt to execute him for it, tells me they know they didn't announce themselves.

Click to expand...

This man shot four police officers, killing one of them. He then tried to make it out the back door. This does not sound to me like an innocent man defending his home against unknown intruders.

What did the police do with this man who just killed one of their own? Did they "execute "him? No, they arrested him without injury to him.

I'm curious to see if the NRA comes out to this man's aid. Surely they should have an interest right? If the guy shot a random intruder instead of a cop they would likely be singing his praises.

benbradley said:

But it appears the Fourth Amendment got repealed due to the War On Drugs.

Click to expand...

rugcat said:

Perhaps you should go back and read the fourth amendment again. Just because an individual disagrees with a law does not make its enforcement constitutionally invalid.

In this case, a magistrate issued a warrant based upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. That's what the fourth amendment requires; that's the procedure that was followed.

People involved in criminal enterprises do not get a free pass because they're doing them out of their own home.

Click to expand...

In this particular incident, you could make a case that there's no fourth amendment violation. But broadly speaking--imo--Ben is correct, at least in spirit. It's what is sometimes called "the drug war exception" to the Fourth Amendment.

emax100 said:

Because this shows how they are often less qualified than civilians to use firearms. And of course, for many people, the incidents in Ferguson and other cases showed that too.

Click to expand...

Exactly how does the story demonstrate that?

Because an officer was killed? Because they were trying to serve a warrant without killing anyone, so when the suspect came out shooting they were at a disadvantage?

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this suspect knew exactly who they were and what he was doing?

rugcat said:

Criminals armed with guns often use them, and people, especially people involved with drugs, do not always act rationally. You can try to plan for every contingency, but when you're facing armed suspects, no operation is without risk.

This man shot four police officers, killing one of them. He then tried to make it out the back door. This does not sound to me like an innocent man defending his home against unknown intruders.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that in this particular case, it doesn't sound like the police were mistaken. And if it turns out that the police clearly identified themselves prior to the shooting, then I'm going to be more inclined to think that this guy reacted the way he did intentionally.

But what I'm trying to get at is that both criminals and innocent people can reasonably be expected to panic in some situations. There tend to be very harsh penalties for assaulting or killing police officers, which is understandable. But I think the entire context needs to be taken into account, and some respect needs to be given to human nature. Some people are going to lash out at police not because they want to kill the cops or because they have a well-formed intention to escape, but because it's an instinctual reaction to being put in a threatening situation.

I mean, let's say, hypothetically, that this guy didn't know if the intruders were cops or if they were rival drug dealers who were breaking in to kill him. If the latter situation occurred and he shot fellow criminals instead of cops, the crime would be very unlikely to be prosecuted in the same way, even though the motivation and intent was the same either way.

I don't think people should get a free pass for assaulting officers just because they panic, but I think that volatile situations like no-knock warrants can elicit panicked responses that people might not otherwise have, and that needs to be taken into account when prosecuting the person.

emax100 said:

I am seeing proof that this home owner, if he can get a decent lawyer, will be able to make a very strong case for himself and as others mentioned, that may be a reason why they might be trying to psych him out with the murder charge.

Click to expand...

What proof is that? Is there a new article that shows he wasn't a drug dealer under surveillance for months and known to be armed and dangerous?

What about this article? Which contains this little detail.

Guy told an investigator that “he shot at a number of persons outside of his residence before he was taken into custody” an arrest affidavit said.

The affidavit said the officers announced that they were police as they tried to gain entry to Guy’s apartment.

Click to expand...

Sorry, in this particular instance, it does seem more likely to me that he knew they were police when he opened fire, which does make the murder charges much stronger.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

It says something about a society when smashing down a door, screaming, and invading a home with guns at the ready and wearing body armor, when no lives are imminently at risk, is considered "reasonable," simply because of a shiny badge.

rugcat said:

But in this particular case, which is what I am commenting on, this man was in his 40s, not some stupid panicky kid, a known major dope dealer who had been surveilled by police for quite a period of time.

They knew exactly who he was and what he was up to.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if something is an abuse of police powers, it's an abuse of police powers even in "unambiguous" situations. This argument sounds an awful lot like defending the practice of beating a confession out of someone because "in this particular case, we know he was guilty."

emax100 said:

I concede it is always a possibility but I am not yet seeing any proof of that whatsoever.

Click to expand...

There's also no proof that he didn't know they were police officers, and was just defending his home from unknown intruders. But rather than see this as an equal possibility, you and others take it to be near-absolute fact.

Imo, his--the suspect's--apparent reactions to a surprise invasion were pretty damn good. And as rugcat pointed out, the police didn't riddle him with bullets. Then there's the actual witness to the event, whose story we haven't heard. The police apparently released her without charging her. That suggests something, imo. But I'll wait for more info to speculate further.

Shadow Dragon said:

I'm curious to see if the NRA comes out to this man's aid. Surely they should have an interest right? If the guy shot a random intruder instead of a cop they would likely be singing his praises.

Click to expand...

The NRA has lobbied against no-knock raids. It doesn't generally defend individuals, like the ACLU does.

Don said:

It says something about a society when smashing down a door, screaming, and invading a home with guns at the ready and wearing body armor, when no lives are imminently at risk, is considered "reasonable," simply because of a shiny badge.

Click to expand...

Silliness.

No-knock warrants aren't issued haphazardly. They're not SOP. They're an exception. If they are being abused, I'm all for going after the departments/judges that are doing so. But look at this case. Neither you nor anyone else really knows much of anything about it, but it represents this huge watershed moment for violations of the Fourth, anyway.

As rugcat pointed out, cops generally don't like no-knock warrants (I've talked with my PD friends down here, drug-dealer central, and they agree). But sometimes they are--in their minds--necessary because of what they know about a situation beforehand.

In this case, their info perhaps indicated this suspect would do exactly what he did. Thus, in simply knocking on the door and announcing themselves as police, the officers lives would be at imminent risk. And if they had gone that route, perhaps we'd be talking about the drug-dealer who shot and killed four officers who were just doing their job.

But fuck 'em, they're stinking cops. They wanna be hotshots with badges, they get what they deserve.




All that said, again there are legitimate issues of overreach to worry about imo, situations where gun-happy people with badges cross lines. But nothing suggests this case fits that template from what I can see. One should pick their battles more carefully imo.

robeiae said:

No-knock warrants aren't issued haphazardly.

Click to expand...

Most of the time? Maybe. There are plenty of examples where they are, imo.

Neither you nor anyone else really knows much of anything about it, but it represents this huge watershed moment for violations of the Fourth, anyway.

Click to expand...

No one said it was a watershed moment.

In this case, their info perhaps indicated this suspect would do exactly what he did.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But their info doesn't seem to have led to what they thought they would find. If there hadn't been a shooting, would they have been able to convict him of anything? As far as we know, they didn't even find any actual drugs, correct?