Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/14/2002 4:49:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2002 4:56:18 AM EDT by Happyshooter]
In Michigan, police on a no-knock federal warrant may shoot with no warning anyone holding an AR-15, even if it is not pointed at them. Michigan Court of Appeals Nassar v City of Dearborn August 6, 2002 "The individual defendants [local cops], who were assisting federal agents in the execution of a federal search warrant, had reason to believe that plaintiff Alec Nassar was a dangerous person and had access to dangerous weapons, including information from a confidential informant that plaintiff said he would use deadly force in a confrontation with police and that there was a cache of automatic weapons in the house. Defendants presented evidence that when they entered the house, plaintiff exited his bedroom holding an assault rifle, ignored their shouts of “Police, get down!” and pointed the weapon at them, whereupon they opened fire. Plaintiff testified that he was holding an assault rifle, but it was pointed at the ceiling and never lowered, he did not hear defendants say anything, and that they suddenly began shooting at him. [b]Even accepting plaintiff’s version as true, we do not believe that reasonable minds could differ in concluding that the police acted reasonably in opening fire on a suspect armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle[/b], particularly in light of the information received from the confidential informant." [(:)]
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 4:58:12 AM EDT
Well, HappyShooter, you just stay happy. Unfortunately some people have to shoot under not-so-happy circumstances. Until you've been there, done that why don't you leave the second-guessing to those who have. Regardless, everything I read in the court opinion clearly supports the officers actions. Had I been there,I would have done the same thing - except that the subject would be dead from my center-body-mass double tap, rather than wounded, and filing frivolous lawsuits!
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:00:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Happyshooter: In Michigan, police on a no-knock federal warrant may shoot with no warning anyone holding an AR-15, even if it is not pointed at them. snip
View Quote
I don't live in Michigan, but if you are wanted, and if you are known to be armed, telling people that you will not be taken alive is asking to be shot on sight.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:14:44 AM EDT
I've got to agree so far. Your generalized topic makes it sound as if you will be shot as a suspect if you are simply holding an AR15. My guess is that the suspect would have been shot even if he had been holding a Red Ryder. There's more to the story than the appeal summary.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:17:57 AM EDT
Well, I have a problem with this. Police in many towns/cities seems to have difficulty finding the correct house to serve their no-knock warrants. Case in point. In South Carolina, the local sheriff’s office narcotics squad had a warrant to serve at Eastwood Circle. Unfortunately, the Police arrived at Eastwood Drive. They knocked down the door and shot an 87-year-old man cleaning a double barrel shotgun. When the officer was questioned on the stand, the officer stated that the weapon looked like a fully automatic weapon (class 3) to him. The defense attorney pointed out that the double-barreled shotgun was manufactured in 1854. Needless to say, the civil jury awarded the 82 year old widow 15 million dollars for wrongful death. The Sheriff’s office still insists that the 87-year-old man was a serious threat to their personnel. It is my understanding from talking to my family attorney that this happens about 50-100 times per year in the US.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:18:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:21:26 AM EDT
Too bad an AR15 is a "defined ASSAULT WEAPON", not a "defined ASSAULT RIFLE" Dumb ass'es.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:28:10 AM EDT
No-knock warrants are a stupid idea. What's the big hurry? Instead of storming in with guns a blazing they could surround the place, cut off water and electricity, play raucous, loud music 24 hours a day, and then, at their leisure, burn the place to the ground. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:30:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2002 5:41:13 AM EDT by Dolomite]
I for one appreciate Happyshooter's sensationalized topic title. I probably wouldn't have read it otherwise - I'm glad I did. This can work both ways for the average Joe: if you wake up some night and find some lunatic holding an AR at port arms in your hallway, what are you gonna do, honestly? Your lawyer , using the doctrine of reasonableness, can say you acted within the same accepted operating parameters as those that are paid to protect and serve us. Without, I may add, the benefit of immediate back-up in the form of armed Federal Agents.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:44:10 AM EDT
Living in Michigan just keeps getting better and better... [;)] I guess here if you own an AR and hear a 'bump in the night' or your front door gets kicked in you know where you stand...
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 4:57:55 PM EDT
BTT for after work visitors to read
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:05:51 PM EDT
You have to wonder why these fucking adventure seeking ego maniacs didn't just arrest the guy when he went out for groceries and then search the place. They knew he had weapons and had said he would shoot if they raided him, so why do it when there was an alternative? Fucking viscous aggressive nazi cops. Jack booted thugs of the highest order. SEIG HEIL!!! [img]http://www.decani.yunet.com/nazikos.jpg[/img] what's next? [img]http://www.rjgeib.com/biography/europe/germany/nazi1.jpg[/img] nahhhh, then rambo couldn't have his real life video games to play. oooooo tactical. [puke]
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:09:14 PM EDT
what was the warrant for? what were they hoping to catch him on?
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:13:01 PM EDT
"Until you've been there, done that why don't you leave the second-guessing to those who have." uh...because it's a free country, last time i checked? "Had I been there,I would have done the same thing - except that the subject would be dead from my center-body-mass double tap, rather than wounded, and filing frivolous lawsuits!" well, deadeye, i think you should leave the legal "second-guessing" to the justice system. after all, they have "been there, done that" and resolved cases under "not-so-happy circumstances.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:18:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DarkStar: Living in Michigan just keeps getting better and better... [;)] I guess here if you own an AR and hear a 'bump in the night' or your front door gets kicked in you know where you stand...
View Quote
Amen, Brother! And the wife wonders why I want to move to AZ.! Someone comes in Our house, at night, unannounced.....Well, lets just say I have kids too....I >will< protect Them all! Laze & Blaze Guys Tall Shadow
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:20:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164: Sounds like storm troopers to me. If they were told he was armed and dangerous, with a cache of automatic weapons, why not wait until he was clear of the house, and take him down when he clearly isn't carrying an assault rifle, then search the house.
View Quote
then how would they justify thier budgets... those pretty MP5's aint cheap.. ____________________________________________ really ... I feel most people let their guard down at home and thats why raids usually go off without a hitch.. ____________________________________________ back to the budget theme... isnt that the real reason the ATF raided at WACO.. they wanted to use it as publicity video?
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:31:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 300thMIBde: Well, HappyShooter, you just stay happy. Unfortunately some people have to shoot under not-so-happy circumstances. Until you've been there, done that why don't you leave the second-guessing to those who have. Regardless, everything I read in the court opinion clearly supports the officers actions. Had I been there,I would have done the same thing - except that the subject would be dead from my center-body-mass double tap, rather than wounded, and filing frivolous lawsuits!
View Quote
Sounds like somebody stepped on your toes[;D] As dangerous as NKW are, I don't think they should be used at all unless circumstances show that there is an immediate danger if they are not taken into custody "RIGHT NOW". From the information available, you cannot tell if this was the case. In the day and age of Homeland Security and "recruit a rat", I don't know that the word of a "confidential informant" would be enough to justify such action. I hope your omniscience doesn't get some poor person killed.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:56:09 PM EDT
what was the warrant for? what were they hoping to catch him on?
View Quote
The case didn't say. The appeal was about his suit from when the cops shot him, not any criminal charges they may have had against him.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:58:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 300thMIBde: Well, HappyShooter, you just stay happy. Unfortunately some people have to shoot under not-so-happy circumstances. Until you've been there, done that why don't you leave the second-guessing to those who have. Regardless, everything I read in the court opinion clearly supports the officers actions. Had I been there,I would have done the same thing - except that the subject would be dead from my center-body-mass double tap, rather than wounded, and filing frivolous lawsuits!
View Quote
300th, you kick in my door and you won't have to worry about any frivolous lawsuits.........
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 6:20:44 PM EDT
Sounds about right to me. BG has a gun in his hands and refuses to drop it, he gets shot. That's pretty much the way it works, regardless of whether it is during a warrant service, on the streets, or confronting an armed citizen.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 6:27:26 PM EDT
Of course it is entirely reasonable to open fire on a gent holding a lethal weapon in his own home. For example, me last evening watching Apocalype Now Redux. :| Entirely reasonable to shoot me down in my own home, I agree. God forbid that I might had a garden shovel or a steak knife nearby - they're even more of a threat as said items do not require ammunition in order to be lethal. It's also entirely reasonable to fear for one's life and take appropriate action when a band of armed strangers barges into one's home and brandishes weapons while claiming to be police, since after all the armed strangers are NOT known to actually BE police and may attempt to apply lethal force prior to verification of their claim. Or we could just give the 'suspect' homeowner the benefit of the doubt and call first. Thus not precipitating any confrontations involving surprise, close quarters, old movies, garden tools, concentrated multiple targets, and lethal force.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 6:28:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: Sounds about right to me. BG has a gun in his hands and refuses to drop it, he gets shot. That's pretty much the way it works, regardless of whether it is during a warrant service, on the streets, or confronting an armed citizen.
View Quote
it gets a little more complicated when the confrontation is started by the cops kicking in somones front door and charging into the room screaming and pointing guns i sure as hell wouldn't drop my rifle were i holding it as someone kicked in my front door, regardless of how they were dressed
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:21:25 PM EDT
The problem is an over-abundance of testosterone in [u]some[/u] police departments. If you already know the guy is willing to shoot police, then arrest him while he's walking out to his car, or coming home from work. This is a result of cops wanting to get their danger rush by "being tough" and storming the "bad-guys". The same mistake was made when the ATF decided not to quietly arrest Koresh at the ice-cream store he frequented, and away from the compound and children. Instead they opted to put on their cool-looking gear and carry their guns, and "go into the excitment" and play soldier/storm trooper. The rest is history, as they say. [(:|)]
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:34:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: No-knock warrants are a stupid idea. What's the big hurry? Instead of storming in with guns a blazing they could surround the place, cut off water and electricity, play raucous, loud music 24 hours a day, and then, at their leisure, burn the place to the ground. [rolleyes]
View Quote
I believe the BATF has that one trademarked, though the FBI seems to get away with using it too. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:36:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2002 7:43:12 PM EDT by heliflyer]
Originally Posted By 300thMIBde: Had I been there,I would have done the same thing - except that the subject would be dead from my center-body-mass double tap, rather than wounded, and filing frivolous lawsuits!
View Quote
Most police departments disparage the word [b]DOUBLE TAP[/b] preferring the term [b]CONTROLLED PAIR.[/b] LAPD uses a [b]CONTROLLED PAIR[/b] to the center of mass, and a [b]PRECISE SINGLE[/b] to the cental nervous system. LAPD is the originator of that system. I know the Police Officer that originated it, within the department.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:41:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: Sounds about right to me. BG has a gun in his hands and refuses to drop it, he gets shot. That's pretty much the way it works, regardless of whether it is during a warrant service, on the streets, or confronting an armed citizen.
View Quote
Sure. I'm assuming that you can guarantee that the person getting shot is always a BG. (God knows the FBI never kills any unarmed civilians). You know, the guy in his own house responding to armed intruders. I guess we've been busy pissing away our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the past 200+ years, so yeah, this sounds about right.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:51:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fizassist:
Originally Posted By natez: Sounds about right to me. BG has a gun in his hands and refuses to drop it, he gets shot. That's pretty much the way it works, regardless of whether it is during a warrant service, on the streets, or confronting an armed citizen.
View Quote
Sure. I'm assuming that you can guarantee that the person getting shot is always a BG. (God knows the FBI never kills any unarmed civilians). You know, the guy in his own house responding to armed intruders. I guess we've been busy pissing away our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the past 200+ years, so yeah, this sounds about right.
View Quote
fizassist, your voice, is a voice of right, and reason. Getting dressed up in the [b]NINJA[/b] suit, and sallying forth to engage in daring do, isn't about citizens rights. It is about control and subjugation. It is a message to the next home the [b]NINJA's[/b] crash through the door of. Bill
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:51:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dolomite: This can work both ways for the average Joe: if you wake up some night and find some lunatic holding an AR at port arms in your hallway, what are you gonna do, honestly?
View Quote
Apples. Oranges. If the mofo is in [u]my[u] house holding a weapon, there is no doubt in my mind that he poses a threat to my life. He will be shot. That in no way compares to a SWAT team busting in to a private dwelling and finding an armed man. Unless you're implying that the resident has reasonable cause to open fire on the MP5-waving ninjas in his living room. That would seem to be the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning. I am sick of this "if you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" bullshit. I certainly do! Anybody can get caught in an address mix-up, anybody can find themselves under suspicion for a crime they didn't commit! Either of those circumstances could result in a visit from the JBTs. The few cops I know are ok guys, and I don't envy them in the difficult jobs that they do, but don't anybody with a badge sit up on your high horse and tell me that I should surrender my right to life just because you want to bust into my home any time! Should I hold fire on the odd chance that an armed intruder is a cop?
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 8:33:54 PM EDT
it seems to me that most no knock warrant situations could easily be avioded too much like a real life shoot-em-up video game adrenilne pumping extreme sport for the thugs pulling these things to admit to that though wonder what they'll do when the kick down the door of the lone nut job who puts a mine in front of his door each night
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 9:08:52 PM EDT
Amazing. You folks who bitch about the media painting all gunowners with the same brush have absolutely no problem doing it to LEO's. There is a sickening amount of speculation and jumping to conclusions in these posts. I see nothing in the initial post to indicate wrongdoing by the officers. No indication that it was a no-knock warrant or that the officers were not wearing things like uniforms or raid vests that clearly identify them as police officers. The bottom line is, they had a federal search warrant to search this guy's house. They didn't get the wrong house, he was the one they wanted. They had prior information that he had weapons and would shoot it out with the police. He came out with a weapon. They ordered him to drop it, he didn't comply, he got zapped. Boo hoo. It doesn't matter if he pointed the rifle at them or not- they identified themselves and ordered him to drop the gun, he didn't. Based on what they had, they could conclude that he was a threat and had the right to neutralize that threat. It's a common misconception that a person holding a firearm is not a threat as long as they are not pointing it directly at you. They can raise or lower that weapon and shoot you before you can pull the trigger on your own weapon, as long as they decide to do so before you decide to fire. That's completely separate from the fact that handgun or subgun rounds cannot be counted on to immediately neutralize a threat, so even if you get off a good hit before he brings that weapon to bear, it may very well not prevent him from firing at you. I for one would not be willing to risk taking 20 or 30 rounds from an AR15, would you? A person shot in the heart with a handgun round can continue to fight for 15-30 seconds, more than enough time to empty that mag. As far as taking the guy off when he was away from the house, that option is usually considered in cases like this. However, the suspect may have been likely to be armed outside of his residence also, and to attempt to take him off outside his residence creates a risk of casualties to innocent bystanders if he decides to resist. Would you rather confront a guy like that in the confines of his home or in the middle of a crowded parking lot? Would you want the feds to take him down in a public place where your wife and kids were? Same kinds of risks apply if he's taken off on a traffic stop, and it's hard to justify detaining him for long if you don't already have probable cause to arrest him. No-knock warrants and night service warrants are used because the suspect may have weapons and a potential for violence, and they increase the chances that you will be able to surprise him and take control before he is able to react. It's obvious from many of your posts that most of you guys have no clue about search warrants, informants, raid tactics, or anything else of any relevance to this topic. It's the same old "they'd better not kick in MY door, by God, 'cause I've got somethin' for their asses!" routine. Spare us. The macho chest-thumping and crotch-scratching isn't impressive. It's still amazing to me that so many of you are so rabid that you will take a story like this and extrapolate it into the crap that you have. It's true, some cops are bumbling idiots. Some are careless and irresponsible, and some act in a manner that's actually criminal. In my experience most are simply trying to do their job the best they know how. For every incident where a cop makes a mistake, there are hundreds where others do not. But the only thing you hear about are the mistakes, 'cause that sells papers and gets viewers.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 10:05:25 PM EDT
A thought: Having one's door kicked (or blasted) in, followed by screaming black-clad thugs has to be disorienting. In that situation I'd probably be making a double take to ensure I wasn't halucinating. But, If I'm carrying my rifle back to the cabinet at that moment, I can be gunned down? This is [i]justice[/i]? Oh, wait, they're "only doing their jobs". Murdering, stealing, and beating citizens. Only doing their jobs.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 10:37:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2002 10:40:10 PM EDT by ColtShorty]
Originally Posted By Happyshooter: had reason to believe that plaintiff Alec Nassar was a dangerous person and had access to dangerous weapons, including [red]information from a confidential informant[/red] that plaintiff said he would use deadly force in a confrontation with police and that there was a cache of automatic weapons in the house.
View Quote
This is always my favorite part. [b][red]information from a confidential informant[/red][/b] Probably some freakin junkie down the street needing some cash for a quick fix!! ColtShorty GOA KABA COA JPFO SAF NRA "I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I require the same from them."
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 12:18:38 AM EDT
I apologize for not being Captain Tactical....I've never raided a house/ had my house raided. Still, while this story did not mention "No Knock" warrants it appears it's something that is up for discussion. Is there on occasion a call for a no-knock? Absolutely. Think kidnapping or a rapist who has your wife locked up in a house. I certainly don't want LEO's waiting for the guy to get hungry and roll out to pick up a bagel. From a safety standpoint, and again, I'm not Captain Tactical, I just don't understand the need in most cases. Clearly, this guy is not going to be rolling out his front door with the AR stuck in his waistband. A pistol? Sure, but you can take him on the road, take him in the street. Unless the guy is in a totally rural area I cannot buy the story that it is "safer" for the general public in a residential area to have someone raid a house and have some shooting going on. While remembering these people are criminals doing criminal things, who probably should EXPECT their door to get knocked down at some point, I do have a bit of understanding for someone who pulls a gun on a cop in that situation. Middle of the night, sleeping with your wife, you hear a horrific crash and hear people moving into your home. If you guess "Hey, Cops!", you better be right, because if you're wrong you're in serious peril of your life. I would like to see the statistics on this one....namely, how many home invasions are there in a year, and how many police raids are there? My guess is there are more home invasions, and everything being equal, the guy coming through your window or door in a forceful manner is NOT there to execute the law. I have an aquaintence who was the victim of a home invasion. Young guy, just the kind of guy you wouldn't expect a criminal to want to deal with. No matter. 3 guys busted down his door, beat the shit out of him, and stole his shit. He's lucky to be alive. He was sleeping on his couch when his door blew open. Unless he is leading a secret life, I have no reason to believe he is involved in anything illegal, or that druggie friends or something would have cause to pick him out for attack. He was just a dude taking a nap. If I were a home invader, one of the first things I would yell is, "POLICE!"...It might make anyone who was going to shoot at me or resist pull up for a second, and if you're that big a criminal, you'll take any edge you can. I don't care what you say about, "HE WAS IN UNIFORM" or "HE HAD A SHERIFF JACKET ON"....Get in a fistfight even, and then try to describe to me as it's going down what color the guy's shirt is. This is assuming the lights in your house are blazing, and a flashlight isn't pointed in your face. Sorry, if I'm in my home and the door blows open, I'm assuming very bad intentions...Remember, it is HIS HOME. HIS HOME. A place, the only place, that he should feel completely safe, and confident in the knowledge that he knows who is coming and who is going. That being said, those that say, "Hey, the cops better bring a body bag"...well, they better bring more than one, because they're rolling in KNOWING what is going on, and ready. You're half asleep, or watching Sportscenter, or finishing off a 12 pack. While I have to give you the benefit of the doubt as far as being on a jury, if you do shoot, you're probably going down too. My final thought? A bad idea for all involved unless there is no other way. Live Free or Die. Vass
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 3:21:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 3:51:57 AM EDT
Yawn.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 5:27:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164: Sounds like storm troopers to me. If they were told he was armed and dangerous, with a cache of automatic weapons, why not wait until he was clear of the house, and take him down when he clearly isn't carrying an assault rifle, then search the house. Sorry, but I am a law abiding citizen, and if someone storms into my house in the middle of the night, they are going to get shot. My kids are little and my wife sleeps beside me, I know where everyone is, and intruders will be shot. I am not going to hesitate because someone yells police. These kind of tactics is what gives them the title of JBT's dave
View Quote
Yeah, and if they tried to stop him and he went into "flee mode", and crashed into another motorist, or the police pursued him on public streets during the day time, I'm sure you'd be the first one to say, well if someone was killed on the road due to the chase, it's much better than a "no knock warrant". Or if the waited until he was at the "stop-n-rob" and the arrested him at gun point at a public place, that would be better than a no knock warrant?? What if instead, when they waited him to get out in public, when they went to arrest him, he started a shoot out?? I'm sure if a whole bunch of people were injured because of that you would say "at least it wasn't a no knock warrant". RIGHT? I think the idea of the warrant service at the suspects home, is th police may be able to surprise the suspect, and INNOCENT bystanders are less likely to be endangered than waiting until the suspect is mingling with the public.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 5:55:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 6:17:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2002 6:21:49 AM EDT by 300thMIBde]
Heliflyer, I guess my department is a little less politically correct than the LAPD (thankfully!) - we still refer to them as "double taps". Sparky315, I've been following this topic and refraining from adding further comments. You hit the nail on the head, but I doubt you'll convert anybody here. It seems so obvious, but I guess that if you're not dealing with this kind of stuff regularly, it must be hard to comprehend simple logic like the following: 1.) Judge issues a warrant to arrest Joe Shmoe Dirtbag, because sufficient evidence exists to identify Joe Shmoe Dirtbag as a threat to the community, i.e. he has violated the law. (Contrary to Hollywood and paranoid fringe subculture belief systems, the vast majority of warrants are justified, lawful, substantiated by untainted evidence, and meet all the constitutional requirements.) Oh, and BTW, if you don't like the laws that are being enforced, here's an idea - VOTE! Get involved in local politics! Its been my general experience that the loudest armchair squealers are usually the least involved in actually getting something done. It's easier to just sit there and say, "It's pointless. I've got x-thousands of rounds and 'ol Betsy (slaps weapon at this point) to do my votin' with when the SHTF", yadda, yadda, yadda. Get off your ass! Get on a local citizen's police advisory council, or write a letter to the editor instead of bitching on the internet about "police brutality". (Yeah, yeah, yeah - now you're all going to tell me that all of you already do all that - but we all know it's not not true, and we all could do more within our communities.) Back to the topic at hand . . . 2.) Police officers execute the warrant to arrest said Joe Shmoe Dirtbag. (Contrary to Hollywood and paranoid fringe subculture belief systems, the vast majority of police officers are not bloodthirsty adrenaline junkies looking for their next "victim". Rather, they are patriotic, freedom-loving men and women who enjoy providing a valuable service to their communities in upholding the law.) 3.) When the police officers arrive to arrest Joe Shmoe Dirtbag, he's holding a firearm (doesn't matter if it's a .22 mouse gun or a Barrett .50 - it's still lethal force) and refuses to set it down when the police officers state their authority and order him to set it down. 4.) Joe Shmoe Dirtbag is shot by the policemen in order to stop the deadly force threat being presented to them. End of story. Simple for most people to understand. There will always be tragic mistakes made by peace officers enforcing the law. Thankfully, history has demonstrated that these are remarkably few and far between - again contrary to Hollywood and paranoid fringe subculture belief systems. I think those of you who are so critical of your local black-ninja-suited "jack booted thugs" should ride along with one, preferably on a holiday weekend night shift. Your feelings might change a little. Since I know any more words on my part are wasted, I will not be occupying any more bandwidth on this thread with vain attempts to justify something that really needs no justification. I'll go ahead and leave you to your little "Jack-Booted Thug" deprecating orgy now, without trying to preach any more common sense . . .
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 6:22:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164: To short cut an innocents right to defend him or herself in their own home is wrong. According to the Constitution, we have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Used to be that a person was innocent until proven guilty, now you are guilty by reason of a snitch, and you have to prove your innocence. This is the systems fault, and the system is made up of WEAK people, that got there through affirmative action, quota, or politics, instead of good old hard work and paying your dues.
View Quote
I believe the Constitution also mention the requirements that have to be met in order to obtain a warrant. Meaning that the FF's believed that warrants could be issued. When you get the "I won't be taken alive" kinda guys, that should be seriously considered. If an arrest attempt is made and shots are fired, and innocents are injured or were unreasonable endangered, many people with have some tough questions to asl about the tactis of their police. When you get the "I wont be taken alive" guy, holding a firearm when the police serve the warrant you have to take that serious too. If anything we should all be ticked at the guy who didn't keep his word. [;D]
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 6:27:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 6:30:55 AM EDT
Cops who hide behind the "I was just doing what I was told" mantra are a danger to us all. When that line is accepted as reasonable cover for screw-ups and unconstitutional actions, those individuals become the criminal vermin they were hired to control. Cops, more so than everybody else, need to be held to a higher standard when it comes to obeying the law. When a person who is trusted to enforce the law of the people is given the power to use deadly force there can be no allowance for stepping over the line. As it pertains to our original post, I can't tell clearly whether the officers did step over that line or not.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 7:38:23 AM EDT
Even accepting plaintiff’s version as true, we do not believe that reasonable minds could differ in concluding that the police acted reasonably in opening fire on a suspect armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle
View Quote
The thing that bothers me is this statement in the ruling. This is coming from the court's ruling. This says to me that if you "appear" to be dangerous then the cops are justified in gunning you down. In this case, the police may have been justified in shooting the guy, but when you apply this case to any other arrest situation, it is scary. The position of the court presumes that you are guilty simply because you are holding an AR-15 "Assault Rifle." The court's statement to me implies that the cops are within their rights to blow you away simply because you are holding a rifle. What if they got the wrong house? What if you have been wrongfully accused and are actually innocent? This court seems to eager to sacrifice the idea of innocent until proven guilty for shoot first and ask questions later.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 10:40:55 AM EDT
First off, the outcome of this situation would have been justified regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. Whether they arrested him at the Quik-e-mart holding his AR and he refused to put it down, on a traffic stop, during a knock-and-announce warrant, or during a no-knock warrant. BG refuses to drop weapon, BG gets dropped. That is the way it works, that is the way it is supposed to work, and that is the way it should work. There is no constitutional issue here. There is no "JBT" issue here. Lawful arrest+non-compliant armed offender=shot offender. All of you self-appointed experts in arrest search and seizure law need to get some basic facts down: -A warrant is issued when a judge finds that there is probable cause to believe and offense has been committed. This is expressly laid out in the Constitution. -Most warrants (the vast majority, probably about 99.5 %) are served, knock and announce. -Most search warrants (probably about 95%) are served knock and announce. -A warrant cannot be served as a "no-knock" warrant unless a judge specifically allows it within the body of the warrant. This is based on number of factors including but not limited to the severity of the offense, the offender's history, weapons, the likelihood of armed resistance, and whether evidence would be destroyed if the officers gave prior notice of their intent, among other things. -The feds have a much, much tougher standard for no-knock warrants and rarely get them issued. They usually don't even bother. -No knock warrants are often the safest way to get an offender into custody and secure a location to be searched. -Whether you agree with the search warrant, or even if it is flawed and was incorrectly issued, you have absolutely no legal right or standing to resist, and the officers serving the warrant have the lawful authority to use appropriate levels of force to serve the warrant. The proper place in our legal system to contest a court order (including a warrant) is in court and not on the side of the road or in your living room. If your unlawful resistance includes being armed, you run a good chance of getting shot, just as this individual from Michigan did. All of the chest thumping and histrionics in the world won't change that fact. All of you self-appointed heroes of freedom who say "I'd kill them if they did that to me" are the reason why agencies run no-knock warrants. When someone makes a threat to kill officers, the officers tend to take it seriously. I also take issue with blanket statements about how these type of tactics are never justified? How much real tactical training do you have (bump firing your SKS at the gravel pit doesn't count). What real knowledge of tactics do you bring to this debate? No knock warrants are a fact of life, and have been deemed entirely legal and within the authority granted by the Constitution, as long as the preconditions established by the courts have been met. An officer is not a "JBT" for serving these warrants, and likening an officer performing his lawful duty under the Constitution and the laws of his state to nazis who were "just following orders" is downright sickening. Folks who talk like this are one of the reasons we have so many darned gun laws in this country; every time one of us reasonable logical sorts makes a good point, one of you guys opens your mouth and sets us back another decade. At this rate we will never win, and you morons will get your secret wish for a truly oppressive government, and I will blame you because it was your stupid remarks that undercut any logical arguments the rest of made. I'm beginning to think that Condon was correct when he said that the Extreme Right was really a tool of the Extreme Left.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 10:55:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By agtm: You have to wonder why these fucking adventure seeking ego maniacs didn't just arrest the guy when he went out for groceries and then search the place. They knew he had weapons and had said he would shoot if they raided him, so why do it when there was an alternative? Fucking viscous aggressive nazi cops. Jack booted thugs of the highest order. SEIG HEIL!!! [puke]
View Quote
I wonder that too. I suspect its a combination of money, policy, and training. They do what they are told to do and do it they way they are trained to do it. Sensational raids making headline news can help to justify spending. Every wonder why a news crew was at the scene in Waco when the ATF thought they were gonna walk into the compound and seize machineguns? It was budget approving time. Shok
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 11:03:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 12:12:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2002 12:15:16 PM EDT by Garand_Shooter]
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 12:54:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164: First off, a search warrant does not a BG one make. And again you prove my statement theat the system is broke, when that level of force and a no knock warrant are issued on a snitches word. As for tactics my friend, I have had plenty of tactical training, much more than most local yokel cops. And at one time by virtue of my duties while in the service had a license to kill. Both BG's and hostages if necessary. So you can get off your high horse, and stop hiding behind your mighty warrant issuing judges. With authority comes responsibility. Once again, you try to make it out as if the LEO's are following orders, and I say fine, but we need to fix the system. And until then LEO's have a responsibility to the People they Serve to behave responsibly.
View Quote
To answer you first point, no, it doesn't, but the presumption of innocence does not in any way extend as far as allowing someone to resist a warrant. Your second statement is laughable. "License to kill" my a**. There is no such animal, outside of the drug addled mind of Ian Fleming, and it only serves to excise any credibility you may have been seeking to gain. While you may have "felt" that you had a license to kill at one point in time or another, LE is under no such illusions. In your better agencies, tactical officers are carefully vetted, psychologically screened and trained before ever partaking in operational activities. And what exactly do you mean by "local yokel" cops? Is that supposed to be an insult? The US military has performed one publicly acknowledged or even vaguely rumored at hostage rescue in the last 25 years. This is no way meant to detract from their skills, but it is just not something that comes up that often. Up until the beginning of our recent combat operations in Afghanistan, the major repository of information about modern tactics for these kinds of operations came from police forces in the United States, because they were the ones with the actual operational experience. There is a lot of talk about the "militarization" of police, but in many ways, the opposite is happening. Military operations are becoming more constrained and more precise, and are borrowing tactics, operational modes and technology from the law enforcement community, because they have already "been there and done that." The less-lethal weaponry revolution came from law enforcement. The body armor revolution came from law enforcement, and the CQB tactics and shooting techniques used by our military is now using came from law enforcement. Your last point was "we need to fix the system" and that law enforcement was "hiding behind" judges. I call BS on this one, too. There is a very detailed system in place. Warrants do not get issued without good reason. To answer some of the other comments, a warrant can not be issued on the basis of an informant's information unless the information has been corroborated or the informant has been proven (and there is case law on how you have to do this) to be "reliable." Basically, the informant has to have given information about criminal enterprise that has been proven to be reliable on multiple occasions to get a warrant based on the informant alone, and even then, most judges (and most investigators) are leery of getting a warrant without some corroboration. I do think that there should be minimum standards set out at the state level for SWAT training, equipment and selection, because there are teams out there that lack the training to be doing their duties safely. That is about the only change in "the system' that I see as warranted. Overall, the threat that a SWAT Team will mistakenly enter your house is nil. You are only going to see these guys in your neck of the woods if: -One of your neighbors twists off; -One of your neighbors is engaged in serious criminal offenses and it this safest way to get them in custody or serve the search warrant; -You twist off or or are engaged in serious criminal activity.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 1:15:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 1:42:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2002 1:45:02 PM EDT by thedave1164]
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 2:30:26 PM EDT
Most warrants (the vast majority, probably about 99.5 %) are served, knock and announce.
View Quote
Yes, but a reasonable person wouldn't call that "knock and announce." I worked as a maintenance man at a local apartment complex for a while, and I saw two of the so-called knock and announce raids. One officer lightly knocked on the door and quietly said "police," then they kicked in the door. If the family they were invading was watching TV or was asleep, there's no way they could have heard the announcement. That year, the apartment complex spent more money on repairs for damage done by the police (including the corner of a building that a cop car clipped and landscaping damaged by the police cars parking) than they spent on normal wear and tear of the apartments. That figure included replacing the price of replacing the (expensive) carpet when people moved out! That's ridiculous when the police cost an innocent property owner that much. The cops also are trained to hit the area between the door and the frame with their ram. It's expensive to fix not only the door, but part of the frame and the wall.z
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 3:50:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: First off, the outcome of this situation would have been justified regardless of the circumstances of the arrest. Whether they arrested him at the Quik-e-mart holding his AR and he refused to put it down, on a traffic stop, during a knock-and-announce warrant, or during a no-knock warrant. BG refuses to drop weapon, BG gets dropped. That is the way it works, that is the way it is supposed to work, and that is the way it should work. There is no constitutional issue here. There is no "JBT" issue here. Lawful arrest+non-compliant armed offender=shot offender.
View Quote
What was being argued here was not LEO procedure. It was the identifying of the "Bad Guy" and His/Her house in the first place.
All of you self-appointed experts in arrest search and seizure law need to get some basic facts down:
View Quote
Like the Man said, You don't have to be an expert to think that People busting into Your home at night or unannounced might be a "Bad Thing"!
-Whether you agree with the search warrant, or even if it is flawed and was incorrectly issued, you have absolutely no legal right or standing to resist, and the officers serving the warrant have the lawful authority to use appropriate levels of force to serve the warrant. The proper place in our legal system to contest a court order (including a warrant) is in court and not on the side of the road or in your living room. If your unlawful resistance includes being armed, you run a good chance of getting shot, just as this individual from Michigan did. All of the chest thumping and histrionics in the world won't change that fact.
View Quote
You still don't answer the question of how One determines that It truly is an LEO coming through Your door and not an armed criminal?!? And One is supposed to decide all of this in the 10 milliseconds that it takes before you start to react...How??? Oh, Wait! We Civilians are not supposed to worry our little minds about these things...Yes Sir!, Here take My icky guns and I'll just cower over here in the corner like a good little sheep! BBBAAAAAAAAHHH! "Don't worry honey The big Man will save Us all!"
All of you self-appointed heroes of freedom who say "I'd kill them if they did that to me" are the reason why agencies run no-knock warrants. When someone makes a threat to kill officers, the officers tend to take it seriously.
View Quote
No!, We are not the reason, just some of the victims. We are not the ones who are Your enemy. Bad Guys are!, Bad Cops are!, Bad Judges are! We are Whom You are working for. Not the other way around pal.
I also take issue with blanket statements about how these type of tactics are never justified?
View Quote
I agree with You there.
How much real tactical training do you have (bump firing your SKS at the gravel pit doesn't count). What real knowledge of tactics do you bring to this debate?
View Quote
One dosen't need alot of training to see that this is not the best way to do things. Surely You have to aggree with that.
No knock warrants are a fact of life, and have been deemed entirely legal and within the authority granted by the Constitution, as long as the preconditions established by the courts have been met. An officer is not a "JBT" for serving these warrants, and likening an officer performing his lawful duty under the Constitution and the laws of his state to nazis who were "just following orders" is downright sickening.
View Quote
[b]ANY LEO WHO WOULD FOLLOW UNMORAL OR UNJUST ORDERS IS AS BAD AS THOSE WHO WOULD ISSUE THEM![/b]
Folks who talk like this are one of the reasons we have so many darned gun laws in this country; every time one of us reasonable logical sorts makes a good point, one of you guys opens your mouth and sets us back another decade. At this rate we will never win, and you morons will get your secret wish for a truly oppressive government, and I will blame you because it was your stupid remarks that undercut any logical arguments the rest of made.
View Quote
We are irational because We feel We have the right to feel safe in Our own Home? Or defend Ourselfs or Loved ones??
I'm beginning to think that Condon was correct when he said that the Extreme Right was really a tool of the Extreme Left.
View Quote
No, mindless devotion to any system is what the problem is. If a man can't question himself and His beliefs honestly, openly, and justly, then he truly is a lost soul. Tall Shadow
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top