You're better than that

 

Sorry about the Circus shot...but I don't think sending police officers into harms way unprepared or ill equipped is the right thing to do, when they are putting their lives on the line for the rest of us every day!

So you want to hamstring the police in how they do their job by having a judge decide police tactics?

Didn't they try long distance command and control before? How did that work out when the ones behind the scenes and removed from danger were making the decisions in DC during the Vietnam War?

Are you being serious?

 

So we expect judges to now be experts in police tactics and determine if one officer or two can go serve a warrant. What if a judge determines four can go, are they allowed to wear vest and carry rifles or do they need special permission for that too.

 

 

I can tell by your posts you didn't actually read the report. In there it have examples of law enforcement agencies getting a warrant, not a no knock warrant, a regular warrant. They then turned it into a no knock warrant and used SWAT because of the fear that evidence would be destroyed. That's not okay. If you're planning on kicking in the door tell the judge you're planning on kicking in the door and why. Some of these warrants might not be signed if the judge knew that the police were going in like that. I'm fine with police having whatever protective equipment they need to do their job. I'm not okay with them busting down a door and throwing a flashbang into a crib abs calling it an accident when it was to serve a warrant over a $50 drug transaction to a CI who wasn't even aware that the suspect did not lI've there but 4 small children did. If got need to go in like that apply for that kind of warrant.

So you want to hamstring the police in how they do their job by having a judge decide police tactics?

 

See my response to JD. If they want a no knock warrant ask for one and justify it. They should not get a warrant and then claim that they are afraid that evidence could be destroyed to turn it into a no knock warrant that might not have been granted otherwise.

I can tell by your posts you didn't actually read the report. In there it have examples of law enforcement agencies getting a warrant, not a no knock warrant, a regular warrant. They then turned it into a no knock warrant and used SWAT because of the fear that evidence would be destroyed. That's not okay. If you're planning on kicking in the door tell the judge you're planning on kicking in the door and why. Some of these warrants might not be signed if the judge knew that the police were going in like that. I'm fine with police having whatever protective equipment they need to do their job. I'm not okay with them busting down a door and throwing a flashbang into a crib abs calling it an accident when it was to serve a warrant over a $50 drug transaction to a CI who wasn't even aware that the suspect did not lI've there but 4 small children did. If got need to go in like that apply for that kind of warrant.

 

I did read it. I still don't think a judge is properly trained to evaluate police tactics.

See my response to JD. If they want a no knock warrant ask for one and justify it. They should not get a warrant and then claim that they are afraid that evidence could be destroyed to turn it into a no knock warrant that might not have been granted otherwise.

 

Aren't no knock warrants by definition approved by a judge? You bring up one was altered, then that is on the police commander that made that decision.

 

But this discussion wasn't about No Knock Warrants, it was about SWAT teams having better equipment. Which you still have explained to me why that is bad, other than bring up example of warrants gone wrong. There have been several officers killed this year serving warrants, so let's not act like they are going to arrest choir boys, this is a dangerous job and I want them equipped as safely as possible.

I would like to see limits set on the time of day most warrants can be served. If there is evidence that illegal activity is taking place in the wee hours of the morning, then fine, serve the warrant in the middle of the night. However, in most cases, warrants should be served during hours that people are normally awake.

 

Knocking three times at 3 AM and then breaking somebody's door down that is suspected of a crime is wrong. Who wakes up, gets dressed, and answers the door quickly at that time of night? It also makes it much more likely that the resident will answer the door with a gun in his hand for self protection, which in turn increases the chances of him being shot for doing nothing more than exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.

I did read it. I still don't think a judge is properly trained to evaluate police tactics.

 

Why should it bother the police to have to give a reason for a no knock warrant? If they have proper intel they should be able to justify it pretty easily, if not maybe they should wait until they can. I'm not asking then to go in to a known dangerous situation in regular gear. But if they feel that strongly about it why not be up front about it? Especially when there might be children or other innocent people in the house. If the judge isn't willing to risk a no knock warrant then it is on them, not the police.

Why should it bother the police to have to give a reason for a no knock warrant? If they have proper intel they should be able to justify it pretty easily, if not maybe they should wait until they can. I'm not asking then to go in to a known dangerous situation in regular gear. But if they feel that strongly about it why not be up front about it? Especially when there might be children or other innocent people in the house. If the judge isn't willing to risk a no knock warrant then it is on them, not the police.

 

It doesn't, they get judges to approve no knock warrants and knock warrants as well. You said that Judges needed to approve the use of SWAT, that's what is crazy. Judges approve the warrant and approve the scope of the warrant...THEN...it is up to the police to execute that warrant based on training, experience and up to date knowledge of the situation.

See my response to JD. If they want a no knock warrant ask for one and justify it. They should not get a warrant and then claim that they are afraid that evidence could be destroyed to turn it into a no knock warrant that might not have been granted otherwise.

 

I work in law enforcement. No judge is going to tell law enforcement what tactics they should use.

 

Might want to check your KRS. Any Sheriff Deputy in Kentucky can enter any building that they believe a person to be that they have a warrant for without knocking.

I would like to see limits set on the time of day most warrants can be served. If there is evidence that illegal activity is taking place in the wee hours of the morning, then fine, serve the warrant in the middle of the night. However, in most cases, warrants should be served during hours that people are normally awake.

 

Knocking three times at 3 AM and then breaking somebody's door down that is suspected of a crime is wrong. Who wakes up, gets dressed, and answers the door quickly at that time of night? It also makes it much more likely that the resident will answer the door with a gun in his hand for self protection, which in turn increases the chances of him being shot for doing nothing more than exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.

 

You're kidding, right?

It doesn't, they get judges to approve no knock warrants and knock warrants as well. You said that Judges needed to approve the use of SWAT, that's what is crazy. Judges approve the warrant and approve the scope of the warrant...THEN...it is up to the police to execute that warrant based on training, experience and up to date knowledge of the situation.

 

Then if they plan to execute it as a no knock warrant and use SWAT or even if they don't use SWAT but still decide to execute it as a no knock warrant they should have to be up front about it. They should not apply for a regular warrant and turn it into a no knock warrant because of fear of losing evidence--that is happening far too often.

There is nothing law abiding about rioters hurling bricks. One of the officers in Ferguson had an ankle broken by a brick. If it had hit his unprotected head' date=' he might be dead now. A brick or a Moltov cocktail is a deadly weapon when hurled at an innocent target. The police officers in Ferguson are not dressed in riot gear to observe peaceful demonstrations. They are there to try to prevent gangs of racist thugs from destroying their own community. Of course, many of them are out of towners just looking to loot and bust some heads.[/quote']

 

Quiz time. How many homicides of any kind were there in Ferguson in 2014 before Brown was killed???

Then if they plan to execute it as a no knock warrant and use SWAT or even if they don't use SWAT but still decide to execute it as a no knock warrant they should have to be up front about it. They should not apply for a regular warrant and turn it into a no knock warrant because of fear of losing evidence--that is happening far too often.

How often are they going no knock after asking for a regular warrant?

The use of SWAT or not has no place in the warrant process, IMO.

Quiz time. How many homicides of any kind were there in Ferguson in 2014 before Brown???

 

Less than 2 I think...maybe 1