Author Topic: WTG No Knock (Read 7273 times)

Charon · « **on:** November 28, 2006, 09:26:26 AM »

Filed under: Hey, if you have nothing to hide...

This poor 88-year-old woman just found out the hard way that the Bill of Rights is there for a purpose. Too bad our legislators and jurists seem to have a hard time with the concept.

Quote

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- An informant cited in a search warrant as having purchased narcotics at an elderly Atlanta woman's house denies buying drugs there, authorities say.

Undercover officers raiding the 88-year-old woman's house shot her to death last week after she fired on them while they broke down her door in a high-crime neighborhood.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/28/atlanta.shooting/index.html

Doesn't really sound like the police developed much of a case. An informant apparently "claimed" that he bought a couple of bags of crack from a "Sam" at the residence. I guess you don't need more than some street hood's claim before they kick down your door. No in-depth investigation, no "beyond a reasonable doubt," no "iron clad case" -- just violent search on rumor.

WTG Amerika!!!!

Charon

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 28, 2006, 10:02:56 AM »

Seems odd that a judge would grant a search warrant based only on the information obtained from the "informant" without a police investigation of some sort.

I read that the victim shot three officers before she was killed. Anyone find any info on how many rounds she fired?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #2 on:** November 28, 2006, 10:12:46 AM »

Charon,
Why do I suspect that you wish we just went back to the Wild West days of law enforcement, where there was little...

bsdaddict · « **Reply #3 on:** November 28, 2006, 10:14:32 AM »

"but we followed procedure! everything was by the book!"

hrmmmm, methinks the "procedure" needs to be examined...

Eagler · « **Reply #4 on:** November 28, 2006, 10:17:27 AM »

I blame bush ....

gotta wonder how many of her "relatives" are going to want a piece of that lawsuit pie ..

rpm · « **Reply #5 on:** November 28, 2006, 10:56:02 AM »

It was just an innocent old lady. What's the problem? Hey Eagler, what's your Mom's address?

Mace2004 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 28, 2006, 10:56:37 AM »

Something similar happened in Southern California about 10 or 15 years ago. Some informant was paid for information and he named a street address. Cops broke down the door in the middle of the night without warning. Guy and his wife were in bed and I believe he reached for his nightstand in the dark and the cops morted him. The address turned out to be just a random address the informant gave. Cops claimed "self-defense" and I don't believe any were disciplined although the city paid out a nice little sum.

Interesting this woman opened fire. Imagine you were awakened from a deep sleep when your door was broken down without warning and a couple guys in black outfits and guns rushed in? What if they were shouting they were cops? Would you believe them? Would they be justified in shooting you if you had a gun considering the circumstances? I'm sure the cops will say they fired in self-defense but what would they expect a homeowner to do? They know they're cops but the homeowner doesn't.

We were discussing rules of engagement while operating in the Arabian Gulf about 15 years ago and the question came up about what would constitute a hostile act by a certain large country in the region. One guy (I'll call him "Bill") said that if one of this other country's fighters pointed his nose at him he'd shoot him down. We asked "Bill" what he expected the other guy to do if "Bill" pointed his nose at him? After all, how would we feel if we were flying off the coast of San Diego and this other country had a CV operating 30 miles off the coast. Did he think that it would be reasonable to expect to be shot down just because he pointed his nose at one of their fighters? In the end our CAG gave us the appropriate direction. A hostile act would be the other fighter actually firing on one of us. The reasoning was two-fold. First, we're better than they are and could probably easily defeat their shot and turn the tables on them. Second, if he got lucky and one of us got smacked that's the risk we're paid to take. Aren't cops paid to take the risk or are they going to fire just because someone, not knowing who they are, is defending himself?

VOR · « **Reply #7 on:** November 28, 2006, 11:06:59 AM »

This has become more and more common since cops started dressing like ninjas and flying thru the window in the middle of the night. Somehow, despite all the ninja suits and undercover "Rush" narcs there's still a drug problem.

Hmm.

Chairboy · « **Reply #8 on:** November 28, 2006, 11:08:17 AM »

Eagler, clarify please. What's your take on this?

Charon · « **Reply #9 on:** November 28, 2006, 11:10:01 AM »

Quote

Why do I suspect that you wish we just went back to the Wild West days of law enforcement, where there was little...

This whole action reeks of the "Wild West" only from the law enforcement aspect.

I just respect the Bill of Rights Rip. If you're going to kick in the door with guns drawn without announcing who you are then you better dammed well be doing it after clearly identifying criminal activity and that criminal activity had better be of a level appropriate for such action. It shouldn't be a casual course of action because some street hood said he bough two bags of crack from somebody (which hardly seems worth this use of force in any case).

Maybe tomorrow it will be your door, and one of your family members lying dead as collateral damage. Or just all of your stuff trashed, your beemer ripped apart, your family terrified for an "oops" moment.

Quote

I blame bush ....

gotta wonder how many of her "relatives" are going to want a piece of that lawsuit pie ....

I blame Klinton -- he was no friend of the 4th by any means. Y'all got so worked up over his little hummer in the White House, while I was getting pissed at his aggressive erosion of our rights (in a variety of 4th related areas) to appear "tough on crime." Not that Bush is any better in this regard though.

I hope they sue the **** out of Atlanta. If she were my Grandmother that would be the least I would want if there was no option for criminal charges of negligent homicide.

Charon

Ripsnort · « **Reply #10 on:** November 28, 2006, 11:28:53 AM »

CHaron,
More people are killed by surgeons in malpractice suits not having the right information than elderly women by police officers, yet you focus on this one instance.

john9001 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 28, 2006, 11:44:16 AM »

i thought the "no knock" rule was dropped after some nijna cops were killed in a wrong address break in? it seems the cops need to learn the rules all over again.

john9001 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 28, 2006, 11:45:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
CHaron,
More people are killed by surgeons in malpractice suits not having the right information than elderly women by police officers, yet you focus on this one instance.

i don't think too many surgeons break down your door in the middle of the night.

lukster · « **Reply #13 on:** November 28, 2006, 11:51:57 AM »

Ya gotta wonder why the police felt it necessary to invade this old woman's house in the middle of the night. If she was alone they should have known this going in and I don't think it was necessary to go in gang busters style. Wouldn't a sting op have worked better and at far less risk?

Did they even find any illegal drugs?

Charon · « **Reply #14 on:** November 28, 2006, 11:53:26 AM »

You're posting a false analogy there Rip. The two are not even remotely related. Here rights were violated in the most basic and ultimate manner possible by the "State." We have a Bill of Rights that is supposed to keep this from happening, broadly, in a range of areas. It states that your life, and my life and our individual rights matter. That her life or death is more than a statistic and more than collateral damage. A real basic, fundamental part of what it means to be an American.

The Supreme Court decided this year to remove some barriers to "No Knock." Actually, in this case, it was the liberals on the Court were the ones standing up for our rights while the "conservative" members, incluing the newly appointed Alito, disagreed.

Quote

Scalia argued that the law enforcement landscape has changed dramatically since 1961, when the Supreme Court first imposed an exclusionary rule on the states to protect against warrantless searches. Today's police are more professional than those of 45 years ago, he observed, and there is "increasing evidence that police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously."

In this environment, Scalia argued, lawsuits and administrative proceedings are enough to ensure that police comply with the "knock and announce" rule.

That line of reasoning prompted a 30-page dissenting opinion from Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who disputed Scalia's upbeat view of modern policing and argued that lawsuits and police discipline have already proved inadequate to punish and deter "knock and announce" violations.

"Today's opinion," Breyer wrote in dissent, "weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Breyer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500730_2.html

They also cleared the way for those roadside "security checks" that reek too much of a "show me your papers" state.

Charon