Police don't have to knock, justices say

13»

Comments

  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    chopitdown wrote:
    they are also human don't forget, i understand what you're saying but it's also not a reasonable expectation, imo...if they kick down the wrong door they are held accountable it's not like cops can do whatever they want and get away with it.

    i wonder if rodney king believes this??
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,915
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i wonder if rodney king believes this??

    Rodney King is an example of the worst.. you need only walk with your children down the street or through the mall to experience all the good that the armed police force provides.

    All this resistence to the Police is as bad as Bushes hatred for the lives of those that disagree with him.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    Abuskedti wrote:
    Rodney King is an example of the worst.. you need only walk with your children down the street or through the mall to experience all the good that the armed police force provides.

    All this resistence to the Police is as bad as Bushes hatred for the lives of those that disagree with him.


    i'm not saying all police are bad or all police will knock down a door w/o knocking, just that the comment that there is oversight is false, plenty of cops get away w/ stuff all the time. so jsut saying 'ah, there's oversight' doesn't do anything to put me at ease that this won't be abused
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,915
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i'm not saying all police are bad or all police will knock down a door w/o knocking, just that the comment that there is oversight is false, plenty of cops get away w/ stuff all the time. so jsut saying 'ah, there's oversight' doesn't do anything to put me at ease that this won't be abused


    It'll be abused.. but the balance of the decision should be positive.. hopefully its not close. I wasn't really responding to your post, but to this whole thread.
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    MLC2006 wrote:
    yes. it is unlikely that police are going to use this judgement to kick in a door to serve a trespassing or forgery warrant. or a bag of marijuana. or pissing in public. but when someone has a warrant for trafficking hard drugs (these are usually the ones with guns) or someone with a long and violent history, I'm all for the 'professional judgement' that calls for kicking the door in without knocking.
    Here is an example of how this is put to use now:

    Buffalo's Stampede Against Privacy
    City of Light's finest bomb houses, arrest scores, kill dogs, and achieve nothing
    Radley Balko



    "We're going to have to be mobile, agile and slightly hostile in trying to get the job of policing done in the City of Buffalo," Buffalo Police Chief H. McCarthy Gipson announced when he was appointed to his position in February 2006.

    In April, Buffalo police made good on the boss's promise. The city conducted a massive anti-drug sweep from April 18 to April 20, dubbed "Operation Shock and Awe." Scores of police officers dressed in battle gear conducted 38 no-knock SWAT raids over the course of three days. They deployed diversionary grenades, broke down doors with battering rams, stormed residences with guns ablaze, and arrested 78 people.

    "We are declaring war on street-level drug dealing," Gipson told two reporters from the Buffalo News, whom he invited along for one of the raids. The reporters described the scene:


    A loud "flash bang" concussion device detonated inside a Kensington Avenue house as Buffalo police SWAT officers, clad in black armor and brandishing automatic assault rifles, stormed a lower apartment.

    "Buffalo police. Search warrant. Buffalo police," the officers yelled to the stunned occupants inside.

    Within seconds, several shotgun blasts were fired. At the same instant, another officer cradled a 1-year-old boy out the front door and down a flight of steps to safety.

    When the smoke cleared, three large pit bull terriers lay dead, in pools of their own blood. And five people were in handcuffs.

    By April 21, police were boasting of their take: six pounds of marijuana, seven ounces of crack cocaine, and five guns. Given the size of and scope of the operation, however, the bounty was rather spare. Six pounds of marijuana and seven ounces of crack from nearly forty residences, all of which housed suspected drug dealers? A massive, armored force of SWAT teams in battle garb, storming "all corners of the city," was necessary to seize just five guns?

    Nevertheless, shortly after the raids, Chief Gipson declared victory. "This has put a dent in the drug trade, put some operations out of business and addressed the fears of some of the residents," he said.

    Or not. A month later, the Buffalo News ran a follow-up piece under the headline "How effective is drug war?; After flurry of arrests, many cases dismissed or suspects released." Turns out, Gipson's "dent" was barely a nick. The six pounds of marijuana police claimed to have seized was actually 4 pounds, 13 ounces. Three-and-a-half pounds of that came by way of an unrelated traffic stop that had nothing to do with the raids.

    Not surprisingly, twenty-one ounces of marijuana and seven ounces of crack wasn't enough contraband to keep the 78 people rounded up from the raids in jail. Sixteen were immediately released with no criminal charges. Another 32 were out of jail within 24 hours, due to insufficient evidence. Just 20 face felony charges, though it's unclear how many of those will actually stick.

    City leaders were furious. Not because the Buffalo police department carpet-bombed the city with violent, highly militaristic raids in a manner that needlessly terrorized dozens of innocent citizens. Civic leaders fumed because they had already rushed to the media to take credit for the "get tough" approach, and now had some explaining to do.

    City Council Member Dominic Bonifacio Jr. called the dismissals "a slap in the face to our men in blue," and blamed—apparently with a straight face—New York State's Rockefeller drug laws. "There's always talk about New York [State] being too hard on drug users," he said. "But maybe they need to be harder on the drug dealers."

    More ominously, many civic leaders in Buffalo are now looking at a program called "Operation Clean Sweep," a project started in the city several years ago that sends housing and safety inspectors out with drug cops. The inspectors' presence enables police to get inside the home without a search warrant. One can only imagine how it might be used in conjunction with "Operation Shock and Awe."

    It's an increasingly common tactic. In June 2004, for example, more than 70 police officers conducted a massive SWAT raid on a billiards bar in Manassas Park, Virginia under the pretext of an inspection from the state alcohol board. It was unquestionably a drug raid, and officers turned the bar upside down in pursuit of evidence against its owner. But the presence of the Alcohol Beverage Control officers allowed the entire raid to take place without the legal hurdle of procuring a search warrant.

    The Buffalo News reports that several police officials referenced Operation Clean Sweep in speculating how they might go about organizing future raids, adding that, "Police also are looking into working with federal housing officials to seize problem drug houses."

    The timing of the Operation Shock and Awe is also suspicious. The raids came just days after Erie County Executive Joel Giambra publicly came out against the Drug War. Giambra held a press conference with members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a new group of ex-cops and prosecutors advocating the decriminalization or legalization of drugs. Giambra's not exactly a profile in political courage—his tenure has been plagued by allegations of fraud and corruption. Still, his apostasy on the issue stands in stark contrast to the hardened positions of the political leaders around him. And his long-running feud with local police organizations, including the Buffalo PD, casts doubt on the timing of the raids.

    As for the specific raid described by those reporters from the Buffalo News, a different account emerged weeks later in the paper's letters to the editor:


    The warrant they had was for marijuana only, not guns or narcotics, as one News reporter wrote. A loud, concussion device was detonated first, and then shotgun blasts were heard all the way down the street. A 1-year-old child was present at the time, and he wasn't carried out of the house in the same instant as the shotgun blasts started, as reported.

    This child not only heard all this, but also witnessed his beloved pets get brutally slaughtered right in front of his tender eyes. Oddessy, a boxer mix; her pup, Snoop; and a pit bull terrier, Ginger, were all pets. They weren't fighters, vicious or unlicensed—they were friendly, lovable dogs; just ask anyone who knew them.

    When the officers came in, they came to kill the dogs. Oddessy ran between one of her owner's legs, and was blasted in the head. Snoop was shot twice. Ginger was shot as she ran into a back bedroom, where she was cornered by officers and hit with four more shotgun blasts. The dogs were carried out of the house in garbage bags.


    It's unlikely that city officials will be deterred. Buffalo PD Chief of Detectives Dennis Richards told the Buffalo News that Shock and Awe was "just the beginning." "There will certainly be more raids in the future," he said. "You can count on that... We're looking at small-scale, large-scale, street-level... We're looking at top to bottom."

    That's troubling news for low-income residents of Buffalo, those most likely to be targeted by wide-net operations like Shock and Awe. It's even worse news for their pets.


    Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute
  • MLC2006MLC2006 Posts: 861
    that article is laughable, I hope you don't expect anybody to take that seriously....."when the police came, they came to kill the dogs." really, was this a part told by officials? was a cop interviewed and said this? or was this 'reporter' in the cops' heads to know what they came to do? "police bomb houses" really? how many houses did they bomb? sounds to me like they served some high risk warrants and there were no injuries, what's the point?
  • MLC2006MLC2006 Posts: 861
    Ok. Kicking down one door in error is enough for me.



    If I'm going to pay for the gun, pay for the uniform, pay for the badge, pay for the man, I'll be damned if I'm going to allow his judgement to determine his rights to use them.



    But the difference is I can choose my doctor, my lawyer, my surveyor, my architect. I am not at the mercy of those professionals. We have not allowed doctors to hold a monopoly on medical knowledge. We have not allowed lawyers to hold a monopoly on the law. We have not allowed surveyors to hold a monopoly on where our property lines are drawn. We have not allowed architects to hold a monopoly on the laws of physics.

    We have allowed the police to hold a monopoly on force.

    can you give an example of when a door was kicked down "in error"? police don't go kicking in random doors to serve a warrant, they address has to be ON the warrant.

    your second comment above makes no sense at all. it's not for you to say when a cop can use a gun, your life is not the one at risk. further, you also pay the lawmakers, and they make the laws that allow police to use professional judgement.

    the third paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. but no, doctors don't hold the medical monopolies, the insurance companies do. and you are at their mercy, though you can pick whichever insurance company you want. you can also pick which politicians you want, but you're still at their mercy. but either way, it's not about you being at anyone's 'mercy', it's about cops being able to enforce the law in the safest way possible. and the safest way possible in many cases is to kick the door in.
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i wonder if rodney king believes this??

    so that's one out of the almost 1.75 million arrests served in california that year...drug companies would love to have a morbidity rate of that. I'm not touching the rodney king incident with a 10 foot pole though.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    El_Kabong wrote:
    i'm not saying all police are bad or all police will knock down a door w/o knocking, just that the comment that there is oversight is false, plenty of cops get away w/ stuff all the time. so jsut saying 'ah, there's oversight' doesn't do anything to put me at ease that this won't be abused

    everyone gets away with stuff all the time. haev you ever sped and not gotten pulled over? I'm not saying that makes it right, but i think it helps bring it back to reality. We seem to hold cops to this impossible standard of being damn near perfect. Think about it if you were in their shoes that's all Im asking, don't constantly look from a victims view... if you were a cop (w/ all the training, experience, etc...)and you were serving a warrant would you kick in every persons door or would you be wise in which doors you busted down? Why would the average police officer act any different?
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    MLC2006 wrote:
    that article is laughable, I hope you don't expect anybody to take that seriously....."when the police came, they came to kill the dogs." really, was this a part told by officials? was a cop interviewed and said this? or was this 'reporter' in the cops' heads to know what they came to do?


    well let's see here, 3 days of raids achieved
    -six pounds of pot (turns out cops were, i guess to you, misquoted and actually it was only 4lbs, 13 oz...3lbs, 8oz of that was in an unrealted traffic stop, so in reality on 21ozs)
    -7oz of crack
    -5 guns
    -78 ppl arrested (down to 20 who ended up facing felony charges)
    -at least 3 dogs killed, right in front of a 1 year old child

    of course the reporters is not saying the cops reason to come was to kill dogs...but obviously this is what happened, eh?
    MLC2006 wrote:
    "police bomb houses" really? how many houses did they bomb? sounds to me like they served some high risk warrants and there were no injuries, what's the point?

    do you think children should have flash bang grenades go off in front of them then watch their family dogs get shot down right in front of them by men heavily armed and dressed in black?

    the article shows the excessive use of force for what ended up being over very little...not to mention the cost those operations must've cost the taxpayers...

    it also shows the use of housing agents and social workers to get around needing a warrant, which is really going too far and should be obvious to anybody
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • 1970RR1970RR Posts: 281
    MLC2006 wrote:
    can you give an example of when a door was kicked down "in error"? police don't go kicking in random doors to serve a warrant, they address has to be ON the warrant.
    http://www.projo.com/northwest/content/projo_20051007_npraid.1d6458a8.html

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/06/tennessee.shooting.02.ap/index.html
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    chopitdown wrote:
    so that's one out of the almost 1.75 million arrests served in california that year...drug companies would love to have a morbidity rate of that. I'm not touching the rodney king incident with a 10 foot pole though.


    obviously it's one case out of a lot...i'm just pointing out the level of oversight and punishment. what happened to those officers, again? oh riiiiight, nothing. ;)
    chopitdown wrote:
    everyone gets away with stuff all the time. haev you ever sped and not gotten pulled over? I'm not saying that makes it right, but i think it helps bring it back to reality. We seem to hold cops to this impossible standard of being damn near perfect. Think about it if you were in their shoes that's all Im asking, don't constantly look from a victims view... if you were a cop (w/ all the training, experience, etc...)and you were serving a warrant would you kick in every persons door or would you be wise in which doors you busted down? Why would the average police officer act any different?


    i'm not worried about the avg police officer who pulls me over. i just think too much power is being given over and coupled w/ other things like the patriot act, nsa wiretapping, making lists of protestors before the war started, information awareness act...there is no need to let so much power go
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • MLC2006 wrote:
    can you give an example of when a door was kicked down "in error"? police don't go kicking in random doors to serve a warrant, they address has to be ON the warrant.

    I don't mean the wrong door. I mean as the result of poor "professional judgement" where the action creates a highly dangerous situation. There are examples of this everywhere.
    your second comment above makes no sense at all. it's not for you to say when a cop can use a gun, your life is not the one at risk.

    IT IS WHEN THE GUN IS POINTED AT ME
    further, you also pay the lawmakers, and they make the laws that allow police to use professional judgement.

    I do pay the lawmakers, but now you're saying that the law is pointless in the face of "professional judgement".
    the third paragraph doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. but no, doctors don't hold the medical monopolies, the insurance companies do. and you are at their mercy, though you can pick whichever insurance company you want. you can also pick which politicians you want, but you're still at their mercy. but either way, it's not about you being at anyone's 'mercy', it's about cops being able to enforce the law in the safest way possible. and the safest way possible in many cases is to kick the door in.

    It certainly becomes about being at someone's mercy when I sanction their "professional judgement" regarding the use of force.
  • MLC2006MLC2006 Posts: 861
    I don't mean the wrong door. I mean as the result of poor "professional judgement" where the action creates a highly dangerous situation. There are examples of this everywhere.



    IT IS WHEN THE GUN IS POINTED AT ME



    I do pay the lawmakers, but now you're saying that the law is pointless in the face of "professional judgement".



    It certainly becomes about being at someone's mercy when I sanction their "professional judgement" regarding the use of force.

    it can also create a dangerous situation when they CANNOT kick in a door and someone is able to arm themselves. that's why 'professional judgement' is needed.

    when has a cop pointed a gun at you? if you can give the circumstance, maybe I'll understand.

    I've not said or implied that the law is pointless in the face of "professional judgement", I'm saying this new law is giving cops the needed discretion.

    you can condone it or not. but the main point is officer safety comes first. you make it sound like police are suddenly going to be kicking in doors all over the country, and that is not the case. do you think cities want that kind of bad publicity? but the point is that in certain cases, this is needed, and this new law allows for it.
  • MLC2006 wrote:
    it can also create a dangerous situation when they CANNOT kick in a door and someone is able to arm themselves. that's why 'professional judgement' is needed.

    No, that's why objective law is needed. Codify the situations in which a police officer may kick in doors.
    when has a cop pointed a gun at you? if you can give the circumstance, maybe I'll understand.

    Each time I've been arrested. Each time justifiably so, at least by the standards society has created wherein the arresting office has a right to tell me what to do and, if I refuse, force me.
    I've not said or implied that the law is pointless in the face of "professional judgement", I'm saying this new law is giving cops the needed discretion.

    This is not a new law. The judiciary cannot pass law. This is a change in standards such that cops can use their discretion. What I take issue with is the "needed" language in your statement. I do not believe it is needed. I believe strict standards are needed.
    you can condone it or not. but the main point is officer safety comes first. you make it sound like police are suddenly going to be kicking in doors all over the country, and that is not the case. do you think cities want that kind of bad publicity? but the point is that in certain cases, this is needed, and this new law allows for it.

    I never suggested that police are "suddenly going to be kicking in doors all over the country". Surely they will not.
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.