The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 28, 2011, 08:43 PM   #26
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isk
"You point a gun at police, you're going to get shot". I'm not sure that's quite the right attitude to have.
If you point a gun at many of us you're likely to get new perforations. Why do you think the police should be any different? It's not like they have an obligation to take fire.
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 12:03 AM   #27
Isk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 181
Removed comment.

Last edited by Isk; November 29, 2011 at 12:19 AM.
Isk is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 08:26 AM   #28
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"Scary premise that owning a firearm and accessories makes you a likely drug-runner. "

That was not the basis for the warrant to search the house. He was hanging out with folks moving hundreds of pounds of pot at a time. The one load I recall being mentioned was a half a ton.
johnbt is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 01:07 PM   #29
NatoRepublic
Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
We need to rename this thread to "Night of the undead court case".
NatoRepublic is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 01:56 PM   #30
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young.Gun.612
Seems like "no-knock" warrants are pretty dangerous. I mean, any state that adheres to the castle doctrine and allows no knock warrants is setting its police and citizens up for a lot of sticky situations.
This is the unintended consequence of the castle doctrine. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a critic of standing your ground, but I do firmly believe that it means that law enforcement agencies need to take that particular law into account when they charge into action.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old November 29, 2011, 08:56 PM   #31
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
The Pima County Sheriff's position on the 2nd Admendment is well documented.

He is dead set against private ownership of firearms.

He routinely lobbies against gun rights and for tighter restictions.

The actions of his deputies are reflected in their approach to enforcing all laws.

His department will justify this action up to and including manufacturing evidence.
ltc444 is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 09:37 AM   #32
tet4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
Frankly, a great example of why no-knocks are so unbelievably stupid. The sheriff should face murder charges for this. Each time a no-knock warrant is executed, the police initiate aggression. The role of law enforcement is to uphold the law - not to initiate aggression. Furthermore, it undermines the home owner's right to self defense.

Just screaming 'police, police, drop your weapons' is not enough evidence to know that you are being served a warrant. Robbers can do the same, so how can you be sure? The only way to really serve a warrant, is the traditional way. If that's too dangerous, then surround the house and have a standoff. Sure, it's more costly and takes longer, but you pretty much are sure to avoid all confusion about what's going on, and you guarantee that no one is going to get shot unless someone in the house starts the fight.
tet4 is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 09:46 AM   #33
tet4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
Quote:
Seems like "no-knock" warrants are pretty dangerous. I mean, any state that adheres to the castle doctrine and allows no knock warrants is setting its police and citizens up for a lot of sticky situations.
I would argue that it's not just castle doctrine states. If you have a child in the house, how can you honestly leave if someone is breaking down your door? What about people who are deaf? They have no chance of knowing that it's a no-knock warrant vs some thugs breaking in to kill him.

At 2am when the lights are turned down and you just woke up and see people breaking in, are most people actually going to recognize the intruders as police? Highly unlikely, because in this country the expectation is that police don't barge into your house like home invaders and rapists.
tet4 is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 10:20 AM   #34
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,424
Quote:
Frankly, a great example of why no-knocks are so unbelievably stupid. The sheriff should face murder charges for this.
The sheriff who wasn't actualy present should face murder charges for a legally initiated action? I don't think so.

Quote:
Each time a no-knock warrant is executed, the police initiate aggression. The role of law enforcement is to uphold the law - not to initiate aggression.
Yeah yeah, each time most cops go on patrol they start their cars. Their job is to uphold the law, not start their cars.

I don't know where you have been, but passive police work hasn't been a winning strategy.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 10:40 AM   #35
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I am stuck on the stolen shotgun

I am wondering how that will come into play in the lawsuit.

I am trying to figure out how someone accidentally or innocently gets a stolen shotgun.

His nefarious brother asked him if he could hold on to it and store it for him for a little while?

Is it that easy for a pawn shop or gun store to receive a stolen weapon and then resell it without it triggering any flags in any databases?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 12:44 PM   #36
secret_agent_man
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
Quote:
Just screaming 'police, police, drop your weapons' is not enough evidence to know that you are being served a warrant.
I'm not keeping count, but increasingly the above scenario is becoming an indicator it may not the cops breaking and entering, but home invaders, sometimes dressed as police. That's a tough one for the occupants, indeed.

It's amazing that in a place like Tuscon, AZ the incumbent sheriff could keep getting reelected. Must be more to it than guns.
http://www.pimasheriff.org/about-us/meet-the-sheriff/
secret_agent_man is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 04:09 PM   #37
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
DNS; "...Passive Police work..."? would you please define this???

Last I read both the US constitution and our state constitution we are to be "secure" in our person and property..."except through an operation of law" The courts have shown that "authority of law" means "warrent" not "wim" of someperson.

WA constitution Article 1:

SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

Every state in the union has a simular section, as is also in Article V of the Bill of rights.

That someone "might" flush evidence down the toilet or whatever, so what? To say that law enforcement MAY miss some evidence is not a reason to trample on peoples rightful safety and security.

The corralary is: Someone MIGHT shoot a cop, so we will prevent that by breaking into and siezing all non cop's firearms, or photographic equipment or.... Same idea, different right trampled on.
hermannr is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 04:49 PM   #38
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
the SWAT team could have come when Guerena was at work
That right there is the golden truth, it would have been safer for everyone involved if they would have raided the house when he left for work, the store or was at work rather than while he was home. The same type of thing started ruby ridge, they could have just let the situation diffuse itself and waited for the guy to go into town but they chose a militaristic responce.

On the OTHER side of the coin though: If you are dealing as a LEO with a typical drug guy, then he has no gainful employment. If he leaves yeah it might be to the store but it might just as well be he was tipped off and is fleeing from the law never to be seen again so they HAVE to strike when they KNOW where he is.

Some PD's don't have the money for a proper 24/7 detail to watch a guy so they might not have known every detail of this guys life, I think a big part of this story is missing and hopefully will come out so everything can start to fit together.


In regards to no-nocks I must say this is where I find some common ground with groups typically associated with the anti gun crowed. I think our police force has become over-militarized, they dont "talk" to people any more. Many PD's wont try to "work it out" with someone, Many PD's seem to lack proper training in diffusing situations leading to things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc

Sometimes the best thing to do , LEO or not is to step back from a situation and defuse it.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 05:00 PM   #39
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
The officers had a valid search warrant, correct address, their subject was inside at the time. They executed the warrant legally.
Actually no, the warrant was not executed legally.

For nearly a thousand of years of legal history, for a search warrant to be legally executed it had to be presented to to person in charge of the place to be searched before the police entered and the search began. Even in Soviet Russia and Apartheid South Africa they would at least knock and present you with a warrant before ransacking your place.

The cops and judges can SAY that the warrant was legally executed, but properly understood, the warrant WAS NOT legally executed as no attempt was made to present the warrant to the occupants of the home before the police entered
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 05:20 PM   #40
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
There's a thousand years of legal history in the USA? I don't think so. And that's all that matters, the state law here.

And not the state of WA, the state the deceased lived in.

We've heard about Ruby Ridge, has Hitler been mentioned yet?
johnbt is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 05:39 PM   #41
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
One of the requirements for obtaining a "no knock" warrant is that there must be exigent circumstances that would make notification of the occupants and securing the premises result in the destruction of evidence or cause great threat to the officers.

Once that warrant is issued, the officers aren't required to re-verify that the exigent circumstances still exist. They aren't allowed to ignore evidence that it doesn't exist, but they don't have to check again. The assumption is that, unless otherwise informed, the exigency continues until the warrant is executed.

It seems to me that, rather than being issued for particular circumstances, in an awful lot of cases, the police just say "drugs" and a no knock warrant is automatically issued. I've seen a lot of numbers tossed around, but it seems pretty safe to figure that several tens of thousands of them are executed every year. That's a LOT.

It just seems to me that in most of the cases the entries end up either dramatically escalating the situation or causing far more damage than is necessary. If I was a police officer, I'd seriously question whether there was a less violent and safer way to apprehend a suspect and secure evidence.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 06:10 PM   #42
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
Hindsight is 20/20, with that being said....

Cops take their chances with no-knock warrants. I agree with another poster that there were probably other and better chances to pick him up, such as at work.

I also agree with HarrySchell; in that they better be quick, as I don't think any home owner is wrong for shooting at their door as it comes down, whether the word "POLICE!!!" is being yelled or not.

This is another case that the local government will lose, and the local taxpayer will pay.

Once again, why did they not snag him at work, coming out of the local grocery store, or while turning the corner headed home? If they suspected he had weapons at home, shouldnt they want to confront him in a spot where full armory access was limited?
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 08:20 PM   #43
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
There's a thousand years of legal history in the USA? I don't think so.
You know what I mean, the foundations of modern law has it's roots in the middle ages in Europe and even back then until very recently not a single judge or jury would consider a search warrant that was executed without first being presented as having been "lawfully executed".

Quote:
And that's all that matters, the state law here.
"I was just following orders and the laws of the state." didn't work in Nuremberg. Sorry to be blunt, but it's bad law, bad policy, and I hope the backlash against such practices ensure they are one day no longer allowed.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 08:30 PM   #44
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
You know what I mean, the foundations of modern law has it's roots in the middle ages in Europe and even back then until very recently not a single judge or jury would consider a search warrant that was executed without first being presented as having been "lawfully executed".
Not sure if everyone knows that our law is based on English law which in turn originated in the Middle Ages. So, yup - a thousand years...close enough
__________________
"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." - Stan Lee

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 08:39 PM   #45
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
johnbt

"Scary premise that owning a firearm and accessories makes you a likely drug-runner. "

That was not the basis for the warrant to search the house. He was hanging out with folks moving hundreds of pounds of pot at a time. The one load I recall being mentioned was a half a ton.
Guilty by association. This may sound damn harsh, but when one hangs with the wrong people, one has to be prepared to bring death and destruction upon themselves and/or family.

Now with that said, no-knocks in a castle-doctrine State is a very bad mix.
__________________
"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." - Stan Lee

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 08:59 PM   #46
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
If I were King of the world, I would have, several decades ago, made it madatory that traps be installed under each house to the main sewer line.

So 10 minutes before the police do a raid, they just activate the trap. Then when drug dealers flush their cocaine or wahtever down the drain, it all ends up in the trap, the contents of which are submitted as evidence.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 30, 2011, 09:59 PM   #47
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"You know what I mean"

I know what you typed. And you're right, "until recently." The law changed.
johnbt is offline  
Old December 1, 2011, 06:45 AM   #48
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
I seem to remember that we've done this subject.

I understand the emotional points of view. But some of the facts seem to getting lost in the argument. The police did in fact have a perfectly legal warrant to search the premis. The police did warn him before they entered. They surrounded the home with marked police vehicals. They whooped their sirens. The actually did knock on the door and announce. The same team had earlier served his brothers home a block or so away. This warrant was part on a larger on-going investigation.

In most jurisdictions getting a warrant to search is a fairly complicated affair. If the local justice is handing out no-knocks like haloween candy... Thats a problem of the local community. You get who you vote for.

In 25 years as a police officer and detective, I have obtained and served well over a hundred warrants to search. Maybe three or four were no knocks that I can remember. 90% of the time myself and a partner would knock on the door. Present our creds, and the warrant. Most people would just direct us to what were looking for.

My personal advise to any and everyone is this. If you point a gun at the police you can expect to be at least shot at. Not just swat... any policeman.

I'm probably a stronger critic of the police, and their modern technique than anyone here. I absoloutly hate the militerization, and politicalization (is that a word?) of the police. I'm a police purist who believes the police work for, and must answer to the people. But this IMO is a case of things working as they should. I'm sorry for the death of any person. Especially at the hands of the state. The fact that this guy was a marine has absoloutly nothing to do with anything. If that fact concerns anyone I suggest you find a homeless vet. and feed him. They all deserve better.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old December 1, 2011, 08:34 AM   #49
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,424
Quote:
Actually no, the warrant was not executed legally.
Really? What law was broken? Keep in mind that it does not matter whether you like the law or not for it to be legal.

Quote:
You know what I mean, the foundations of modern law has it's roots in the middle ages in Europe and even back then until very recently not a single judge or jury would consider a search warrant that was executed without first being presented as having been "lawfully executed".
Quote:
"I was just following orders and the laws of the state." didn't work in Nuremberg. Sorry to be blunt, but it's bad law, bad policy, and I hope the backlash against such practices ensure they are one day no longer allowed.
LOL, Crosshair, playing both sides of the fence at the same time while invoking Godwin's law. Really? Laws that you like you endorse and laws that you don't you compare to Nazi actions? Wow.

Interesting about the judges and juries and search warrants for the last thousand years or middle ages in Europe and what they would consider legal. This doesn't seem to be correct at all. Writs and warrants to search in England did not have to be presented to the owner or occupant before execution. This was especially true of importers and exporters who were not in residence at their warehouses or who were not actually present. These writs and warrant gave permission to the appointed officers or individuals to search and secure goods or people without first gaining permission from the owners or occupants. They need not be presented in advance before searching. This curtailed the arguments "I wasn't there when you searched and so your search is not legal. Give me back my contraband."

Under feudal law of this period, jury trials were not common. Warrants were not necessary because the holdings and lands were owned by the sovergn who was the one apt to issue such warrants, if s/he so bothered.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old December 1, 2011, 08:59 AM   #50
secret_agent_man
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
Whoops. Post with drawn.
secret_agent_man is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13367 seconds with 7 queries