View Full Version : ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation
I think this is a good thing, but will be curious as to the conclusion they draw.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Better late than never, I guess. CATO did it 10 years ago.
However, I am encouraged to see this emphasis and hope it is a big part of the study:
The vast majority of those raids are to serve warrants on people suspected of nonviolent drug crimes. Police forces were no longer reserving SWAT teams and paramilitary tactics for events that presented an immediate threat to the public. They were now using them mostly as an investigative tool in drug cases, creating violent confrontations with people suspected of nonviolent, consensual crimes.
Moose-Knuckle
03-06-13, 16:46
I can't stand the damn ACLU, but every now and again they are on the side of Lady Liberty. Will be interested to see what comes of this.
There is an article on the ACLU inquiry on several police forums. Below is the comment I posted on one of the forums.
I have not forgotten the oath I took to protect the people who are counting on us. Given the current political climate, an inquiry of this sort comes as no surprise. Law abiding citizens are concerned the equipment will be used against them. We have a lot of work ahead of us to mend the Us vs Them mentality. How we respond to the inquiry by the ACLU will set the tone of the relationship between LEO and tax payers.
There is an article on the ACLU inquiry on several police forums. Below is the comment I posted on one of the forums.
I have not forgotten the oath I took to protect the people who are counting on us. Given the current political climate, an inquiry of this sort comes as no surprise. Law abiding citizens are concerned the equipment will be used against them. We have a lot of work ahead of us to mend the Us vs Them mentality. How we respond to the inquiry by the ACLU will set the tone of the relationship between LEO and tax payers.
Great response.
domestique
03-06-13, 20:47
There is an article on the ACLU inquiry on several police forums. Below is the comment I posted on one of the forums.
I have not forgotten the oath I took to protect the people who are counting on us. Given the current political climate, an inquiry of this sort comes as no surprise. Law abiding citizens are concerned the equipment will be used against them. We have a lot of work ahead of us to mend the Us vs Them mentality. How we respond to the inquiry by the ACLU will set the tone of the relationship between LEO and tax payers.
Thank you for the response. I have always been PRO LEO and have many friends at all levels (township, city,state, federal). But the last 5-10 years have really brought doubt in my mind and fellow co-workers/family etc. on talking to police officers you do not know. It is a real shame because many of the police/troopers/agents on the ground are GREAT guys, but are following orders from Chiefs etc. that have nothing buy corrupt political intentions in mind.
Threads like one Larry started about Ken's friend in NJ come to mind. The next 4-10 years will really be interesting in this country.
Thank you for the response. I have always been PRO LEO and have many friends at all levels (township, city,state, federal). But the last 5-10 years have really brought doubt in my mind and fellow co-workers/family etc. on talking to police officers you do not know. It is a real shame because many of the police/troopers/agents on the ground are GREAT guys, but are following orders from Chiefs etc. that have nothing buy corrupt political intentions in mind.
Threads like one Larry started about Ken's friend in NJ come to mind. The next 4-10 years will really be interesting in this country.
I echo the tanks for the response as well as your service to your community. Based on your response to this alone I can tell that you actually get it. If the ranks were all comprised of people like yourself we wouldn't have to worry about this. Sadly, this isn't the case.
I can't stand the damn ACLU, but every now and again they are on the side of Lady Liberty. Will be interested to see what comes of this.
I hate to say it but this all probably comes from somebody who got hurt during a crack house raid. The ACLU like the SPLC is extremely selective about who's rights they defend.
They will make a fire department remove their manger scene during the holidays but will defend the rights of a person to wear a burka for their drivers license photograph.
I only wish the CATO institute got all of their funding.
Moose-Knuckle
03-07-13, 18:25
I hate to say it but this all probably comes from somebody who got hurt during a crack house raid. The ACLU like the SPLC is extremely selective about who's rights they defend.
They will make a fire department remove their manger scene during the holidays but will defend the rights of a person to wear a burka for their drivers license photograph.
I only wish the CATO institute got all of their funding.
I'm afraid your right.
threeheadeddog
03-07-13, 18:32
I hate to say it but this all probably comes from somebody who got hurt during a crack house raid. The ACLU like the SPLC is extremely selective about who's rights they defend.
They will make a fire department remove their manger scene during the holidays but will defend the rights of a person to wear a burka for their drivers license photograph.
I only wish the CATO institute got all of their funding.
Steyr
It seems that, on certain fronts, we see things very similar.
Problem with the ACLU, as already discussed, is that tbey are selective on who they defend.
As for this from the article
"We've known for a while now that American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war," said Kara Dansky,senior counsel at the ACLU's Center for Justice,which is coordinating the investigation. "The aim of this investigation is to find out just how pervasive this is,and to what extent federal funding is incentivizing this trend."
I hope they can get a good look at the "neighborhoods" and see that some are a war zone.
Moose-Knuckle
03-07-13, 19:38
I hope they can get a good look at the "neighborhoods" and see that some are a war zone.
Good point, I have a colleague who's BIL is featured on the show SWAT: Miami Dade and swear every time I watch that show I think they are filming on location in Juárez or Mogadishu. :eek:
nobody knows
03-07-13, 22:31
I dont like the ACLU any more then the rest of you. But does it matter who they are defending as long as they are investigating the militarization of OUR police force? This is something that effects all of us. If not now, it will in the near future when speaking out against the president gets you imprisoned.
I dont like the ACLU any more then the rest of you. But does it matter who they are defending as long as they are investigating the militarization of OUR police force? This is something that effects all of us. If not now, it will in the near future when speaking out against the president gets you imprisoned.
Militarization is a catchy but loaded term. That is the problem. If they take issue with swat units kicking in doors,to arrest red light runners then ok. I have a problem with that too.
If they are saying that LEOs should not have AR15s, short barreled shotgus, armored vehices and other "military" like equipment...then they can go take a leap from a tall building witbout a parachute (because the military uses parachutes and they wouldnt want to be militarized).
I am not sure you really want to defend the militarization position.
Germany is very much a 'law-and-order' society. Yet they have a very permissive culture. No one ****s with the Polizei. They say "do it", you do it. Or, their ROE pretty much allows them to do whatever they need to do to maintain law and order. You will notice in Germany that the Polizei do not wear a Batman utility belt festooned with all manner of devices. Most only carry a gun and perhaps a radio.
Do you know why they only need a gun and a radio?
Officer safety in high crime neighborhoods is of paramount importance; no one is arguing that point. So long as the military surplus and military style equipment is being used properly, no one has anything to fear from an inquiry from the ACLU or anyone else.
If someone wants to assert that an inquiry would compromise security by allowing outsiders to see the equipment and how it is deployed, I would disagree with that point. All you have to do is watch television to see how SWAT teams operate.
Not really a valid argument. This is an American cultute that for the most.part says "**** the man".
Ive been to europe, not Germany though. My experience was that they respect and alpreciate their leo's. Tgen again even the leo has a different role in many countries .
Being festooned with options saves lives btw.
Edit: forgot to ask. The polizei are nationalized right? Does the fed govt operate it or each region?
Officer safety in high crime neighborhoods is of paramount importance; no one is arguing that point. So long as the military surplus and military style equipment is being used properly, no one has anything to fear from an inquiry from the ACLU or anyone else.
If someone wants to assert that an inquiry would compromise security by allowing outsiders to see the equipment and how it is deployed, I would disagree with that point. All you have to do is watch television to see how SWAT teams operate.
Agreed. Hell, at my agency thr vehicles are on display.
Not really a valid argument.
Oh really? But it is the argument made everyday by anti-gunners. You see, the German police are not militarized because Europe has very strict gun control. See how this works?
You demand military toys to "level the playing field" and the other side then has an argument to "level the playing field" by taking guns away from private citizens.
I can do this all day...
However, to answer your question, the Federal police only run border checkpoints/passport control, trains, some highways and a few other things. Based on their WWII history the vast majority of policing powers rest in the hands of the local State police.
[QUOTE=Litpipe;1574272]Militarization is a catchy but loaded term. That is the problem. If they take issue with swat units kicking in doors,to arrest red light runners then ok. I have a problem with that too.
[\QUOTE]
This is what it is about, I haven’t seen much on this board but from the Feds on down SWAT tactics are being used to serve warrants for non-violent offenses.
Oh really? But it is the argument made everyday by anti-gunners. You see, the German police are not militarized because Europe has very strict gun control. See how this works?
You demand military toys to "level the playing field" and the other side then has an argument to "level the playing field" by taking guns away from private citizens.
I can do this all day...
However, to answer your question, the Federal police only run border checkpoints/passport control, trains, some highways and a few other things. Based on their WWII history the vast majority of policing powers rest in the hands of the local State police.
I wouldnt call them "toys", they are "tools" that keep me and my co-workers alive. Like it or not we need them. Some people have a problem believing that there are bad guys out here in the real world.
As for a level playing field, it will never be level. No matter what legistlation is proposed. Which is why we need our 2a rights.
I wouldnt call them "toys", they are "tools" that keep me and my co-workers alive. Like it or not we need them. Some people have a problem believing that there are bad guys out here in the real world.
As for a level playing field, it will never be level. No matter what legistlation is proposed. Which is why we need our 2a rights.
As a civilian peace keeper you're allowed to have whatever you want.... just as soon as the rest of us civilians are too.
Belmont31R
03-08-13, 11:59
Militarization is a catchy but loaded term. That is the problem. If they take issue with swat units kicking in doors,to arrest red light runners then ok. I have a problem with that too.
If they are saying that LEOs should not have AR15s, short barreled shotgus, armored vehices and other "military" like equipment...then they can go take a leap from a tall building witbout a parachute (because the military uses parachutes and they wouldnt want to be militarized).
The problem is not in having the equipment but how it is used. As the quote on the OP talks about...this equipment and people are being used to 'investigate' non violent 'contraband' type crimes with increasingly violent tactics.
I watch some of these swat shows, and they will demolish someones house to 'investigate' someone selling pot or crack. What happens if nothing is found and no charges are ever filed? They going to fix up the persons house to at least of good of condition as it was?
I have nothing against officers being able to protect themselves but I think there should be greater scrutiny over when these types of tactics can be used. There should not just be free reign to use a battering ram attached to an armored vehicle because they think someone was selling dime bags, and I think there should be far more repercussions/accountability for when things go wrong like when they get the wrong house.
As a civilian peace keeper you're allowed to have whatever you want.... just as soon as the rest of us civilians are too.
I have nothing that you cannot go out and purchase on your own as a citizen non-LEO person. I think you may be more worried about intent. I only go after criminals. Not law abiding citizens. That being said, criminals in their very nature use stuff that is not legal.
I should clarify my position/view. I do not agree with using over reaching force to carry out a simple mission that is not high risk. That being said, I also dont believe in sending a cop with basic light protective gear into a house occupied by criminals that have firearms. A little cannabis or a lot of cocaine...bad guys usually have guns. That same bad guy being arrested for a little pot may have a history of violence, weapons offences and aggravated crimes. Perhaps if he were not a criminal cops would not be knocking his door in.
I have nothing that you cannot go out and purchase on your own as a citizen non-LEO person. I think you may be more worried about intent. I only go after criminals. Not law abiding citizens. That being said, criminals in their very nature use stuff that is not legal.
I didn't mean YOU specifically so much as the proverbial you. I mean LE in general. Restrictions are assigned to civilians and LE almost always get exemptions. I am worried about intent just like NDAA gives WAY too much leeway to the federal government to more or less nullify a citizens Constitutional rights and while Obama says his administration would never do that... that doesn't mean the power isn't now there to be abused someday by somebody. Same thing can be applied at the local levels of LE where no-knock warrants are becoming common place for 'officer protection' as the reasoning. These extreme methods should only be used in the most extreme and life-threatening of conditions. Add the advanced weapons that we're not allowed to own as 'regular' civilians and you have a recipe for disaster. I'm not comfortable with that and many Americans are starting to take notice and agree.
I should clarify my position/view. I do not agree with using over reaching force to carry out a simple mission that is not high risk. That being said, I also dont believe in sending a cop with basic light protective gear into a house occupied by criminals that have firearms. A little cannabis or a lot of cocaine...bad guys usually have guns. That same bad guy being arrested for a little pot may have a history of violence, weapons offences and aggravated crimes. Perhaps if he were not a criminal cops would not be knocking his door in.
I agree. So why send them in at all? We've created these monsters with our own misguided war on drugs so now we're going to send good people into the lair of monsters? Perhaps if we didn't feel the need to turn EVERYONE into criminals you wouldn't have to knock on as many doors.
I didn't mean YOU specifically so much as the proverbial you. I mean LE in general. Restrictions are assigned to civilians and LE almost always get exemptions. I am worried about intent just like NDAA gives WAY too much leeway to the federal government to more or less nullify a citizens Constitutional rights and while Obama says his administration would never do that... that doesn't mean the power isn't now there to be abused someday by somebody. Same thing can be applied at the local levels of LE where no-knock warrants are becoming common place for 'officer protection' as the reasoning. These extreme methods should only be used in the most extreme and life-threatening of conditions. Add the advanced weapons that we're not allowed to own as 'regular' civilians and you have a recipe for disaster. I'm not comfortable with that and many Americans are starting to take notice and agree.
I agree. So why send them in at all? We've created these monsters with our own misguided war on drugs so now we're going to send good people into the lair of monsters? Perhaps if we didn't feel the need to turn EVERYONE into criminals you wouldn't have to knock on as many doors.
Yeah...I know you didnt mean "me", I was just being myopic. I think that we as LEO are our own worst enemy at times. Other times stories are twisted by the media and portray us as these bad guys that are picking on people. Fact is we have a tough and for the most part thankless job that is in the public eye as well as reviewed by the public. (I know, we chose this profession...thats an argument for another thread).
The public expects us to act in a certain manner, having no experience in the job at hand. They place their trust in us to do what is necessary...then when shit hits the fan accusations, suspicions and mistrust abound. Im not saying that we dont make mistakes...we most certainly do. We must be held accountable for them...I expect no less.
Our dilemma is that the media...who reports these things, is only interested in the next 5 minutes of ratings. Truth, fact and context be damned.
Back to the OP and the thread. We need organizations like the ACLU. We need them for actual fact finding and accountability of govt. All to often though it seems like they are out to make demons of us (govt). I just hope it has an outlined scope and takes everything into consideration.
People see a SWAT team on the news and since they're probably fairly stupid/ignorant and uninformed, they assume all Police have that gear/or go to work in that gear.
Special Weapons and Tactics teams are just that. They have access to gear that we Patrol Officers usually dont (not counting guys that do double duty).
I dont need that crap, nor do I want to haul it around. It wont matter anyway, because if I happen to need it, chances are time wont be on my side to deploy it. And I dont believe that avg. Patrol Officer should be rigged out like a SWAT team member.
SWAT call outs take time, lots of time. They plan....plan some more...and then take action (hence the joke SIT WAIT AND TALK=swat).
People are stupid, hate the Police, and will make whatever assumptions to demonize them that they can.....who gives a shit.
People see a SWAT team on the news and since they're probably fairly stupid/ignorant and uninformed, they assume all Police have that gear/or go to work in that gear.
Special Weapons and Tactics teams are just that. They have access to gear that we Patrol Officers usually dont (not counting guys that do double duty).
I dont need that crap, nor do I want to haul it around. It wont matter anyway, because if I happen to need it, chances are time wont be on my side to deploy it. And I dont believe that avg. Patrol Officer should be rigged out like a SWAT team member.
SWAT call outs take time, lots of time. They plan....plan some more...and then take action (hence the joke SIT WAIT AND TALK=swat).
People are stupid, hate the Police, and will make whatever assumptions to demonize them that they can.....who gives a shit.
You don't get it. Regardless of what 'special group' of the department is deploying those weapons and tactics they are STILL being deployed against the people who don't even have the right to attain those same weapons and tactics for their own protection. There's seemingly no checks or balances as to what warrants these tactics either and as those 'in the know' come to the conclusion that deploying these tactics and weapons keeps the officers safer regardless of the rights of the citizens you get people who don't normally have a problem with LE starting to develop natural and healthy skepticism of said weapons and tactics and their use.
It's along the same lines of an officer taking a citizens firearm off of them for 'their protection' when the citizen has done nothing to warrant such disarmament. My rights as a free and law abiding citizen don't take a second seat to your feeling of safety as a civil servant. Treating everyone w/o a badge as if they're a felon to make your job safer isn't right.
Your statement that 'people who question this are stupid and don't get it so who gives a shit' really doesn't help your cause either. In fact, it's that attitude of not seemingly caring about those you're sworn to protect that has trigged this whole thing in the first place. Perhaps you should give a shit.
madisonsfinest
03-08-13, 17:25
Well I will take a plate carrier, etc.... Officers do need these pieces of equipment. Not everyday, or most of the time. But there are times. I see no problem with the ACLU looking at the process. Our SWAT team doesn't do search warrants on nonviolent criminals without weapons information. I don't know what communities you all live in, but I know most of our drug dealers are armed.
Well I will take a plate carrier, etc.... Officers do need these pieces of equipment. Not everyday, or most of the time. But there are times. I see no problem with the ACLU looking at the process. Our SWAT team doesn't do search warrants on nonviolent criminals without weapons information. I don't know what communities you all live in, but I know most of our drug dealers are armed.
In my community lots of law abiding citizens are also armed. Hell, it's no secret in my neighborhood that I am armed... to the hilt. Now, mix in some bad 'intel' about what's inside my home that's illegal and you have a situation where my life, that of my family and my dogs is in peril. Is this common? Nope. Has it happened? Yep. For that reason someone needs to look into the definition of 'violent criminal' because it's as dangerous as the federal government being able to label someone a 'terrorist' and be able to void all their rights as a result. But, it's for public safety so that's fair to ruin the life of a single lawful citizen.. right?
You don't get it. Regardless of what 'special group' of the department is deploying those weapons and tactics they are STILL being deployed against the people who don't even have the right to attain those same weapons and tactics for their own protection. There's seemingly no checks or balances as to what warrants these tactics either and as those 'in the know' come to the conclusion that deploying these tactics and weapons keeps the officers safer regardless of the rights of the citizens you get people who don't normally have a problem with LE starting to develop natural and healthy skepticism of said weapons and tactics and their use.
It's along the same lines of an officer taking a citizens firearm off of them for 'their protection' when the citizen has done nothing to warrant such disarmament. My rights as a free and law abiding citizen don't take a second seat to your feeling of safety as a civil servant. Treating everyone w/o a badge as if they're a felon to make your job safer isn't right.
Your statement that 'people who question this are stupid and don't get it so who gives a shit' really doesn't help your cause either. In fact, it's that attitude of not seemingly caring about those you're sworn to protect that has trigged this whole thing in the first place. Perhaps you should give a shit.
You dont get it. I know you live in limpwristedville Colorado, but SWAT call outs are not for people with failure to appear warrants. They are called out for violent criminals, that are usually known to be armed. I would assume 99.99% of Police Depts have P&P on SWAT call outs, why dont you actually go research that.
Also, why would I disarm someone if I dont have reasonable suspicion to believe they've committed a crime? I wouldnt, and I havent. So again, take your generalizations and go play with the slow kids.
My statement was more geared toward people like you...... Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before demonizing an enitre profession, like you are already doing.
To clairify, I dont give a shit what uneducated assumptions that STUPID people make about Law Enforcement. Its clear they are incapable of educating themselves enough to form reasonable opinions.
Belmont31R
03-08-13, 18:02
Emily Miller, who some of us know as the reporter who documented the process of buying a gun in Washington DC after the Heller case, also did a story on a vet who called a VA mental health hotline and was greeted by a SWAT team instead of anyone trying to help him since he was 'armed'.
Again, I believe in officers being able to protect themselves but everyone has to admit there are a lot of cases out there where things are done in an over the top manner, and SWAT seems to be the asset of choice for anything above routine patrol work.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/may/28/miller-swat-rampage-destroys-iraq-vets-home-over-g/
Of course DC is an anti-freedom shithole, and this probably would have been handled differently in a lot of other places but I think its an issue we need to address. As someone else pointed out this fosters an anti-LEO attitude in otherwise normal people, and I don't think any of us want that type of relationship.
madisonsfinest
03-08-13, 18:03
I haven't written a search warrant myself, but I would assume you have to have some decent evidence. A judge has to sign off on it.
In my community lots of law abiding citizens are also armed. Hell, it's no secret in my neighborhood that I am armed... to the hilt. Now, mix in some bad 'intel' about what's inside my home that's illegal and you have a situation where my life, that of my family and my dogs is in peril. Is this common? Nope. Has it happened? Yep. For that reason someone needs to look into the definition of 'violent criminal' because it's as dangerous as the federal government being able to label someone a 'terrorist' and be able to void all their rights as a result. But, it's for public safety so that's fair to ruin the life of a single lawful citizen.. right?
Are you serious? Do you really not know what it takes to be considered a violent criminal??????????
DO YOU KNOW WHAT A VIOLENT CRIME IS????? DO YOU KNOW WHAT A CRIMINAL IS?????????
Why dont you put 2 and 2 together, I know it might be tough, but after a few hours you'll probably get it.
I'll help you though.....
Violent Crime:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime
"Criminal" definition:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal
Pretty tough shit right there..............
You dont get it. I know you live in limpwristedville Colorado, but SWAT call outs are not for people with failure to appear warrants. They are called out for violent criminals, that are usually known to be armed. I would assume 99.99% of Police Depts have P&P on SWAT call outs, why dont you actually go research that.
Also, why would I disarm someone if I dont have reasonable suspicion to believe they've committed a crime? I wouldnt, and I havent. So again, take your generalizations and go play with the slow kids.
My statement was more geared toward people like you...... Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before demonizing an enitre profession, like you are already doing.
To clairify, I dont give a shit what uneducated assumptions that STUPID people make about Law Enforcement. Its clear they are incapable of educating themselves enough to form reasonable opinions.
You know nothing about me so how 'bout you keep the personal attacks to a minimum and try to communicate like an adult and not like a whining toddler who's had his legos taken away for having a poor attitude. You are NOT helping those in your profession at all with the statements you've made and the people who I respect who do your profession (and believe you me, I know a TON and have a lot more of an active roll in local LE than you know ANYTHING about) would be embarrassed that you were speaking on their behalf. As I've already stated, it's attitudes like YOURS and not those like Litpipe that are bringing this all into question right now anyway. So congratulations for being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Belmont31R
03-08-13, 18:12
I haven't written a search warrant myself, but I would assume you have to have some decent evidence. A judge has to sign off on it.
The search warrant doesn't dictate how the warrant is served. After that it's up to LE as to how they carry it out.
Are you serious? Do you really not know what it takes to be considered a violent criminal??????????
DO YOU KNOW WHAT A VIOLENT CRIME IS????? DO YOU KNOW WHAT A CRIMINAL IS?????????
Why dont you put 2 and 2 together, I know it might be tough, but after a few hours you'll probably get it.
I'll help you though.....
Violent Crime:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime
"Criminal" definition:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal
Pretty tough shit right there..............
Nice ninja edit. Guess you should have thought your feelings through a little bit more before clicking 'submit' huh?
The problem is that SWAT is being rolled and doors are being kicked (in some cases.. the wrong doors) for offenses that don't meet the 'violent criminal' definition. Which is as follows from your link:
"In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force."
Maybe it's you who should 'educate yourself' on what the actual conversation is about before deciding to throw in your own pro-cop 2 cents regardless of what the subject matter is. Face it, not everyone in your profession is a beacon of hope and heroism regardless of how much you try to defend the profession. You should WANT those who abuse their powers to be found as it helps people who don't.
You should also know that on non-firearm forums I'm almost ALWAYS the first one to speak up against those who hate on cops for no reason. Then again, you don't seem too concerned with who you're talking at or the points being discussed anyway so have at it...
madisonsfinest
03-08-13, 18:19
I've seen here in this thread and another where people are trying to point out that police are civilians and by assumption, only military are not considered civilian. In most every dictionary I've seen, a Civilian is described as someone who is not a part of the military, police, or firefighters. Just curious why some try to point out a distinction?
Uhh...wow...someone mentioned my handle in a nice way :eek: jk.
In all seriousness...search warrants are well regulated within this country. Rightfuly so. With that said, "high risk" is a very subjective term and cam be abused by those who dont care.
As a whole I believe we do a good job in serving the public. If a group wants to check up on us and insure that, then fine.
I would ask people here to look at something though. Those of us on both sides of the debate.
http://www.odmp.org/
Take a look at this. I often do.
The search warrant doesn't dictate how the warrant is served. After that it's up to LE as to how they carry it out.
On top of that there have been radical changes to the methods by which even warrants can be attained due to 'streamline' the process to make 'fighting crime easier' when it was never intended to be easy. It's supposed to be difficult so that innocent people don't have their lives ruined. It's supposed to be difficult so that the wrong god damn door doesn't get kicked and someone's loving family pet isn't shot or even a family member as a result. I'm not sorry that due process is inconvenient for those protecting us from those sworn to protect us in some cases.
Littlelebowski
03-08-13, 18:27
http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1253494&postcount=97
Uhh...wow...someone mentioned my handle in a nice way :eek: jk.
In all seriousness...search warrants are well regulated within this country. Rightfuly so. With that said, "high risk" is a very subjective term and cam be abused by those who dont care.
As a whole I believe we do a good job in serving the public. If a group wants to check up on us and insure that, then fine.
I would ask people here to look at something though. Those of us on both sides of the debate.
http://www.odmp.org/
Take a look at this. I often do.
I mentioned your handle in a good light because I appreciate your approach to the topic. I fully understand that there are good people who do LE and I have lots of close friends who I consider heroic and someone to aspire to be like and great examples of being a man in general. I don't get why some MUST personally attack and beat their chests and support ANYONE on their side regardless of how wrong they are all why claiming others are stupid. :confused: All of that hurts your cause more than helps. I can appreciate that you are someone of higher intelligence who realizes that not everyone who does what you do is of sound moral fiber. As such, you actually look forward to something that helps to weed out the bad seeds and rightly so.
madisonsfinest
03-08-13, 18:29
The search warrant doesn't dictate how the warrant is served. After that it's up to LE as to how they carry it out.
Most Police Departments have guidelines in tow with the NTOA
http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1253494&postcount=97
This is one of the MANY posts I've read that point to these tactics not even being necessary to the betterment of society and the safety of the innocent. If it was shorted it would be in my sig as it exactly conveys the mindset that would actually make things like this ACLU investigation unnecessary.
Belmont31R
03-08-13, 18:34
Most Police Departments have guidelines in tow with the NTOA
If you knew that why did you ask the question you did in your post asking about warrants?
madisonsfinest
03-08-13, 18:37
When I said a judge has to sign off on a warrant? I was talking about the reasons for being there. And then you brought up practices in executing the search warrant. What is your question??
I think this is a good thing,
The ACLU would be a very positive force in the preservation of our Const. Rights if they didn't selectively pick which of those Rights they've deemed important.
I dont like the ACLU any more then the rest of you. But does it matter who they are defending as long as they are investigating the militarization of OUR police force? This is something that effects all of us. If not now, it will in the near future when speaking out against the president gets you imprisoned.
I understand philosophically that when the ACLU defended the first amendment rights of the American Nazi Party they were defending the rights of nearly any other American to say just about anything.
I only wish the ACLU had consistency and would take cases that are just as significant to civil rights but happen to fall outside of their preferred agenda.
If the ACLU and SPLC actually were the groups they portray themselves to be I'd support both of them. In fact if the ACLU actually was an American Civil Liberties Union the NRA could confine their efforts to promoting gun safety and organizing regional shooting events.
I understand philosophically that when the ACLU defended the first amendment rights of the American Nazi Party they were defending the rights of nearly any other American to say just about anything.
I only wish the ACLU had consistency and would take cases that are just as significant to civil rights but happen to fall outside of their preferred agenda.
If the ACLU and SPLC actually were the groups they portray themselves to be I'd support both of them. In fact if the ACLU actually was an American Civil Liberties Union the NRA could confine their efforts to promoting gun safety and organizing regional shooting events.
Isn't that kind of what they're doing with this particular topic?
Alaskapopo
03-09-13, 01:52
I am not a fan of no knock warrants. If the house is that dangerous you should not be hitting it with people inside. Find the suspects away from home arrest them and then search their home. That may not always be possible but no knock warrants are simply dangerous for everyone involved in my opinion. That said I am all for military equipment and tactics when its called for. SWAT teams should have the best equipment possible when it comes to dealing with violent offenders. That being said how you serve a search warrant on a pot growers home should be way more low key than how you search a warrant on a meth lab.
Pat
Alaskapopo
03-09-13, 01:55
I am not sure you really want to defend the militarization position.
Germany is very much a 'law-and-order' society. Yet they have a very permissive culture. No one ****s with the Polizei. They say "do it", you do it. Or, their ROE pretty much allows them to do whatever they need to do to maintain law and order. You will notice in Germany that the Polizei do not wear a Batman utility belt festooned with all manner of devices. Most only carry a gun and perhaps a radio.
Do you know why they only need a gun and a radio?
They actually have some very cool rubber batons that can hurt like hell.
Pat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70hOn8fCsfE
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/18/20090318shotsue0318.html
I am all for criminals getting their just rewards but not at the cost of innocent people being shot by mistake !!
something needs to change with no knock warrants IMHO at least
http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1253494&postcount=97
That was very well written
NCPatrolAR
03-09-13, 10:18
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70hOn8fCsfE
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/03/18/20090318shotsue0318.html
I am all for criminals getting their just rewards but not at the cost of innocent people being shot by mistake !!
something needs to change with no knock warrants IMHO at least
Are you saying the Guerena incident was a no knock service?
The ACLU would be a very positive force in the preservation of our Const. Rights if they didn't selectively pick which of those Rights they've deemed important.
I agree, I generally don't like them, especially how they ignore attacks on the 2A; but all of our rights are being attacked and we all need to start pushing back.
Isn't that kind of what they're doing with this particular topic?
If one chooses to view it that way. I just wish they didn't observe a predetermined bias when it comes to deciding what cases they will take.
There are plenty of "ordinary people" who lived next door to the house that was listed on the warrant who had a bad experiences with tactical law enforcement. I think the ACLU would be more productive to use one of those cases.
If one chooses to view it that way.
So we bitch when they seemingly choose bad causes to champion and then we bitch when they seemingly are doing something useful. Is that all we do as a group is bitch?
Are you saying the Guerena incident was a no knock service?
No was not saying that the Guerena was regular warrant !
Kinda is about the thread of militarization of LEO
The idea of no knock warrants makes for good tv but also makes for the view that the police are becoming to militarized in the eyes of many and accidents happen
Sadly folks will focus on the 1 bad and not the 100 good !
In a neighberhood of crack homes and known drug homes sure the accident rate is zero but seems they still happen so something needs to change ?
Did not say stop just change :) its a tough spot for sure
I haven't written a search warrant myself, but I would assume you have to have some decent evidence. A judge has to sign off on it.
To include:
Reviewed by a supervisor, then
Reviewed by a DA or AUSA, then
Reviewed and signed by a Judge or Magistrate, then
an Operations Plan is written and reviewed by a supervisor, if a joint warrant like I typically do, then the OPS Plan is reviewed by multiple supervisors and their supervisors. Every time some ass-hat goes off of the reservation and violates a rule or policy we end up with another check-box on the OPS Plan, or another stop in the chain for review.
On top of that there have been radical changes to the methods by which even warrants can be attained due to 'streamline' the process to make 'fighting crime easier'
Do tell? Please provide an example. I have yet to find a way around sitting down in the office of a Judge or Magistrate and explaining my need for said writ.
Do tell? Please provide an example. I have yet to find a way around sitting down in the office of a Judge or Magistrate and explaining my need for said writ.
Yeah. There is no "stream lining" on sw. Pretty simple process...but solid measures in place.
Skip ahead to Rule 41
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/2010%20Rules/Criminal%20Procedure.pdf
platoonDaddy
03-09-13, 15:34
The following article was posted on a Maryland Shooters Forum in 2008. The store he purchased the ammo has (still to this day) an ammo log that they share with MSP. One of the amendments to MD AWB is for stores to register the buyer of ammo and then share it with MSP.
The following surely is a Militarization reaction to an ammo log:
*****************
Hello Henry.
I just wanted your organization to know what Our State Police are up too. The incident below happened to me, a legal gun owner in La Plata, Maryland two nights ago (August 4, 2008 at 12:30 am). Next time, they won't get in without a warrant. You live and you learn. Below, is the e-mail I sent to Mr. Chris Contee NRA, Chief Counsel at his request. I know I'm not an isolated incident so I hope your members keep their doors locked.
Dear Chris,
It was great to speak with you today by phone. Sorry but also glad you are so busy with our legislative matters. What would we do without you and the NRA?
As I told you by phone, my Wife and I were unfairly besieged late last night by the Maryland State Police. I have also relayed this occurrence to "Citizens Group for the right to keep and bear arms". I believe they are in Seattle Washington. Enclosed is my summation for your review. Good luck on your trip and safe travel.
Last night at 12:30 Am a MD State Police "Armed Response Team" showed up at our door. I was dead asleep, my Wife was laying some ceramic tile on our basement floor when our driveway alert went off several times. She looked at the camera monitor and screamed that Police in Assault gear were running up to our front door. That made me sit straight up from a dead sleep.
We thought they were there for my Brother in Law who had just been mailed Bench Warrants to our home, but he doesn't live here and he is already incarcerated, so my Wife opened the door for them. Then I heard one of them say he had some papers for me or needed to speak with me,so I got up to speak with them 6 or 7 officers in full assault vests, etc. and NO ONE in uniform. Four heavily armed police came into the house while at least two others walked around outside of our home.
One, began to talk to me asking me about the types of weapons I own. Remember now, I was just startled from a dead sleep and I kept asking why are you here, why do you want to know about my guns? Every gun I bought in Maryland I bought from a MD Dealer. Well this Trooper said that I had purchased a "large amount" of ammunition recently and wanted to know why. When I questioned why he was asking, then he changed his tune to what type of Handguns I had. I told him I just purchased my first handgun in Maryland last week, but had not even picked it up from the Store . He questioned me about other handguns I might own and I realized that he was "fishing" to match his list of my ammunition purchases with handguns that I owned. Then I told him about my C&R license that I had purchased 2 with that but was not required to register them with ST. Police. Moreover, I told him it was the MD. ST. Police who approved me as a "designated collector" so why are they here in storm trooper fashion at 12:30 am maybe to kill me because I legally bought some handgun ammo? He told me that most of the ammo I purchased was for weapons that they had no record of me having registered so the "SYSTEM" Flagged me. Flagged me for what? Death, Harassment at midnight by 7 Storm Troopers?
I asked, "... does your system know that it is stupid to buy ammo with your own ID if your are going to do something illegal, Does your system know that I have a C&R and can buy weapons of various calibers without your knowledge, Does your system know that you yourselves registered me as a designated collector, who "collects" so it is not unusual for me to buy any type or manner of ammunition and finally, Does your system know that it is NOT illegal to purchase handgun ammunition in the State of Maryland whether or not you own that caliber handgun?"
The Trooper (plain clothes), had a list of ammo calibers that he referred to and I agreed, there's no secret that I bought the ammo, but so what? And I'm still not sure of the States definition of a "large amount". Look, I'm not outfitting a Militia, hate group, or giving it to someone who can't buy it, or even buy ammo for a stolen weapon I don't want to register. Any weapon I have every owned has either been purchased at a Gun Store or I personally knew the individual I bought it from and its origin. And, last time I looked it is not illegal to buy handgun ammo, even if you don't own the caliber weapon OR you don't own a weapon at all !! So unless the law is changed, Police cannot harass people who do so.
That being said, the young Trooper told me I "should" voluntarily register all my weapons or this would happen again... because the "system" flagged me. And another thing, he kept asking where I kept my weapons, in a safe? I never answered him and he asked me three separate times as to the locations of any weapons I might have. I got the distinct impression he wanted me to voluntarily let him see/inspect the handguns for the calibers I bought ammo for, but I was ready for that. No warrant, no see. I mean, I would hope you could trust the Police, but why should I let six or seven or so strangers know where I keep guns? If indeed I had the calibers he was inquiring about?
The point here though, is that Police came to my home without a warrant, dressed to kill, trying to intimidate me about something that is NOT illegal !! This was not an Interview it was an interrogation under duress.
Funny the last thing he said to me before leaving was "... Mr. Curtis, sorry to have HARASSED you, you have a good night." Now that struck me as an odd thing for a Police Officer to say, especially if he was justified in doing his job. The last thing I'll say was that Trooper was courteous and having worn the badge, he and the team were sent by someone else, they're just following orders. However, whoever sent them to my home at 12:30 at night left a very bad taste in my mouth and NO ONE IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES TO ME NOR DO I KNOW THEIR NAMES. But rest assured they WERE the Maryland State Police. Word has it that there is a Special "Firearms" squad within the State Police and they have been asking gun dealers to keep a log of people who purchase handgun and other regulated weapon ammunition by making them show ID and signing their name when purchasing ammunition (not required under Maryland Law). Their MVA / DMV information is put in the log by the FFL Dealer right beside the ammunition you buy. Then once a week they (Police) come back to the stores pick up the logs of ammunition purchases and as in my case, they are comparing handgun ammunition purchases against known handgun registration files. This practice was first started by the Howard County or Baltimore City Police (I believe), and the MD State Police adopted this tactic as well. Perhaps it works, some criminals are stupid enough to purchase ammunition with their own ID. I am not a criminal nor am I stupid, but I was duped into signing those ammunition logs, without the FFL Dealer advising me that it is NOT mandatory or disclosing the log's true purpose.In fact I was told that if 'you' refuse to sign this ammunition log, the Dealer will refuse the sale. I will NEVER buy ammunition from that Dealer again.
We've contemplated moving back to VA or even go down to Florida for a while. But that was yesterday. Now there is nothing that will hold us back from moving back to a "Free State". Or at least a State where subversive tactics are not practiced by the Police.
FYI: I have been in contact with Attorney Chris Contee, NRA Legal Council and He/NRA is very interested in this case. Hopefully this Tactic can be publicized, excised and stopped.
Sincerely
I removed his name
http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1253494&postcount=97
Thanks for posting this LL.
I can't believe I'm posting on the internet as nothing good will come from it... oh well.
Laws like this are extremely important and I wish they were in effect in every state. I say that having had a badge in my pocket for just over 13 years in local, state, federal (task force), and, more recently, reserve capacities. The really simple answer to this is to limit "tactical" entries into residences to only the most egregious and exigent circumstances--- if at all. I have been on, supervised, or participated in dozens of “tactical” search warrants and, in retrospect, I believe every single one of them could have been done more safely by simply containing the residence and calling out the “suspects”. At that point uniformed officers with marked police cars can present the “suspect” with a copy of the lawful warrant and administratively execute their lawful warrant.
This approach would result in a much safer and more community friendly way for the officers to execute their duties and investigate for evidence of a crime. It would result in little old ladies and toddlers, who were unlucky enough to have crack heads as parents, not getting swept by muzzles and not being scared half to death at 3AM. There is absolutely no significant down side to the residents/suspects, police, or community.
Some will argue that the lack of speed and surprise will result in evidence being destroyed (ie flushed dope). Who cares? A proper investigation will result in the investigators having a solid case, arrest warrants in hand, and plenty of evidence to convict even without the search warrant. The search warrant should be the icing on the cake of an already complete investigation. Finding dope or not finding dope/evidence/whatever really shouldn’t have any role in the outcome of the prosecution. Chasing dope/evidence in hopes of making a case that you couldn’t have otherwise made is just lazy and sloppy. I’ve done it or assisted in it dozens of times, but with distance and reflection, realize that more patience and harder initial case work would have eliminated the “need” to chase dope/evidence via a “tactical” search warrant.
Operating under this premise, the only downside for the police is some possible initial overtime building the case and, if someone doesn’t decide to come out in a timely fashion, a few more hours of overtime on the back end. I think some overtime and getting home a few hours late is a very, very reasonable “price to pay” for not having to endanger ones self, ones colleagues, or the public at large. Even if an administrative screw up results in the wrong residence being “hit”, there’s really no harm, no foul since it will be discovered quickly during a chat on the porch not after a dog is dead, a door is busted, and some toddler is forever scared of the police.
This type of policy/procedure needs to be codified via departmental policy and law. Over 99% of cops out there are decent people who are doing a job. They aren’t out to “wrong” anyone. That said, I was never out to “wrong” anyone and hopefully never did. I was also young, gung ho, and somewhat clouded by a calling to put bad people in prison. There were 110% good intentions but I didn’t yet have the experience to see the big picture. A few ounces of coke aren’t worth a single percentage point of risk to innocent by standers.
What changed my mind? A family and 10 years of maturity changed my mind. I’d always been a very pro-liberty, libertarian leaning person but doing “right” and doing “the Lord’s work” has convinced millions of good, freedom loving people that what “they” were doing was justified. Until it wasn’t.... and by then if was usually too late to change directions.
I had a state police supervisor, a honestly decent, good man 30 years my senior. He came back from a conference with the message that “tactical” search warrants were dangerous and that we should absolutely minimize their use. Shear heresy I tell you. All of my team mates and I were big boys and we understood the risks to our personal safety. We were willing to take those risks without a second thought. While I’d argue that “we” had the right to endanger ourselves however we legally saw fit we certainly didn’t have the right to force that decision of bystanders who innocently happened to be visiting or living with a criminal. Formal department policy and codified laws prevent good people from acting with well-intentioned overzealousness and can prevent the “Bad Boys” mentality from gaining a foothold.
I fully support the use of “tactical” TTPs when they are required to prevent the death or serious injury of any innocent person. Sometimes exigent circumstance don’t allow for a “calling out” scenario. Imminent/ongoing physical violence such as rapes, robberies, hostage situations, and active shooter scenarios should be dealt with like the hand of God was coming down to crush the person harming innocent people. Absent those very narrow and highly unusual circumstances, leave the bangs on your vest and get on the PA system of a marked police car.
No one is really fully aware and making the best judgments when they get startled out of their sleep at 3AM. That’s why so many “tactical” search warrants are done in the very, very early morning hours. A battered door, flash bangs, yelling, and fast moving people are meant to disorient and overwhelm the “suspects”. That is sound from a purely “tactical” perspective but minimizes the ability for the disoriented and overwhelmed person to make positive identifications and well thought out decisions. In your own home, in the middle of the night, you shouldn’t be expected to make the “right” call every time. In your own home you should have the security and privacy to not have to make life and death decisions because someone wasn’t patient enough to serve the warrant administratively during daylight hours and with a large presence of uniformed/marked police.
The right/wrong call is, absent imminent violence, completely in the hands of whoever initiates the action. If you don’t initiate a surprise “tactical” warrant then the homeowner will never be forced to make that snap decision at 3AM. If “you” initiate the action you have to be prepared to live with the legal and moral consequences.
I believe this also applies to fully lawful warrants. Felonies used to be rape, robbery, murder, and treason. Felonies now include bad checks, consensual sodemy, non missionary positions, and so many other "minor" violations that every adult in this country is an unindicted felon in one way or another. To assume that you will never have to deal with this type of warrant service ignores the fact that basically everyone is a criminal if someone decides to push the issue. You shouldn't have to rely on someones goodwill to be secure in your home.
One of the problems I have with no knock raids is innocent people getting killed in the process. Often times I've heard different LEO's refer to different shooting events in history as justification for needing X amount of bullets or a particular type of firearm as they may face a similar event or incident, fair enough, ya never know.
However, if you were to use that same comparison then no knock raids should be a thing of the past due to innocent citizens being killed in the process. It's happened before so it could happen again so we shouldn't be doing it. Without even digging in and just a quick search on Google I found 3 recent events where the wrong house was raided leading to the loss of innocent lives on 2 occasions.
Example 1 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1)
A 61-year-old man was shot to death by police while his wife was handcuffed in another room during a drug raid on the wrong house.
Police admitted their mistake, saying faulty information from a drug informant contributed to the death of John Adams Wednesday night. They intended to raid the home next door.....
John Adams was watching television when his wife heard pounding on the door. Police claim they identified themselves and wore police jackets. Loraine Adams said she had no indication the men were police.
“I thought it was a home invasion. I said ‘Baby, get your gun!,” she said, sitting amid friends and relatives gathered at her home to cook and prepare for Sunday’s funeral.
Example 2 http://www.naturalnews.com/036698_police_raid_family_dog_victims.html
Example 3 http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/12/31/ogden-police-apologize-raid-wrong-house
It happens way more often than it should.
Thanks for posting this LL.
Ill have to reply when I get to an actual keyboard. Some of this guys observations and opinions are kind of strange to say the least.
"who cares if evidrnce is destroyed?"
Ill have to reply when I get to an actual keyboard. Some of this guys observations and opinions are kind of strange to say the least.
"who cares if evidrnce is destroyed?"
Here's another M4C Peace Officer's stance (http://m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1249467&postcount=23) from that same thread (http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=100720) about Indiana laws concerning a similar topic.
I'm sorry, but until I review your credentials and the warrant you're serving, I do not in fact know to a reasonable degree that you are in fact a police officer with legal authority to enter my private dwelling. That's kinda hard to do when you lead with a Halligan tool and an M4.
Are you a LEO? I ask because it helps to frame the response. I'm a LEO AND a citizen. I think what we're seeing here is backlash that goes all the way back to the Ruby Ridge and Waco raids. Lately there seems to be a rash of reports regarding suspect raid planning, all the way to raiding the wrong addresses. This is a pressure cooker subject. When the pressure gets high enough, something's gotta give.
A point to consider is John Stossel's recent report on "too many laws". It highlighted raids that were obviously over the top, to include agents pointing guns at unarmed, compliant people. Where I come from, that's aggravated assault. Further that with laws that allow the police to lie to the people, but the people can't legally do the same. Other reports of citizens being arrested for video taping the police from their own property and in no way interfering with the law enforcement operation, and 18 states where it is illegal to record the police, but the police can record the people. Then you add in government meetings that are in direct violation of the Open Records Act and LE agencies telling citizens and other LE agencies to "file a FOIA request" for information pertinent to their own jurisdiction and rights.
All this adds up to a distrust of the government and it's LE agencies. So, how did it come to this? Does a police officer automatically deserve to be trusted with your life and your property and your rights, just because he has a badge? The short answer is no. Where the disconnect comes from are entrenched and embattled agencies that don't remember their primary mission, which is the safety and security of it's own community. Too many police officers think goal #1 is to arrest someone and send them to prison. I didn't say a majority, just too many.
When an agency makes a mistake, it turtles up and sometimes even lashes out at it's critics. If you plan a raid and you hit the wrong address, you're in deep shit. Do you accept your culpability and renounce your qualified immunity? No. You get told by the agency lawyers to shut your mouth and they wage a campaign designed to reduce the liability of the agency. This doesn't always happen at every agency, but it does happen, so you get the picture.
Now, let's say you're Joe Blow who possibly commits a felony a week and never has a clue that it happened, because the law is pig ignorant. Now, let's say you've watched the 6pm news every night and seen several reports over the past few months about armed robbers posing as police to steal gun collections (happened in my jurisdiction). Suddenly, it's zero dark thirty and you're awakened to hear a loud crash and people yelling in your home. You're groggy, scared and fight or flight dumps the adrenaline into your bloodstream. You grab your HD carbine and suddenly, you see a man wearing blue jeans, a thigh holster and a dark jacket wielding a gun in the hallway. You react and defend your home, because there's no reasonable explanation as to why the police would be there, because you're not a criminal. You shoot him and his fellow officers light you up. You survive (barely), only to finds that the police are saying you're one step removed from Charles Manson and now you're being charged with murder, along with a long list of lesser crimes that amount to what is essentially a "kitchen sink" indictment. You have to ask yourself, "How did this happen?".
I'm not saying police shouldn't conduct raids, but I think they've been used in far too many instances where they shouldn't. The local Sheriff pretty much told the ATF that he could go to the Branch Davidian compound and get David Koresh to come out and talk. He also told them they could simply wait and he would come to town, where they could arrest him. But that wasn't what they wanted. Same for Ruby Ridge. The ATF wanted Randy Weaver as an informant, so they convinced him to break the law where he had no intent to do so. When he told them where to go, the raid was a "show" to prove that they were bigger than him and he should "play ball".
Jose Guerena could have easily been picked up at the Arasco mine where he worked after the end of his graveyard shift. Yet PCSO elected to raid his home when he could reasonably be expected to be asleep. After they killed him, they've done nothing but obstruct and obfuscate the investigation of the raid itself.
Now you have the Indiana State Supreme Court doing a 180 on a law that dates back to the Magna Carta. The lead Justice states: He's saying that if an officer commits a criminal act against you, you have no recourse under criminal law (qualified immunity), you cannot resist this unlawful act and your only recourse is to pursue a civil case, IF you have the means to do so. Seriously? WTF???
I will not argue the law's right to enter the premises in each of the aforementioned cases. However, one common thread runs through all of them. In none of those cases did the need of the law to enter, outweigh the safety of the unarmed non-combatants who had broken no laws. The use of SWAT style raids in serving warrants is OUT OF CONTROL. Under the same circumstances, meaning criminals mixed with unarmed civilians, SWAT would NEVER storm a building with armed hold up men or armed and barricaded suspects, unless the lives of the innocent civilians were in immediate danger. I'm sorry, but the need to secure evidence in a criminal case should NEVER take precedence over human lives. It's cowboy police work at it's worst.
I realize that this means some drug dealers and bad guys will take longer to arrest. I realize that it will require more police resources, intel, planning, care and potential risk for the police to get the bad guys and be the hero of the day for making their community safer, but that's part of the job. This is a failure of police policy and administration to recognize a flaw in their SOP's and react accordingly. When you push it to the level that they did in Indiana, they shouldn't be surprised when lawmakers make that decision for them. Now, they've lost the respect of their community and a tool in their toolbox as a result. It's their fault, not the legislature's. It's their fault, not the citizens. It's their fault, not the court's. THEY are solely to blame for this. Now they've increased the risk to their own officers as a result. It's shameful that it's coming to this in America.
As a LEO AND a citizen, I walk in two worlds. I never take one for granted when in the other. Sadly, I believe that some have. Let's hope more people don't have to die for this to change. :(
Ill have to reply when I get to an actual keyboard. Some of this guys observations and opinions are kind of strange to say the least.
"who cares if evidrnce is destroyed?"
Another post from that thread that will help clarify his statement.
I agree that this is the current reality and understand this statement in that context. In the current national situation this is simply how things are done most of the time.
My point is that rather than be geared toward making a "possession with intent to distribute" case relying solely on finding dope/evidence during a search warrant, that "we" should instead focus on building a case for straight up "distribution". The chance of finding dope during a search warrant is roughly 50/50. Because the informant swore it was there at 7PM has very little to do with the dope still being there at 9PM. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
Instead, why not use that same informant or informants to buy the dope off of the drug dealer over the course of a few weeks or months? With solid surveillance, good audio, and good video evidence backing up indictments, a conviction is almost certain. When you show the dealers attorney the video tape and lab certifications from the last 6 or 7 undercover buys, there really isn't a way out of it. Even with a questionable informant the surveillance, audio, and video seal the case. The rate of success isn't 50/50, it's like 99%+.
I can say with complete confidence that I have, when sentences are combined, put drug dealers away for close to a couple of hundred years. For cases that were worked as described above, with solid evidence and a long-term investigation, my rate of convictions was 100%. Almost all were plea agreements with the suspect admitting their guilt and providing additional, useful information on other dealers and distributors. I also had a 100% confession rate ( to varying degrees of completeness, of course) at the time of arrest for people that I had investigated and indicted before the arrest. When you've got them red handed, they know the game and start rolling over on their buddies and even family. I'm about the most unassuming, unintimidating person you'll meet but when you've got undeniable proof, well, you've got undeniable proof. Once you relay that matter-of-factley, you are polite and let them tell their side of the story; by that point they almost always want to explain themselves and those are just nails in their figurative coffin.
From a purely personal perspective, I loved jump outs and "tactical" search warrants more than most but I now also realize the investigative/evidentiary pitfalls as well as the physical and social harms that they can cause. If I, in the abstract, were ever the subject of an arrest or search warrant I would certainly react much better if I were approached on the street by a uniformed officer or called out prior to an administrative search. The ATF would have saved a lot of heartache, on both sides of the fence, had they grabbed Koresh at the Safeway or Post Office and then worked for an administrative warrant service and search rather than taking the tactical route. They are still living with the baggage, politically, morally, and ethically, of that day almost 20 years ago. With 20/20 hindsight I imagine that all involved wish that they had taken a different approach.
"buy the dope off of the drug dealer over the course of a few weeks or months?"
That is some funny ass shit, right there.
Do tell? Please provide an example. I have yet to find a way around sitting down in the office of a Judge or Magistrate and explaining my need for said writ.
eWarrants. Apparently justice isn't fast enough so they had to streamline things. Pretty soon that won't be quick or easy enough either and it will be textWarrants and then finally Warrant-ish. This goes back to my original point that these checks and balances are intentionally tedious and time consuming and were put in place for a reason. It seems that plenty of people have gotten off due to mistakes in records thanks to eWarrants so in this case it's a prime example of haste makes waste. How 'bout instead of being so concerned with making things more streamlined and easier and making new criminals with new laws we focus on the criminals we already have charged and convicted?
eWarrants. Apparently justice isn't fast enough so they had to streamline things. Pretty soon that won't be quick or easy enough either and it will be textWarrants and then finally Warrant-ish. This goes back to my original point that these checks and balances are intentionally tedious and time consuming and were put in place for a reason. It seems that plenty of people have gotten off due to mistakes in records thanks to eWarrants so in this case it's a prime example of haste makes waste. How 'bout instead of being so concerned with making things more streamlined and easier and making new criminals with new laws we focus on the criminals we already have charged and convicted?
EWarrants is an arrest warrant system, not for search warrants.
MountainRaven
03-09-13, 19:22
One of the problems I have with no knock raids is innocent people getting killed in the process. Often times I've heard different LEO's refer to different shooting events in history as justification for needing X amount of bullets or a particular type of firearm as they may face a similar event or incident, fair enough, ya never know.
However, if you were to use that same comparison then no knock raids should be a thing of the past due to innocent citizens being killed in the process. It's happened before so it could happen again so we shouldn't be doing it. Without even digging in and just a quick search on Google I found 3 recent events where the wrong house was raided leading to the loss of innocent lives on 2 occasions.
Example 1 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1)
Example 2 http://www.naturalnews.com/036698_police_raid_family_dog_victims.html
Example 3 http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/12/31/ogden-police-apologize-raid-wrong-house
It happens way more often than it should.
I find it an interesting coincidence that the man killed in incident one was named 'John Adams'.
I wonder if there might be other incidents out there of men being killed in no knock entries as a result of bad intel with the names of 'Benjamin Franklin', 'Thomas Jefferson', and 'George Washington'.
Alaskapopo
03-09-13, 20:46
eWarrants. Apparently justice isn't fast enough so they had to streamline things. Pretty soon that won't be quick or easy enough either and it will be textWarrants and then finally Warrant-ish. This goes back to my original point that these checks and balances are intentionally tedious and time consuming and were put in place for a reason. It seems that plenty of people have gotten off due to mistakes in records thanks to eWarrants so in this case it's a prime example of haste makes waste. How 'bout instead of being so concerned with making things more streamlined and easier and making new criminals with new laws we focus on the criminals we already have charged and convicted?
It does not need to be tedious but it should be fair and objective. If I have probable cause I should be able to get a hold of a magistrate immediately, give them oral testimony and have them issue me a warrant if the probable cause is there within minutes. If you have to wait evidence is gone and in some cases lives could be lost if say a person who was believed to be kidnapped was at a location and you needed a warrant to search it. The magistrate is the check and balance. As for the criminals already charged and convicted I would love to keep them in jail longer but for that to happen people would have to be willing to pay more taxes and that is not a popular thing right now.
Pat
Another post from that thread that will help clarify his statement.
I dont know where he worked/works. I probably missed it when reading everything. I guess its easier to respond by addressing only a couple of things. I know I have been a turd on some of these threads lately, and I have been called on it(rightfully so) I say that in hopes that those of you reading this will understand my honesty with this. I will say that I have been a part of over 100 sw (probably a conservative figure) and written plenty. I have been part of that leo side of the coin for quite a while. I work in a dept that is active, not rural. I take the sw issue very seriously as I do all of my work.
1) Confidential Informants. I hate them. I avoid them if at all possible and use them If I have nothing else. I do not use them to form PC. They are an intelligence tool and that is all. Criminal informants are scum and if you are lucky you can get a ciitizan informant who just wants their street clean or a problem solved. I get what information I need to start or help a case then move on without them. That is the proper way to use most informants. There are exceptions.
I do not/will not put a CI on the stand. I debrief them and push on to form my own case. Im not sure where this guy is working that they would take a CI's statement and use that as the sole PC for a search warrant. Bad deal if you ask me and I would never consider it.
2) Over use of tactics/force. Where I work every house has a gun. Where I work we do our damndest to hit houses that have criminals. Criminals and guns are a bad combination. We also have a strong intel base and use it. This helps with deconflicting and suring up what we know or dont know.
We can play the "cops hit the wrong house" game all day. I know it happens and it is a terrible thing. Those issues need to be addressed appropriately and I do not support an us vs. them attitude when it happens. Mistakes happen as does negligence. When it happens stand up and take it like a man.
That being said...I am after criminals. I am not after the 60 year old couple that is just watching tv and drinking tea. I am not after people who are like us on this board. People who understand their rights, respect law and order and are not criminals.
We hit houses/businesses that have criminals and evidence inside of them. To say "who cares if the evidence is destroyed" is a rediculous statement and I question him altogether after that.
Experiences are different, but I mean really? You go through all of the trouble to get a search warrant and then dont give a damn if the evidence is destroyed? Strange.
If I can go into a house without SWAT I will. Its a lot easier and a lot less messy. However I work in an area and go after criminals that dont allow for that very often. As for the process, I have to sit with a judge and answer questions. This is after my partner and bosses have read the sw. They have handed paper back requesting more information. They are not robosigning these things like our commander and chief. By the way...I am not working on the war on drugs.
It does not need to be tedious but it should be fair and objective. If I have probable cause I should be able to get a hold of a magistrate immediately, give them oral testimony and have them issue me a warrant if the probable cause is there within minutes. If you have to wait evidence is gone and in some cases lives could be lost if say a person who was believed to be kidnapped was at a location and you needed a warrant to search it. The magistrate is the check and balance. As for the criminals already charged and convicted I would love to keep them in jail longer but for that to happen people would have to be willing to pay more taxes and that is not a popular thing right now.
Pat
In the case of a clear and present mortal danger then I agree that measures need to be taken. The problem is that for every time that situation exists there are a few hundred people growing a few pot plants.
As for the over crowded detention center issue, there are PLENTY of other options than just paying more taxes. For starters we need to stop turning EVERYONE into a damn criminal. That would be a great start. How 'bout we just go back to the actual laws that punish hardened criminals. The very fact that the only option seems to be more taxation is the root of one of our problems.
But I think we're getting off of the topic of the thread/investigation a little bit here. Police agencies should NOT be allowed to possess weapons and gear that civilians can't. There's no intelligent reason at all that a law abiding citizen can't own a FA AR15 or a 12" barrel or a suppressor w/o having to beg, plead and steel followed by paying out the ass and then waiting nearly a near to be one of the 'lucky' ones. Why can my local PD have an HK416 but if I do I'm a criminal? All this BS bureaucracy is the problem and the fact that we're having our gun rights taken away on a daily basis while LE agencies are getting more and more and more advanced weaponry is a scary proposition. Take away the exemptions and gun restrictions and I would have less of a problem. The no-knocks and such we can have a civil debate about and discuss logical solutions but when we're facing down the barrel of a revolution I take the fear of tyranny seriously.
I dont know where he worked/works. I probably missed it when reading everything. I guess its easier to respond by addressing only a couple of things. I know I have been a turd on some of these threads lately, and I have been called on it(rightfully so) I say that in hopes that those of you reading this will understand my honesty with this. I will say that I have been a part of over 100 sw (probably a conservative figure) and written plenty. I have been part of that leo side of the coin for quite a while. I work in a dept that is active, not rural. I take the sw issue very seriously as I do all of my work.
1) Confidential Informants. I hate them. I avoid them if at all possible and use them If I have nothing else. I do not use them to form PC. They are an intelligence tool and that is all. Criminal informants are scum and if you are lucky you can get a ciitizan informant who just wants their street clean or a problem solved. I get what information I need to start or help a case then move on without them. That is the proper way to use most informants. There are exceptions.
I do not/will not put a CI on the stand. I debrief them and push on to form my own case. Im not sure where this guy is working that they would take a CI's statement and use that as the sole PC for a search warrant. Bad deal if you ask me and I would never consider it.
2) Over use of tactics/force. Where I work every house has a gun. Where I work we do our damndest to hit houses that have criminals. Criminals and guns are a bad combination. We also have a strong intel base and use it. This helps with deconflicting and suring up what we know or dont know.
We can play the "cops hit the wrong house" game all day. I know it happens and it is a terrible thing. Those issues need to be addressed appropriately and I do not support an us vs. them attitude when it happens. Mistakes happen as does negligence. When it happens stand up and take it like a man.
That being said...I am after criminals. I am not after the 60 year old couple that is just watching tv and drinking tea. I am not after people who are like us on this board. People who understand their rights, respect law and order and are not criminals.
We hit houses/businesses that have criminals and evidence inside of them. To say "who cares if the evidence is destroyed" is a rediculous statement and I question him altogether after that.
Experiences are different, but I mean really? You go through all of the trouble to get a search warrant and then dont give a damn if the evidence is destroyed? Strange.
If I can go into a house without SWAT I will. Its a lot easier and a lot less messy. However I work in an area and go after criminals that dont allow for that very often. As for the process, I have to sit with a judge and answer questions. This is after my partner and bosses have read the sw. They have handed paper back requesting more information. They are not robosigning these things like our commander and chief. By the way...I am not working on the war on drugs.
I think I took his point of 'if the evidence is lost then no big deal' to be when weighed against the multitude of bad things that can (and do happen) to people from LE as well as innocent bystanders. That's not to say he doesn't mind the loss of evidence but he's more concerned about the safety of innocent people, his partners and maybe even the needless loss of some petty drug dealer. I think that he's saying that it (potentially losing evidence) is not worth the risk to good people. I could be totally off by trying to get into someone else's head based on text in a forum post but that's what I took from it.
Did you know the U.S. Department of Education conducts raids (http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/141108/2/Questions-surround-feds-raid-of-Stockton-home) and botches those along with your kid's education? I'd forgotten about that one but somebody sent me an email today highlighting it.
The resident, Kenneth Wright, does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe why what he thought was a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 in the morning.
"I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers," Wright said.
As Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts, he said the officers barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.
"He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.
According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children, ages 3, 7, and 11, and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.
"They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids," Wright said.
As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for - Wright's estranged wife - was not there.
Wright said he later went to Stockton Mayor Ann Johnston and Stockton Police Department, but learned the city of Stockton had nothing to do with the search warrant.
U.S. Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. Hamilton would not say specifically why the raid took place except that it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Hamilton said the search was not related to student loans in default as reported in the local media.
OIG is a semi-independent branch of the education department that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud, embezzlement of federal aid and bribery, according to Hamilton. The agency serves 30 to 35 search warrants a year.
"They busted down my door for this," Wright said. "It wasn't even me."
Did you know the U.S. Department of Education conducts raids (http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/141108/2/Questions-surround-feds-raid-of-Stockton-home) and botches those along with your kid's education? I'd forgotten about that one but somebody sent me an email today highlighting it.
I don't know the full story (sounds like nobody does) but based on the limited info, this is the type of shit that should NOT be happening.
The worst part is that after the mistake is made they get off w/o any sort of explanation or accountability. I can't imagine what kind of shenanigans I would pull with a limitless budget, all the fun tools& training of the trade and seemingly little to no accountability for my actions.
I think I took his point of 'if the evidence is lost then no big deal' to be when weighed against the multitude of bad things that can (and do happen) to people from LE as well as innocent bystanders. That's not to say he doesn't mind the loss of evidence but he's more concerned about the safety of innocent people, his partners and maybe even the needless loss of some petty drug dealer. I think that he's saying that it (potentially losing evidence) is not worth the risk to good people. I could be totally off by trying to get into someone else's head based on text in a forum post but that's what I took from it.
That's my take on it as well. I shot David a PM earlier and hope he'll join in to clarify his position.
Alaskapopo
03-09-13, 23:10
In the case of a clear and present mortal danger then I agree that measures need to be taken. The problem is that for every time that situation exists there are a few hundred people growing a few pot plants.
As for the over crowded detention center issue, there are PLENTY of other options than just paying more taxes. For starters we need to stop turning EVERYONE into a damn criminal. That would be a great start. How 'bout we just go back to the actual laws that punish hardened criminals. The very fact that the only option seems to be more taxation is the root of one of our problems.
But I think we're getting off of the topic of the thread/investigation a little bit here. Police agencies should NOT be allowed to possess weapons and gear that civilians can't. There's no intelligent reason at all that a law abiding citizen can't own a FA AR15 or a 12" barrel or a suppressor w/o having to beg, plead and steel followed by paying out the ass and then waiting nearly a near to be one of the 'lucky' ones. Why can my local PD have an HK416 but if I do I'm a criminal? All this BS bureaucracy is the problem and the fact that we're having our gun rights taken away on a daily basis while LE agencies are getting more and more and more advanced weaponry is a scary proposition. Take away the exemptions and gun restrictions and I would have less of a problem. The no-knocks and such we can have a civil debate about and discuss logical solutions but when we're facing down the barrel of a revolution I take the fear of tyranny seriously.
That is another tangent from the thread that has been argued at length here. While on the issue of guns I agree but not so much on the gear. There is gear that only police should have. Say spike strips for example and other tools made specifically for law enforcement. Tyranny is a fear but anarchy is also something to fear.
Pat
That's my take on it as well. I shot David a PM earlier and hope he'll join in to clarify his position.
That must be his intent after reading again. I still say its not the proper way to consider the search warrant. As I said earlier we all have different experiences.
That is another tangent from the thread that has been argued at length here. While on the issue of guns I agree but not so much on the gear. There is gear that only police should have. Say spike strips for example and other tools made specifically for law enforcement. Tyranny is a fear but anarchy is also something to fear.
Pat
Anarchy doesn't happen w/o reason and free, law-abiding men don't use such tools for senseless destruction. Any tool created for law enforcement should be available to the public. The only thing that dictates what the people should own should be their own finances. The government shouldn't be the ones deciding they can't but other groups can. Once a chasm between what LE agencies can have and what peons can have grows you get the lack of trust and constant questioning that exists today. The more stuff one group has that the other group isn't allowed to have the more that group distrusts them.
So we're not trust to have this 'stuff' but we're supposed to blindly trust those that do? Riiiiiiight. I seriously doubt Constables hundreds of years ago received this much attention or skepticism.
Did you know the U.S. Department of Education conducts raids (http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/141108/2/Questions-surround-feds-raid-of-Stockton-home) and botches those along with your kid's education? I'd forgotten about that one but somebody sent me an email today highlighting it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/09/983514/-DOE-Detention-of-Kenneth-Wright-an-Update-of-the-story-and-An-Apology
Alaskapopo
03-09-13, 23:28
Anarchy doesn't happen w/o reason and free, law-abiding men don't use such tools for senseless destruction. Any tool created for law enforcement should be available to the public. The only thing that dictates what the people should own should be their own finances. The government shouldn't be the ones deciding they can't but other groups can. Once a chasm between what LE agencies can have and what peons can have grows you get the lack of trust and constant questioning that exists today. The more stuff one group has that the other group isn't allowed to have the more that group distrusts them.
So we're not trust to have this 'stuff' but we're supposed to blindly trust those that do? Riiiiiiight. I seriously doubt Constables hundreds of years ago received this much attention or skepticism.
Well you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing in the bill of rights says you have the right to own spike strips or have access to LEO databases. Anarchy is the result of no controls.
Pat
Well you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing in the bill of rights says you have the right to own spike strips or have access to LEO databases. Anarchy is the result of no controls.
Pat
Nothing in the bill of rights says you do either if you want to get down to it.
(BTW, I never said I should be allowed to LEO databases)
Alaskapopo
03-09-13, 23:33
Nothing in the bill of rights says you do either if you want to get down to it.
(BTW, I never said I should be allowed to LEO databases)
I don't own them the department does. Its silly to say anything LEO's have should be allowed to everyone same with the military. No one should be allowed to own nuclear weapons for example.
Pat
Anarchy is the result of no controls.
Pat
Since you edited to add this....
Do you honestly feel that Anarchy would exist in this nation as currently constituted w/o government intervention? That we're ALL just criminals but for the strong-arm of the law?
I don't own them the department does. Its silly to say anything LEO's have should be allowed to everyone same with the military. No one should be allowed to own nuclear weapons for example.
Pat
Slow down cowboy. Did I ever say that we should all own what the military does? You're not the military and that's the whole point of this thread and the investigation.
Alaskapopo
03-09-13, 23:53
Slow down cowboy. Did I ever say that we should all own what the military does? You're not the military and that's the whole point of this thread and the investigation.
We are not the military but we are not plumbers either. Our job does require some special tools and skills, some of which should not be available to the public and they are not. The military is charged with fighting enemies outside our borders and law enforcement is charged with fighting enemies inside our borders.
Pat
Alaskapopo
03-09-13, 23:56
Since you edited to add this....
Do you honestly feel that Anarchy would exist in this nation as currently constituted w/o government intervention? That we're ALL just criminals but for the strong-arm of the law?
No I don't think we will hever have anarchy but if things were the way many of the libertarians on this board would want them it would devolve into that in short order.
We are not the military but we are not plumbers either. Our job does require some special tools and skills, some of which should not be available to the public and they are not. The military is charged with fighting enemies outside our borders and law enforcement is charged with fighting enemies inside our borders.
Pat
You keep missing the point so no sense beating you over the head with it any further. The fact that you put civilians here in the states on the same plane as those we're fighting on foreign soil says all I need to know.
I don't own them the department does. Its silly to say anything LEO's have should be allowed to everyone same with the military. No one should be allowed to own nuclear weapons for example.
Pat
Typical irrational childish left talking points to bring up nuclear weapons !
No I don't think we will hever have anarchy but if things were the way many of the libertarians on this board would want them it would devolve into that in short order.
No, I don't either. I think the majority of people are perfectly capable of being civil, helpful and even charitable to each other w/o the government forcing us to. Just like if we removed all laws on firearms and drugs tomorrow it would be instant anarchy and bedlam, right? I happen to think that people's daily lives wouldn't experience a change at all. Other than being able to buy the firearms we want and get high w/o having to turn to bath salts and sanitizer things would be just the same with a lot less money being spent by the government. More importantly we're not all criminals for doing these things. I get why so many people in LE want us 'civilians' disarmed and dumb because it makes it easier to ask for more tanks and weapons to protect all us sheep. A well regulated militia makes an well regulated LE body obsolete.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/09/983514/-DOE-Detention-of-Kenneth-Wright-an-Update-of-the-story-and-An-Apology
Still sounds like over kill to me considering the charges.
Alaskapopo
03-10-13, 00:08
No, I don't either. I think the majority of people are perfectly capable of being civil, helpful and even charitable to each other w/o the government forcing us to. Just like if we removed all laws on firearms and drugs tomorrow it would be instant anarchy and bedlam, right? I happen to think that people's daily lives wouldn't experience a change at all. Other than being able to buy the firearms we want and get high w/o having to turn to bath salts and sanitizer things would be just the same with a lot less money being spent by the government. More importantly we're not all criminals for doing these things. I get why so many people in LE want us 'civilians' disarmed and dumb because it makes it easier to ask for more tanks and weapons to protect all us sheep. A well regulated militia makes an well regulated LE body obsolete.
Oh you mean like the skin head groups and others calling themselves militias. I do not support the militia movement as most of the people in them are whack jobs. We had a group in Alaska that had death warrants out on judges and Troopers. Fortunately we rounded the leaders and arrested them and the group fizzled after that. The people that join these groups are not the ones you want to call when you need help. Their more like the guy trying to break into your home.
Pat
We are not the military but we are not plumbers either. Our job does require some special tools and skills, some of which should not be available to the public and they are not. The military is charged with fighting enemies outside our borders and law enforcement is charged with fighting enemies inside our borders.
Pat
So you see yourself as the equal of military inside the US ?
Fighting the enemy ? So to you the enemy are US Citizens !
Dude you really need a psych eval with talk like that !
Alaskapopo
03-10-13, 00:11
So you see yourself as the equal of military inside the US ?
Fighting the enemy ? You need a psych eval !
So to you the enemy are US Citizens !
You are part of the criminal justice system no more !
I have had a psych eval as part of being employeed how about you? Newsflash most of the criminals we deal with are also US citizens they are not all illegal immigrants. McVeigh was a US citizen.
Pat
Oh you mean like the skin head groups and others calling themselves militias. I do not support the militia movement as most of the people in them are whack jobs. We had a group in Alaska that had death warrants out on judges and Troopers. Fortunately we rounded the leaders and arrested them and the group fizzled after that. The people that join these groups are not the ones you want to call when you need help. Their more like the guy trying to break into your home.
Pat
When I said malitia I meant THE PEOPLE. Yes, that is comprised of skin heads, red necks and gang bangers. They make up a very small percent of the population but for some reason we ALL have to have our rights restricted because of them. To me, it seems like better reason to have access to the same things you do to protect ourselves from them. After all, it's not
BTW, 'most malitias are whack jobs' isn't true. You don't know about most malitias.
As an American I don't want to have to call ANYONE for help. I don't want to have to depend on ANYONE for help. When my life is on the line I want to be able to rely on my OWN weapons and my OWN training. That doesn't mean I won't call 9/11 but I don't want to be a defenseless law abiding victim while I wait for the cavalry when I can just as easily fire a pistol or rifle my damn self.
But you continue to miss the point.
I have had a psych eval as part of being employeed how about you? Newsflash most of the criminals we deal with are also US citizens they are not all illegal immigrants.
I can't imagine that the immigration problem is that bad up in AK but down here, the further south you go the less English the criminals and those in the cells speak. I don't see what this has to do with anything any of us have brought up and smacks of misdirection.
McVeigh was a US citizen.
And?
Alaskapopo
03-10-13, 00:18
When I said malitia I meant THE PEOPLE. Yes, that is comprised of skin heads, red necks and gang bangers. They make up a very small percent of the population but for some reason we ALL have to have our rights restricted because of them. To me, it seems like better reason to have access to the same things you do to protect ourselves from them. After all, it's not
BTW, 'most malitias are whack jobs' isn't true. You don't know about most malitias.
As an American I don't want to have to call ANYONE for help. I don't want to have to depend on ANYONE for help. When my life is on the line I want to be able to rely on my OWN weapons and my OWN training. That doesn't mean I won't call 9/11 but I don't want to be a defenseless law abiding victim while I wait for the cavalry when I can just as easily fire a pistol or rifle my damn self.
But you continue to miss the point.
I support well trained responsible gun owners excersizing their right to carry weapons to defend themselves. And yes a armed socieity is a polite society but you will still have crime and a need for the police. Some crimes happen when you never even see the criminal like cyber crime. I am glad you were not talking about the militia movement.
Alaskapopo
03-10-13, 00:19
I can't imagine that the immigration problem is that bad up in AK but down here, the further south you go the less English the criminals and those in the cells speak. I don't see what this has to do with anything any of us have brought up and smacks of misdirection.
And?
I was responding to Honu's statements about police not being there to fight enemies inside our borders. Criminals are enemies to our country they are domestic threats. Not all criminals are the same some are simply screw ups that make bad choices but some are pure evil like McVeigh who are intent on attacking our way of life and they are no less dangerous than terrorist from overseas.
Pat
I support well trained responsible gun owners excersizing their right to carry weapons to defend themselves. And yes a armed socieity is a polite society but you will still have crime and a need for the police. Some crimes happen when you never even see the criminal like cyber crime. I am glad you were not talking about the militia movement.
I think you misunderstood what I said as me somehow saying we don't need LE or that I don't appreciate what it is that they do. I'm only saying that they're civilians just like everyone else and we all should be allowed the same weapons, the same tools, the same everything.
Alaskapopo
03-10-13, 00:30
I think you misunderstood what I said as me somehow saying we don't need LE or that I don't appreciate what it is that they do. I'm only saying that they're civilians just like everyone else and we all should be allowed the same weapons, the same tools, the same everything.
I understand the claim on weapons due to the 2nd amendment. But not going to agree on tools and everything.
Pat
I was responding to Honu's statements about police not being there to fight enemies inside our borders. Criminals are enemies to our country they are domestic threats. Not all criminals are the same some are simply screw ups that make bad choices but some are pure evil like McVeigh who are intent on attacking our way of life and they are no less dangerous than terrorist from overseas.
Pat
That's ONE person out of hundreds of millions. If you honestly put your self on the same plane as US soldiers and look at us like the enemy then you're part of the problem.
I have had a psych eval as part of being employeed how about you? Newsflash most of the criminals we deal with are also US citizens they are not all illegal immigrants. McVeigh was a US citizen.
Pat
Read what I wrote :) I said you view US citizens as the Enemy !
And illegals while illegal are not "THE ENEMY" and I never even mentioned illegals ? So why bring them up ? Once again typical of you try to add or rewrite what others say
Fact you think you think you are equal to military and fighting the ENEMY is a bit whacked
I understand the claim on weapons due to the 2nd amendment. But not going to agree on tools and everything.
Pat
Why would you? After all, you're in the exempt group who gets them so why should you care what us peons deserve. You see, this is the reason for this thread. This is the reason for the investigation. LE needs to get it through their head that they're people... just like us. They're not military. They're not above us. They're equals and decades of exempting them allowing them to have things the rest of us can't has begun to make them think their entitled to them... kind of like the tone you're using with us in this thread. You can't even conceive the idea of regular Joe's having something as simple as spike strips. Sheesh.
Still sounds like over kill to me considering the charges.
Remember, a search warrant is a seizure of the premises. It no longer belongs to the occupant for the duration of the warrant. Enough people have to participate to do two things, take and maintain control and search for evidence. In that process very few people involved are going to be happy about it.
Well you are entitled to your opinion. Nothing in the bill of rights says you have the right to own spike strips or have access to LEO databases. Anarchy is the result of no controls.
Pat
Cause nothing ever goes wrong with cops having access to databases... Sorry, just aqw this headline and it struck a chord. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/07/3272061/two-miami-police-officers-arrested.html?asset_id=Two%20Miami%20police%20officers%20arrested%20on%20ID%20theft%2C%20tax-refund%20charges&asset_type=html_module
Malinsky Bazile, a young Miami police officer, pocketed about $140,000 over the past two years — but not in salary for his patrol duties, authorities say.
While on duty, Bazile ran the names of more than 1,000 people in the state driver’s license database, according to a criminal complaint. Then he took their personal information and filed bogus federal income-tax returns, all to score stolen refunds.
Bazile and fellow officer Vital Frederick, separately accused of tapping into the same database, were both arrested Thursday in the first-ever federal prosecution of identity theft and tax-refund fraud involving South Florida law enforcement.
Remember, a search warrant is a seizure of the premises. It no longer belongs to the occupant for the duration of the warrant. Enough people have to participate to do two things, take and maintain control and search for evidence. In that process very few people involved are going to be happy about it.
I agree with that. However, no one did their due diligence or a thorough investigation to know if the broad was even living there. Again, putting the lives of innocents in jeopardy over non-violent criminal charges instead of some alternate means.
I'm not saying SWAT isn't needed and there is definitely a time and place to go in blazing fast to make a takedown but I don't see this adding up to that with the charges that I've read about.
I agree with that. However, no one did their due diligence or a thorough investigation to know if the broad was even living there. Again, putting the lives of innocents in jeopardy over non-violent criminal charges instead of some alternate means.
I'm not saying SWAT isn't needed and there is definitely a time and place to go in blazing fast to make a takedown but I don't see this adding up to that with the charges that I've read about.
You understand there was not a SWAT/SRT team at this warrant, right? Just Special Agents and one marked unit at the curb.
You understand there was not a SWAT/SRT team at this warrant, right? Just Special Agents and one marked unit at the curb.
I don't think the problem with this particular story is what the letters were on the vest of the people who carried this out.
You understand there was not a SWAT/SRT team at this warrant, right? Just Special Agents and one marked unit at the curb.
Yeah, sorry if I was unclear. I did read that but I also take into account what the witnesses saw in the article you linked to as well. They may not have officially been a bunch of go fast guys but it sounds like they were trying to act like them. Like I said, it sounds like amateur hour from the teacher police.
Yeah, sorry if I was unclear. I did read that but I also take into account what the witnesses saw in the article you linked to as well. They may not have officially been a bunch of go fast guys but it sounds like they were trying to act like them. Like I said, it sounds like amateur hour from the teacher police.
Just so that you are clear as to the facts of that particular case, here is the docket report. Kenneth Wright was indicted.
Court Type District
Court Name United States District Court Eastern District of California
Circuit 9th
Office Location Sacramento
Case Type criminal
Party Name
Jaymar Brown, Defendant
Jennifer Brown, Defendant
Janeigh Mendoza, Defendant
Brandy Miner, Defendant
Kenneth Wright, Defendant
Michelle Wright, Defendant
USA, Plaintiff
Opinion Filed Date September 6, 2012
Docket Text
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
Document in Context
12-316 - USA v. Wright et al
More
September 6, 2012
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/6/2012 GRANTING 3 Petition to Seal Indictments as to Michelle Wright (1), Janeigh Mendoza (2), Kenneth Wright (3), Jaymar Brown (4), Jennifer Brown (5), Brandy Miner (6). (Michel, G)
September 12, 2012
ORDER TO UNSEAL CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/2012 ORDERING that the Indictment, Petition to Seal Indictment, Order to Seal, be UNSEALED and made part of the public record, as to defendants Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner. (Reader, L)
ORDER TO UNSEAL CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/2012 ORDERING that the Indictment, Petition to Seal Indictment, Order to Seal, be UNSEALED and made part of the public record, as to defendants Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner. (Reader, L)
ORDER TO UNSEAL CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/2012 ORDERING that the Indictment, Petition to Seal Indictment, Order to Seal, be UNSEALED and made part of the public record, as to defendants Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner. (Reader, L)
ORDER TO UNSEAL CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/2012 ORDERING that the Indictment, Petition to Seal Indictment, Order to Seal, be UNSEALED and made part of the public record, as to defendants Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner. (Reader, L)
ORDER TO UNSEAL CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/2012 ORDERING that the Indictment, Petition to Seal Indictment, Order to Seal, be UNSEALED and made part of the public record, as to defendants Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner. (Reader, L)
ORDER TO UNSEAL CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/2012 ORDERING that the Indictment, Petition to Seal Indictment, Order to Seal, be UNSEALED and made part of the public record, as to defendants Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner. (Reader, L)
September 12, 2012
ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS of RELEASE, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/12/2012. (Fahrney, E)
September 12, 2012
ORDER FOR RELEASE OF PERSON IN CUSTODY as to Kenneth Wright signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/12. (Becknal, R)
September 12, 2012
DETENTION ORDER as to Jaymar Brown signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/12. (Becknal, R)
September 12, 2012
ORDER FOR RELEASE OF PERSON IN CUSTODY as to Brandy Miner signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/12/12. (Becknal, R)
September 13, 2012
ORDER FOR RELEASE OF PERSON IN CUSTODY signed by Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/13/12, as to Michelle Wright. (Becknal, R) Modified on 9/17/2012 (Becknal, R).
September 13, 2012
ORDER FOR RELEASE OF PERSON IN CUSTODY as to Janeigh Mendoza signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/13/12. (Becknal, R)
October 5, 2012
STIPULATION and ORDER MODIFYING TERMS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE as to Kenneth Wright signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/5/2012. (Owen, K)
November 16, 2012
STIPULATION and ORDER 53 as to all defendants, signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 11/15/12: The Status Conference is CONTINUED to 1/7/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, and Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 11/14/12, Stop: 1/7/13. (Kastilahn, A)
STIPULATION and ORDER 53 as to all defendants, signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 11/15/12: The Status Conference is CONTINUED to 1/7/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, and Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 11/14/12, Stop: 1/7/13. (Kastilahn, A)
STIPULATION and ORDER 53 as to all defendants, signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 11/15/12: The Status Conference is CONTINUED to 1/7/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, and Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 11/14/12, Stop: 1/7/13. (Kastilahn, A)
STIPULATION and ORDER 53 as to all defendants, signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 11/15/12: The Status Conference is CONTINUED to 1/7/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, and Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 11/14/12, Stop: 1/7/13. (Kastilahn, A)
STIPULATION and ORDER 53 as to all defendants, signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 11/15/12: The Status Conference is CONTINUED to 1/7/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, and Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 11/14/12, Stop: 1/7/13. (Kastilahn, A)
STIPULATION and ORDER 53 as to all defendants, signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 11/15/12: The Status Conference is CONTINUED to 1/7/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, and Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 11/14/12, Stop: 1/7/13. (Kastilahn, A)
November 20, 2012
DETENTION ORDER as to Jennifer Brown signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/20/2012. (Zignago, K.)
December 7, 2012
ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS of RELEASE as to Jaymar Brown (4) signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/7/12. (Kaminski, H)
January 7, 2013
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/4/2013 ORDERING 71 Status Conference Reset for 4/8/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 1/4/2013 Stop: 4/8/2013. (Reader, L)
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/4/2013 ORDERING 71 Status Conference Reset for 4/8/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 1/4/2013 Stop: 4/8/2013. (Reader, L)
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/4/2013 ORDERING 71 Status Conference Reset for 4/8/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 1/4/2013 Stop: 4/8/2013. (Reader, L)
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/4/2013 ORDERING 71 Status Conference Reset for 4/8/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 1/4/2013 Stop: 4/8/2013. (Reader, L)
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/4/2013 ORDERING 71 Status Conference Reset for 4/8/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 1/4/2013 Stop: 4/8/2013. (Reader, L)
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/4/2013 ORDERING 71 Status Conference Reset for 4/8/2013 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. Excludable started as to Michelle Wright, Janeigh Mendoza, Kenneth Wright, Jaymar Brown, Jennifer Brown, Brandy Miner: XT4 Start: 1/4/2013 Stop: 4/8/2013. (Reader, L)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cr-00316/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cr-00316-0/content-detail.html
Alaskapopo
03-10-13, 03:27
Read what I wrote :) I said you view US citizens as the Enemy !
And illegals while illegal are not "THE ENEMY" and I never even mentioned illegals ? So why bring them up ? Once again typical of you try to add or rewrite what others say
Fact you think you think you are equal to military and fighting the ENEMY is a bit whacked
Because illegal alliens are the only criminals in the country that are not citizens other than perhaps a few resident alliens. Criminals are the enemy and most of them are citizens. Understand or do I need to break it down further. I don't view all US citizens as the enemy just the ones who are criminals.
pat
The military is charged with fighting enemies outside our borders and law enforcement is charged with fighting enemies inside our borders.
Pat
So you see yourself as the equal of military inside the US ?
Fighting the enemy ? So to you the enemy are US Citizens !
Dude you really need a psych eval with talk like that !
I have had a psych eval as part of being employeed how about you? Newsflash most of the criminals we deal with are also US citizens they are not all illegal immigrants. McVeigh was a US citizen.
Pat
When I say you view US citizens as the enemy ?
And you say newsflash most of the criminals we deal with are also US citizens
Kinda confirms what I said !hahahh
Then you throw in ilegal aliens ?
Typical you again to do so ? Try to change things again ?
Alaskapopo
03-10-13, 03:48
When I say you view US citizens as the enemy ?
And you say newsflash most of the criminals we deal with are also US citizens
Kinda confirms what I said !hahahh
Then you throw in ilegal aliens ?
Typical you again to do so ? Try to change things again ?
You just can't seem to follow along can you. Life must be hard for you.
Pat
David Pennington
03-10-13, 10:50
This is going to be a quicky.
CIs with proven reliability (a relative statement) were used to establish Probable Cause in conjunction with numerous other intelligence/investigative sources. The CIs were used mostly to show that drugs were in the residence at the time of the application for the search warrant to establish the likelihood of the drugs being there at the time of the search.
CI credibility (again relative) was established through the independent verification of historical information that they provided as well as, frequently, the ability to interact with and purchase narcotics from the target of the investigation.
IE You have information that Joe Smith is dealing cocaine from 3 separate sources. He has a prior criminal history of narcotics offenses. An informant goes to his residence and purchases cocaine 6 times over the course of 3 weeks. After the 6th undercover purchase of cocaine the historical information, the previous purchase from him at his location, and the information gathered from the CI during the 6th cocaine buy are used to establish Probable Cause for a search warrant to be served that evening.
I would never and could never have sworn out a affidavit based solely on CI information.
Even with all of this information, search warrants were probably successful in recovering illegal narcotics 50% of the time. Drugs are mobile and may be there at 4PM and completely gone at 5PM.
The comment re: destruction of evidence needs to be looked at in this overall picture. Six undercover buys, on video, are the foundation of the case. Joe Smith is going to prison for these six distributions of cocaine. If further evidence is found during the search warrant that's awesome. If not, Joe Smith is still going to prison for six counts of distribution. By all means conduct an administrative search and look for documents, etc. if you find more cocaine, awesome. If not, you still have your six other charges. Risking lives and public perception by doing a dynamic entry is not worth the small gain of finding drugs during the search.
As to the weeks or months comments, the vast majority of my cases lasted months and even years. On some important targets, we'd have undercover buys from three or four separate informants in addition to a long historical investigation and surveillance. That pretty much seals the deal and the fruits of the search warrant at the end aren't that important.
Risking lives and public perception by doing a dynamic entry is not worth the small gain of finding drugs during the search.
Thanks for helping clarify your position. I think this is the crux of the matter for myself and many others, including several friends of mine who are peace officers.
MountainRaven
03-10-13, 12:10
No, I don't either. I think the majority of people are perfectly capable of being civil, helpful and even charitable to each other w/o the government forcing us to. Just like if we removed all laws on firearms and drugs tomorrow it would be instant anarchy and bedlam, right? I happen to think that people's daily lives wouldn't experience a change at all. Other than being able to buy the firearms we want and get high w/o having to turn to bath salts and sanitizer things would be just the same with a lot less money being spent by the government. More importantly we're not all criminals for doing these things. I get why so many people in LE want us 'civilians' disarmed and dumb because it makes it easier to ask for more tanks and weapons to protect all us sheep. A well regulated militia makes an well regulated LE body obsolete.
No it doesn't.
It makes uniformed officers obsolete. In fact, through out much of our history, peace officers have not worn uniforms because their job was primarily to investigate crimes, something that the average individual did not have the time or resources to do. You, as a private citizen, protected your own stuff.
The idea of uniformed officers came later and has resulted in the poisonous idea that cops can protect us and therefore we don't need to bother.
Because illegal alliens are the only criminals in the country that are not citizens other than perhaps a few resident alliens. Criminals are the enemy and most of them are citizens. Understand or do I need to break it down further. I don't view all US citizens as the enemy just the ones who are criminals.
pat
Ah, 'criminals'. 'Criminals' are not enemies. They are citizens who have committed crimes.
They are entitled to all the protections the law provides them with. They are innocent until proven, in a court of law, as found by a jury of their peers, guilty of a crime.
Until that point, they are not criminals, they are simply citizens. Whether they have in fact committed a crime or not. (And once they are found guilty, if they are found guilty, they are still not enemies, they are prisoners.)
Just so that you are clear as to the facts of that particular case, here is the docket report. Kenneth Wright was indicted.
Do you know what he was indicted for? I tried searching and am not familiar enough with how the system works to get the info. Also, this was over a year later from the initial incident so are the two directly related or could this possibly be a completely separate issue?
Either way it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, I just thought it was interesting that Dept. of Ed does raids on people's homes.
You just can't seem to follow along can you. Life must be hard for you.
Pat
Sounds insulting. Something you were upset at me for the other day except, yours is worse. I make my case in this thread that you seem to be the know it all and opposition in every thread you are part of.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.