To Protect and to Serve II

#9,901
#9,901
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yeah, which one is going to respond to your situation....

I was actually speaking to the stupid laws like mag capacity bans and other silliness from our overlords. I mean, if it’s good enough for us, it should be for them too.
Click to expand...
i do not agree with mag capacity bans. I think they are pointless and stupid
 
#9,903
#9,903
hog88 said:
No knock warrants should be done away with. Way too many unnecessary and suspicious deaths, one day it will be a bunch of cops lying in body bags because they got the wrong house.
Click to expand...
I don't like them myself but i do understand the need for them.

One of the original reasons for them wasn't the War on Drugs, but because there were a couple of cases where a criminal had someone kidnapped, and the police arrived and knocked and announced themselves and the criminals killed the victims and shot themselves.
The difference in law enforcement training pre-Colombine to post-Colombine put an emphasis on "hurry get to the threat and end it as fast and safe as possible" rather than "let's hold up out here for hours drinking coffee and waiting for the FBI to show up"

I'm not saying that's applicable in EVERY situation but i understand the reasoning for it
 
#9,904
#9,904
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Agree.. but if it’s good enough for the citizens... why shouldn’t cops have to follow it as well?
Click to expand...
i don't disagree but i also know i would NEVER had arrested someone for that kind of nonsense without an accompanying charge (i.e. carjacking, shooting someone, etc)
 
#9,906
#9,906
GoBigOrangeUT said:
So you get to decide what laws you want to enforce?
Click to expand...
Except for some domestic violence laws and some other stipulations (letting a DUI drive home, etc) officers have the discretion to arrest, cite or just warn. Officers have to be capricious though because they can be held liable if you let that person go and something really bad happens immediately afterwards

If i suspected someone was doing something seriously wrong and pulled them over (i was almost always right), but i found they had a joint or that they had a broken taillight, i wasn't arresting or citing them for that crap.

Now if i pulled them over for a broken taillight and they had a ton of dope, illegal guns, and just robbed a gas station, yea they were getting charged with everything including the joint
 
#9,907
#9,907
Rickyvol77 said:
Except for some domestic violence laws and some other stipulations (letting a DUI drive home, etc) officers have the discretion to arrest, cite or just warn. Officers have to be capricious though because they can be held liable if you let that person go and something really bad happens immediately afterwards

If i suspected someone was doing something seriously wrong and pulled them over (i was almost always right), but i found they had a joint or that they had a broken taillight, i wasn't arresting or citing them for that crap.

Now if i pulled them over for a broken taillight and they had a ton of dope, illegal guns, and just robbed a gas station, yea they were getting charged with everything including the joint
Click to expand...

Do you not see the issue with allowing someone in a position of authority over citizens to decide things like that? It raises tons on ethical and bias issues. That’s the whole point. Your oath is to the law, not what you consider the law to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolFaninFla
#9,908
#9,908
Rickyvol77 said:
I don't like them myself but i do understand the need for them.

One of the original reasons for them wasn't the War on Drugs, but because there were a couple of cases where a criminal had someone kidnapped, and the police arrived and knocked and announced themselves and the criminals killed the victims and shot themselves.
The difference in law enforcement training pre-Colombine to post-Colombine put an emphasis on "hurry get to the threat and end it as fast and safe as possible" rather than "let's hold up out here for hours drinking coffee and waiting for the FBI to show up"

I'm not saying that's applicable in EVERY situation but i understand the reasoning for it
Click to expand...

The privilege has been abused and needs to be taken away.

I still remember the one in Lebanon, TN where they entered the wrong house and killed an innocent man. Nobody was prosecuted for that. At the very least whoever was in charge of that raid should have faced murder and breaking and entering charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and Rickyvol77
#9,909
#9,909
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Do you not see the issue with allowing someone in a position of authority over citizens to decide things like that? It raises tons on ethical and bias issues. That’s the whole point. Your oath is to the law, not what you consider the law to be.
Click to expand...
so wait, NOW you are saying that officers shouldn't have discretion and should arrest every single person who breaks ANY law 100% of the time?
 
#9,910
#9,910
Rickyvol77 said:
I don't like them myself but i do understand the need for them.

One of the original reasons for them wasn't the War on Drugs, but because there were a couple of cases where a criminal had someone kidnapped, and the police arrived and knocked and announced themselves and the criminals killed the victims and shot themselves.
The difference in law enforcement training pre-Colombine to post-Colombine put an emphasis on "hurry get to the threat and end it as fast and safe as possible" rather than "let's hold up out here for hours drinking coffee and waiting for the FBI to show up"

I'm not saying that's applicable in EVERY situation but i understand the reasoning for it
Click to expand...
I think serving them in plain clothes in the middle of the night is a bigger problem.

I don’t think “perp might flush his stash” is a sufficient justification for these Mr. and Mrs. Smith style shootouts that keep happening. The fact that police are taking fire during these raids will probably get it changed, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#9,911
#9,911
RockyTop85 said:
I think serving them in plain clothes in the middle of the night is a bigger problem.

I don’t think “perp might flush his stash” is a sufficient justification for these Mr. and Mrs. Smith style shootouts that keep happening. The fact that police are taking fire during these raids will probably get it changed, though.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this analysis
 
#9,913
#9,913
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Do you not see the issue with allowing someone in a position of authority over citizens to decide things like that? It raises tons on ethical and bias issues. That’s the whole point. Your oath is to the law, not what you consider the law to be.
Click to expand...
so wait, NOW you are saying that officers shouldn't have discretion and should arrest every single person who breaks ANY law 100% of the time?

Yo @GoBigOrangeUT, is this what you are saying your belief is?
 
#9,914
#9,914
Rickyvol77 said:
so wait, NOW you are saying that officers shouldn't have discretion and should arrest every single person who breaks ANY law 100% of the time?

Yo @GoBigOrangeUT, is this what you are saying your belief is?
Click to expand...

Enforcing laws is one thing. It’s how the laws are enforced that’s entirely different. If a cop lets me out of a ticket cool. If he gives the next guy a ticket because he’s black, not okay. If a cop lets me go for having an extended mag because he personally doesn’t agree with it but arrests the next guy because he’s black, that’s not okay.
 
#9,915
#9,915
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Enforcing laws is one thing. It’s how the laws are enforced that’s entirely different. If a cop lets me out of a ticket cool. If he gives the next guy a ticket because he’s black, not okay. If a cop lets me go for having an extended mag because he personally doesn’t agree with it but arrests the next guy because he’s black, that’s not okay.
Click to expand...

What makes you think an officer gave someone a ticket "because he's black"? That is a huge assumption without any evidence of that to back it up?

Maybe an officer gave a person a ticket because the guy was a jerk,
Maybe an officer didn't arrest a person because he wanted to cut him a break and to realize his mistake
Maybe an officer arrested someone because he believed if he didn't someone else would be in danger

You are trying to assign motivations to a profession without the need to do so....either you agree to take officer discretion out of the picture and EVERYONE gets arrested/cited for every offense out there, or you let officers use their judgments to make those decisions. There are 4 million incidents between L.E. and citizens yearly in the US, are they ALL going to be on the up and up without bias, or without an officer making the wrong decision? of course not, officers are human like every other person out there.

But you can't claim bias or racism, or someone is being "picked on" just because they got stopped or ticketed or arrested or let go OR EVEN SHOT by police
 
#9,916
#9,916
I've missed a lot here. Some posters I don't see. But with that in mind...

I never liked "no knocks". Served a number of them back when I could run with the herd. They always had a Pucker Factor in the high 90's. Now, if they call me for anything high-speed, I'm usually on the outer perimeter or in a support role. That's fine by me. I have enough grey hair already.

Are they useful? Absolutely, when you have reliable info that indicates you may run into armed resistance or destruction of evidence. Are they abused? All the time. It all comes down to using that special option only under special, and very specific circumstances.

If I'm a Sheriff or Chief of Police, I mandate that all no-knock applications go through me. I know the right questions to ask, so before it goes to the judge, it comes to me. If my name is going to be near the top of the lawsuit, I'd like a vote on whether or not that warrant goes forward.

JMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Blake25p, VolFaninFla and 2 others
#9,917
#9,917
GreyWolf1129 said:
I've missed a lot here. Some posters I don't see. But with that in mind...

I never liked "no knocks". Served a number of them back when I could run with the herd. They always had a Pucker Factor in the high 90's. Now, if they call me for anything high-speed, I'm usually on the outer perimeter or in a support role. That's fine by me. I have enough grey hair already.

Are they useful? Absolutely, when you have reliable info that indicates you may run into armed resistance or destruction of evidence. Are they abused? All the time. It all comes down to using that special option only under special, and very specific circumstances.

If I'm a Sheriff or Chief of Police, I mandate that all no-knock applications go through me. I know the right questions to ask, so before it goes to the judge, it comes to me. If my name is going to be near the top of the lawsuit, I'd like a vote on whether or not that warrant goes forward.

JMO.
Click to expand...

In your hypothetical chief of police scenario, what are the circumstances that would definitely justify serving them in the dead of night?
 
#9,918
#9,918
RockyTop85 said:
In your hypothetical chief of police scenario, what are the circumstances that would definitely justify serving them in the dead of night?
Click to expand...
I would have to read that warrant, but i thought it was reported that they did so because that's when the warrant finally got signed AND they thought another package would be delivered and they were trying to "beat" the Jemarcus guy there
 
#9,919
#9,919
RockyTop85 said:
In your hypothetical chief of police scenario, what are the circumstances that would definitely justify serving them in the dead of night?
Click to expand...

There's the rub. There are a number of factors that would come in to play. I guess I'd need a checklist to see if the needle moved far enough over to justify the no-knock. Violent felony? Armed? Criminal history? History of resistance? Who else is, or might be, inside? Victims? Kids? Is it an apartment (shoot-throughs are a concern), a single dwelling, or a trailer in the middle of 10 acres? Is there another way, or is this the only viable option? Can we surround and do a "call-out"? Use OC / gas? Will it likely be a gunfight regardless? What do I gain, or risk losing, by using this tactic? Are we talking about 2 kilos of coke, or 2 armed gangsters? Coke never shoots at you, in my experience. Meth lab? Do I want to risk a spark or flame?

Not saying I'd get it right every time, but if we could eliminate 50% of our mistakes, would that not be a good thing? Being a Chief, or Sheriff, hopefully one would have years of experience from the street-level up, and so could think about "all the ways this could go wrong", and ask the right questions.

All that being said, I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. And I'm not running for Sheriff, so...
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, RockyTop85 and Rickyvol77
#9,920
#9,920
GreyWolf1129 said:
There's the rub. There are a number of factors that would come in to play. I guess I'd need a checklist to see if the needle moved far enough over to justify the no-knock. Violent felony? Armed? Criminal history? History of resistance? Who else is, or might be, inside? Victims? Kids? Is it an apartment (shoot-throughs are a concern), a single dwelling, or a trailer in the middle of 10 acres? Is there another way, or is this the only viable option? Can we surround and do a "call-out"? Use OC / gas? Will it likely be a gunfight regardless? What do I gain, or risk losing, by using this tactic? Are we talking about 2 kilos of coke, or 2 armed gangsters? Coke never shoots at you, in my experience. Meth lab? Do I want to risk a spark or flame?

Not saying I'd get it right every time, but if we could eliminate 50% of our mistakes, would that not be a good thing? Being a Chief, or Sheriff, hopefully one would have years of experience from the street-level up, and so could think about "all the ways this could go wrong", and ask the right questions.

All that being said, I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. And I'm not running for Sheriff, so...
Click to expand...
Thanks. Pretty much the level of detail I was curious about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#9,921
#9,921
RockyTop85 said:
Thanks. Pretty much the level of detail I was curious about.
Click to expand...
The affiant has to convince a DA and a magistrate. They are usually loathe to sign off on sketchy stuff, or any stuff, without asking a lot of questions and being convinced of the need for such service.

And yet stuff happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#9,922
#9,922
37L1 said:
The affiant has to convince a DA and a magistrate. They are usually loathe to sign off on sketchy stuff, or any stuff, without asking a lot of questions and being convinced of the need for such service.

And yet stuff happens.
Click to expand...

Same here, and yet stuff happens. I do agree with the idea of holding agencies accountable for obviously flawed warrants.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top