Law enforcement is most obese profession - study

[Bloody Pulp]

Yeah my bad. That wasn't the incident I was thinking of.

No worries. Like I said, we all make mistakes

 

[Greoric]

Just pointing out the rather large discrepancy in your description versus the reality of your own sources. Again.

I agree one is too many, unfortunately we aren't perfect and mistakes will be made. I'm actually not a fan of no knock raids barring extreme scenarios and think they should be utilized much less.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/no-knock-police-raid-ends-in-blazing-tragedy/

Only a few hundred such raids took place in those early years, but last year more than 80,000 no-knock raids were conducted on American homes"

Are you just challenging the argument because the estimates are broad? If so then you're missing the point again.

 

[KILL KILL]

Ever heard of the term penny wise and pound foolish? Look at the other links. They're all in the neighborhood of the tens of thousands. One is to many, especially considering the number of times they bust into these places and they can't even find anything that could remotely appear as probable cause to arrest the "suspects".

I know I'm jumping into this thread late, but are you trying to argue against the use of no knock?

 

[Greoric]

I know I'm jumping into this thread late, but are you trying to argue against the use of no knock?

At the incidence rate that it occurs for non violent offenses, absolutely.

 

[Bloody Pulp]

http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/no-knock-police-raid-ends-in-blazing-tragedy/



Are you just challenging the argument because the estimates are broad? If so then you're missing the point again.

Not really challenging your argument per say because I actually agree that they are overused. Just consider me the hyperbole police.

 

[KILL KILL]

At the incidence rate that it occurs for non violent offenses, absolutely.

Why?

 

[Greoric]

Not really challenging your argument per say because I actually agree that they are overused. Just consider me the hyperbole police.

Well that's fair, but the issue and trajectory that I see the tactics used isn't hyperbole in my opinion.

@cleetus mentioned that a large part of the problem is stemming from the alphabet soup out of DC, which I also agree with but local PDs are also complicit in this by virtue of taking on drug law and DHS grants.

 

[Greoric]

Why?

Because using that level of force to serve warrants for non violent crimes is dangerous for LEOs and suspects on top of being inappropriate.

 

[KILL KILL]

Because using force to serve warrants for non violent crimes is dangerous for the LEOs and suspects on top of being inappropriate.

I disagree. I think it's a necessity. I would argue that it's more dangerous for officers to notify the occupants prior to entering. Not to mention, a hell of a lot more likely that evidence will be destroyed in the process.

 

[Greoric]

I disagree. I think it's a necessity. I would argue that it's more dangerous for officers to notify the occupants prior to entering. Not to mention, a hell of a lot more likely that evidence will be destroyed in the process.

What's the risk if the suspect committed a non violent crime? Where's the assumption that he's violent?

 

[KILL KILL]

What's the risk if the suspect committed a non violent crime? Where's the assumption that he's violent?

You have to assume, within reason, that if the violation was severe enough for a warrant to be signed, the person may resist. The police should have every advantage in this situation to mitigate the probability of getting hurt.

 

[Greoric]

You have to assume, within reason, that if the violation was severe enough for a warrant to be signed, the person may resist. The police should have every advantage in this situation to mitigate the probability of getting hurt.

Do you mean severity in terms of amount of probable cause indicating they committed a crime or severity in terms of violence used?

In the absence of evidence that they'll physically resist its not appropriate for them to use that level of violence to serve the warrant. That's especially true if we consider how dangerous serving that warrant is in that manner to all the parties involved.

That's also ignoring that they're blatant secret police style tactics, which people apply normalcy bias to because they're being conducted within a geographical area they call the US.

 

[KILL KILL]

Do you mean severity in terms of amount of probable cause indicating they committed a crime or severity in terms of violence used?

In the absence of evidence that they'll physically resist its not appropriate for them to use that level of violence to serve the warrant. That's especially true if we consider how dangerous serving that warrant is in that manner to all the parties involved.

That's also ignoring that they're blatant secret police style tactics, which people apply normalcy bias to because they're being conducted within a geographical area they call the US.

If there is no resistance, then a no knock warrant is no more violent than a knock warrant. The only difference is, one allows time for the destruction of evidence while the other does not.

 

[Greoric]

If there is no resistance, then a no knock warrant is no more violent than a knock warrant. The only difference is, one allows time for the destruction of evidence while the other does not.

Well that's blatantly wrong, because obviously it is more violent than a knock on the door. That's plainly absurd to say otherwise. It's an unnecessary use and show of force, which has implications even outside of the individual raid itself.

In fact, the style of no knock raids are purely shows of force, because you don't use those dynamic style entries against a bunkered enemy you think poses a threat anyway.

 

[KILL KILL]

Well that's blatantly wrong, because obviously it is more violent than a knock on the door. That's plainly absurd to say otherwise. It's an unnecessary use and show of force, which has implications even outside of the individual raid itself.

In fact, the style of no knock raids are purely shows of force, because you don't use those dynamic style entries against a bunkered enemy you think poses a threat anyway.

violence - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

"Showing force" aka getting the drop on a perp when there is reason to believe he may try to destroy evidence is not violent unless the person is harmed.

You keep saying how unnecessary it is without much of a supporting argument besides your personal feelings. No knock warrants serve a particular purpose. How are police supposed to minimize the potential threat? How will police prevent someone with destroying evidence? Under the law, these are perfectly reasonable methods for issuing a no knock warrant.

 

[Greoric]

violence - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

"Showing force" aka getting the drop on a perp when there is reason to believe he may try to destroy evidence is not violent unless the person is harmed.

You keep saying how unnecessary it is without much of a supporting argument besides your personal feelings. No knock warrants serve a particular purpose. How are police supposed to minimize the potential threat? How will police prevent someone with destroying evidence? Under the law, these are perfectly reasonable methods for issuing a no knock warrant.

They're not minimizing the threat. That's also what I'm telling you. They're actually putting themselves in more danger. You don't conduct a dynamic immediate entry style tactic against an enemy you expect to be dug in. That's quite stupid.

Frankly, I find the platform that you're arguing on to be absurd. You based your argument on a factor of mitigating risk, but that's bunk because there's no reason to suppose a non violent offender will turn violent. It's also not any safer to go busting into someone's house in the middle of the night and not expect mistaken resistance.

But now that we've cleared that up how else would you like to defend the use of force by government officials?

 

[KILL KILL]

They're not minimizing the threat. That's also what I'm telling you. They're actually putting themselves in more danger. You don't conduct a dynamic immediate entry style tactic against an enemy you expect to be dug in. That's quite stupid.

Frankly, I find the platform that you're arguing on to be absurd. You based your argument on a factor of mitigating risk, but that's bunk because there's no reason to suppose a non violent offender will turn violent. It's also not any safer to go busting into someone's house in the middle of the night and not expect mistaken resistance.

But now that we've cleared that up how else would you like to defend the use of force by government officials? Of course its never a symptom of larger problems to come because we live in America, right?

Have you ever done a no knock raid? I have. The purpose is to;

A. Minimize the potential for injury
B. Prevent the destruction of evidence

This is not difficult to understand.

A warrant is signed when there is evidence of a criminal act. Sometimes, they get it wrong, but the vast majority are correct.

- If someone has evidence, and you politely knock on their door, they have time to destroy it.
- If someone believes they are likely to be arrested for a serious crime, the probability that they will resist increases
- Someone who may resist, but is otherwise caught off guard is favorable for police

As for the bolded, officers announce their presence as they enter as per SOP. Catching someone asleep reduces that person's chances of reaching a weapon or destroying evidence.

 

[Greoric]

The purpose is to;

A. Minimize the potential for injury
B. Prevent the destruction of evidence

This is not difficult to understand.

A warrant is signed when there is evidence of a criminal act. Sometimes, they get it wrong, but the vast majority are correct.

- If someone has evidence, and you politely knock on their door, they have time to destroy it.
- If someone believes they are likely to be arrested for a serious crime, the probability that they will resist increases
- Someone who may resist, but is otherwise caught off guard is favorable for police

As for the bolded, officers announce their presence as they enter as per SOP. Catching someone asleep reduces that person's chances of reaching a weapon or destroying evidence.

Out lining the requisites means nothing here. Clearly that doesn't stop tens of thousands of these raids from happening every year for bullshit reasons. Your original argument was out of an interest for risk mitigation, which has no foundation.

Either way you approach this its either a stupid move tactically or a completely unnecessary gestapo style tactic.

If you have a known armed threat held up inside, you're stupid to do a dynamic room flooding style entry.

Or if the suspect is a nonviolent offender, i.e. identity theft or drug possession, why do you have any reason to believe he's going to turn violent? Are you doing a felony stop with every car you pull over? You know because they might speed off or draw down on you.

I'll try and frame this differently. It reads like you have your job description seriously confused. My job when I was in the service was to train to kill people and break things. That is not your job. Your job is about law enforcement, deescalation, and upholding the rights of the individuals around you. The fact that you think these type of activities are acceptable reads like you joined the wrong occupation.

 

[cleetus]

Oh are we doing a dick measuring contest now? Roger that.



Out lining the requisites means nothing here. Clearly that doesn't stop tens of thousands of these raids from happening every year for bullshit reasons. Your original argument was out of an interest for risk mitigation, which has no foundation.

Either way you approach this its either a stupid move tactically or a completely unnecessary gestapo style tactic.

If you have a known armed threat held up inside, you're stupid to do a dynamic room flooding style entry.

Or if the suspect is a nonviolent offender, i.e. identity theft or drug possession, why do you have any reason to believe he's going to turn violent? Are you doing a felony stop with every car you pull over? You know because they might speed off or draw down on you.

I'll try and frame this differently. It reads like you have your job description seriously confused. My job when I was in the service was to train to kill people and break things. In fact, I went through the hardest military selection training in the world to get in it. That is not your job. Your job is about law enforcement, deescalation, and upholding the rights of the individuals around you. the fact that you think these type of activities are acceptable reads like you joined the wrong occupation.

Exactly what type of training and experience do you have in said tactics from a law enforcement perspective?

Also, your blanket statements have been patently false each and every time you are asked to provide a source. There aren't eighty thousand no-knocks a year, nor do all local PDs get DHS money. You really need to research more before you jump on the anti-cop bandwagon. You are losing more and more credibility with every post.

 

[Greoric]

Exactly what type of training and experience do you have in said tactics?

Also, your blanket statements have been patently false each and every time you are asked to provide a source. There aren't eighty thousand no-knocks a year, nor do all local PDs get DHS money. You really need to research more before you jump on the anti-cop bandwagon. You are losing more and more credibility with every post.

I provided a source that suggests otherwise. We're only debating between 20k and 80K because of faulty record keeping among PDs. The number is pretty irrelevant to the case that they're happening at an increasing rate for non violent offenses in a preceding climate of decreasing crime. That's a problem on top of other problems.

And yes, PDs get federal grants for every drug arrest they get as well as free equipment from the DHS.... another problem.