Stand your ground only legal if you guess right? Another no-knock gone bad

[SFCRetired]

I firmly believe the increase in no-knock/no-announce warrants is to serve as justification for the military-grade hardware many LEAs are getting; items such as ACPs and MRAPs. This deputy's unfortunate (and unnecessary) demise will probably serve to add fuel to that particular fire.

Unfortunately, those same LEAs who lust after that sort of equipment either ignore or do not realize that most, if not all, of the bad guys (gangs such as MS13) they should be using that equipment against not only have the knowledge, but the means, of taking out that equipment.

Someone on another forum mentioned David Kokesh as a prime example of someone who could have been arrested away from his residence with much less fuss and loss of life than what we saw.

I will say this; the use of these warrants should be extremely rare. This is not the first death of either a LEO or an innocent citizen that has occurred because of these warrants.

 

[solus]

sfc: I will say this; the use of these warrants should be extremely rare. This is not the first death of either a LEO or an innocent citizen that has occurred because of these warrants.

the truly sad part is when the 'innocent citizen' is wounded or killed by the LE during these encounters is there is no apparent justice as the mentality is 'they shouldn't have resisted!!' participating LEs are placed on administrative leave and then with increasing regularity it was a 'regrettable but justifiable' situation otherwise known as a righteous shoot.

Heavens forbid, if the 'innocent citizen' responds and wounds or kills the LE, the citizen is immediately charged with a capitol crime.

as i have previously expressed, the innocent citizen's family doesn't receive a thing from the agency which caused the citizens demise.

yet look at the support both in money and so forth if an innocent citizen MURDERS LE breaking into their home.

ipse

 

[sudden valley gunner]

sfc: I will say this; the use of these warrants should be extremely rare. This is not the first death of either a LEO or an innocent citizen that has occurred because of these warrants.

the truly sad part is when the 'innocent citizen' is wounded or killed by the LE during these encounters is there is no apparent justice as the mentality is 'they shouldn't have resisted!!' participating LEs are placed on administrative leave and then with increasing regularity it was a 'regrettable but justifiable' situation otherwise known as a righteous shoot.

Heavens forbid, if the 'innocent citizen' responds and wounds or kills the LE, the citizen is immediately charged with a capitol crime.

as i have previously expressed, the innocent citizen's family doesn't receive a thing from the agency which caused the citizens demise.

yet look at the support both in money and so forth if an innocent citizen MURDERS LE breaking into their home.

ipse

+1 And I will go one further and say even when the so called bad guys are killed it's a travesty, there is no due process served in busting in and then killing someone because they took the natural inclination of defending ones castle.

 

[Primus]

+1 And I will go one further and say even when the so called bad guys are killed it's a travesty, there is no due process served in busting in and then killing someone because they took the natural inclination of defending ones castle.

Oh ok... so it'd be a travesty if a guy who was harboring women as slaves in his house if the police kicked his "castle" down?

I used to think you were niave and just really believed that the BGs were really good guys and were looking at them wrong. I've seen you defend marijuana and a bunch of illegal things as being none of anyones business and shouldn't be illegal. I can actually respect that. What I can't respect or get get behind is above statement. When you are a bad guy your don't get a castle. You lose your rights as a person when you start crossing certain lines. There are certain heinous crimes which you should lose any "right" you have. But I'm assuming you'd get behind them too and say the cops are being bad guys and he should defend his "castle". Oh the guy rapes kids? Oh well. Murders and eats people? Good for him. Guy was making a bomb to kill innocent citizens? Damn thugs getting in his way right? All of the above has and will continue to happen. Some people aren't people, they are animals.

For the drug stuff, sure I get it. But to blanket say "bad guys should have a defense"? C'mon...

 

[JoeSparky]

Oh ok... so it'd be a travesty if a guy who was harboring women as slaves in his house if the police kicked his "castle" down?

I used to think you were niave and just really believed that the BGs were really good guys and were looking at them wrong. I've seen you defend marijuana and a bunch of illegal things as being none of anyones business and shouldn't be illegal. I can actually respect that. What I can't respect or get get behind is above statement. When you are a bad guy your don't get a castle. You lose your rights as a person when you start crossing certain lines. There are certain heinous crimes which you should lose any "right" you have. But I'm assuming you'd get behind them too and say the cops are being bad guys and he should defend his "castle". Oh the guy rapes kids? Oh well. Murders and eats people? Good for him. Guy was making a bomb to kill innocent citizens? Damn thugs getting in his way right? All of the above has and will continue to happen. Some people aren't people, they are animals.

For the drug stuff, sure I get it. But to blanket say "bad guys should have a defense"? C'mon...

BS--- that BG has just as much RIGHT TO HIS CASTLE up to the point where the LEO has actual exigent circumstances to justify the LEO's entry into the BG's home/residence or the JUDGE upon proper sworn oath authorizes a PROPER WARRANT.


Warning--- regarding this----

Some people aren't people, they are animals

is the SAME justification the NAZI's used to justify the HEINOUS CRIMES that were committed by them during WW2! I am so glad to see this coming from someone CLAIMING to be a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER /SARCASM. These 2 statements alone made by you tell me IF you are an "officer" it is of the Opinion Enforcement Officer (OEO) subset.

 

[77zach]

Oh ok... so it'd be a travesty if a guy who was harboring women as slaves in his house if the police kicked his "castle" down?

I used to think you were niave and just really believed that the BGs were really good guys and were looking at them wrong. I've seen you defend marijuana and a bunch of illegal things as being none of anyones business and shouldn't be illegal. I can actually respect that. What I can't respect or get get behind is above statement. When you are a bad guy your don't get a castle. You lose your rights as a person when you start crossing certain lines. There are certain heinous crimes which you should lose any "right" you have. But I'm assuming you'd get behind them too and say the cops are being bad guys and he should defend his "castle". Oh the guy rapes kids? Oh well. Murders and eats people? Good for him. Guy was making a bomb to kill innocent citizens? Damn thugs getting in his way right? All of the above has and will continue to happen. Some people aren't people, they are animals.

For the drug stuff, sure I get it. But to blanket say "bad guys should have a defense"? C'mon...

C'mon, that's not what he meant and you know it. The typical no knock raid is for mala prohibita or something uncritical.

 

[Phssthpok]

Nigh 20 years old, but relevant none the less.

 

[Primus]

BS--- that BG has just as much RIGHT TO HIS CASTLE up to the point where the LEO has actual exigent circumstances to justify the LEO's entry into the BG's home/residence or the JUDGE upon proper sworn oath authorizes a PROPER WARRANT.


Warning--- regarding this---- is the SAME justification the NAZI's used to justify the HEINOUS CRIMES that were committed by them during WW2! I am so glad to see this coming from someone CLAIMING to be a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER /SARCASM. These 2 statements alone made by you tell me IF you are an "officer" it is of the Opinion Enforcement Officer (OEO) subset.

Sparky. A guy who serially rapes children is an animal. A guy who kills multiple people the eats them is an animal. If that makes me Nazi then so be it. Yes that is my opinion as a HUMAN. No badge needed. In fact, let a human try and touch my son or murder my wife. They will promptly dealt with like animal. Period. Even if that meant losing my badge.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

C'mon, that's not what he meant and you know it. The typical no knock raid is for mala prohibita or something uncritical.

77 maybe he didn't mean it but he hasn't refuted it. He made it clear. He used the term bad guy and used it as a blanket. If he wasn't to correct the record and make it clear he meant subjective laws like drugs then I'll accept that gladly. I already told him I agree with certain laws like drugs that label a person "bad" is subjective. But rape and cannibalism is not subjective.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[onus]

If we legalize drugs then we could eliminate about 95% of these raids.

 

[Primus]

If we legalize drugs then we could eliminate about 95% of these raids.

Maybe. Except the reason for the no knock was the guns he had. The tip was he had illegal guns. He did have guns but they weren't illegal. The use of no knock is supposed to be in high threat situations. Well someone got shot so I guess it was high threat. If anything they gave him the ability to hire a scam artist of a lawyer and claim a bogus self defense reason. If they didn't he still would have shot someone just without the justification.

Read the article. He ADMITTED HE KNEW IT WAS COPS.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Maybe. Except the reason for the no knock was the guns he had. The tip was he had illegal guns. He did have guns but they weren't illegal. The use of no knock is supposed to be in high threat situations. Well someone got shot so I guess it was high threat. If anything they gave him the ability to hire a scam artist of a lawyer and claim a bogus self defense reason. If they didn't he still would have shot someone just without the justification.

Read the article. He ADMITTED HE KNEW IT WAS COPS.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

There is a lot of inference here which is stated as fact.

... Unless you've cracked the code to peering into alternate, parallel universes such that you can tell what would have happened given certain changes in circumstances.

Hell, for all you know the "reason" they went with a no-knock, no-announce warrant was because they wanted to dress up and play army in the middle of the night.

Nothing about the execution of this warrant (as far as we can see) suggests the safety of any parties involved was increased.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Maybe. Except the reason for the no knock was the guns he had. The tip was he had illegal guns. He did have guns but they weren't illegal. The use of no knock is supposed to be in high threat situations. Well someone got shot so I guess it was high threat. If anything they gave him the ability to hire a scam artist of a lawyer and claim a bogus self defense reason. If they didn't he still would have shot someone just without the justification.

Read the article. He ADMITTED HE KNEW IT WAS COPS.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

NO he did NOT~~A Texas ranger CLAIMED he admitted hearing them enter, nothing there that he knew they were police!

YOU need to READ the article!

Or were you stretching the story again?

 

[Citizen]

Maybe. Except the reason for the no knock was the guns he had. The tip was he had illegal guns. He did have guns but they weren't illegal. The use of no knock is supposed to be in high threat situations. Well someone got shot so I guess it was high threat. If anything they gave him the ability to hire a scam artist of a lawyer and claim a bogus self defense reason. If they didn't he still would have shot someone just without the justification.

Read the article. He ADMITTED HE KNEW IT WAS COPS.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

1. According to the linked article the tip was he possibly had stolen guns.

2. Whether a tip includes an allegation about guns or not, police consider guns and drugs go together. And, courts back them up. There have been tons of paramilitary no-knock raids on drug search warrants where drugs were the only point of probable cause, nothing in the tip about guns.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Oh ok... so it'd be a travesty if a guy who was harboring women as slaves in his house if the police kicked his "castle" down?

I used to think you were niave and just really believed that the BGs were really good guys and were looking at them wrong. I've seen you defend marijuana and a bunch of illegal things as being none of anyones business and shouldn't be illegal. I can actually respect that. What I can't respect or get get behind is above statement. When you are a bad guy your don't get a castle. You lose your rights as a person when you start crossing certain lines. There are certain heinous crimes which you should lose any "right" you have. But I'm assuming you'd get behind them too and say the cops are being bad guys and he should defend his "castle". Oh the guy rapes kids? Oh well. Murders and eats people? Good for him. Guy was making a bomb to kill innocent citizens? Damn thugs getting in his way right? All of the above has and will continue to happen. Some people aren't people, they are animals.

For the drug stuff, sure I get it. But to blanket say "bad guys should have a defense"? C'mon...

Listen, your nonsense grasping and arrogant hubris is getting old, Where the hell did you get the belief I think BG's are good guys? Oh wait because you think anyone who breaks a positive law is a BG and I don't so that must mean I think all law breakers are good guys? You really do have mental problems don't you?

Apparently you didn't read my above posts that clarified if a persons life is in danger they are justified, but hey guess what, it would be justified by non cops too. If you have the time to go get a judge to make up an unconstitutional no knock warrant then you have time to respect the rest of the supposed limitations you have. You have time to respect that fact that your opinion of the guy as non human doesn't make it so and that every human regardless of your thoughts upon them have the natural inclination to defend their castle.

Your nonsense ad hominem insinuations and admitted assumptions I condone heinous acts because I believe your acts as a public servant are limited by law and that I won't get behind your judge Dredd mentality, is nothing more but pure stupidity or dishonesty or both and absolutely repulsive to anyone with a sense of decency.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

NO he did NOT~~A Texas ranger CLAIMED he admitted hearing them enter, nothing there that he knew they were police!

YOU need to READ the article!

Or were you stretching the story again?

1. According to the linked article the tip was he possibly had stolen guns.

2. Whether a tip includes an allegation about guns or not, police consider guns and drugs go together. And, courts back them up. There have been tons of paramilitary no-knock raids on drug search warrants where drugs were the only point of probable cause, nothing in the tip about guns.

Of course he didn't read it, he might have skimmed latched on to a few words out of context and then ran with it as an argument. That is his habit with the threads here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

BS--- that BG has just as much RIGHT TO HIS CASTLE up to the point where the LEO has actual exigent circumstances to justify the LEO's entry into the BG's home/residence or the JUDGE upon proper sworn oath authorizes a PROPER WARRANT.


Warning--- regarding this---- is the SAME justification the NAZI's used to justify the HEINOUS CRIMES that were committed by them during WW2! I am so glad to see this coming from someone CLAIMING to be a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER /SARCASM. These 2 statements alone made by you tell me IF you are an "officer" it is of the Opinion Enforcement Officer (OEO) subset.

+1


[h=1]‘You’re Lucky I Didn’t F--King Shoot You’ http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...eowner-you-re-lucky-i-didn-t-f-king-shoot-you[/h]
Guess the mistaken belief that they were raiding a BG's house gave this officer the right to think he could shoot the innocent people there, glad this guy didn't move to defend his castle or he would have been dead.

 

[Primus]

In an affidavit for a warrant to search Sowders' trailer after the shooting, Texas Ranger Andres de la Garza wrote, "By Magee's own admission he heard and observed the entry made by the SWAT team."
However, DeGuerin said his client "had no idea it was a deputy sheriff" when he shot him.

http://www.theeagle.com/news/local/article_549b0586-cefc-53a2-bd34-80a8f07816b4.html

I was wrong. I took bolded to mean he knew it was a SWAT team. My mistake, was not intentional.

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

I'm still amazed that the guy survived to be arrested for it.

SO AM I!!!
Usually a raid where guns are shot!!!
The cops make SURE the target BG,,, DIES!!!
Makes the investigations much easier...

In an affidavit for a warrant to search Sowders' trailer after the shooting..

WHY???? Would Another warrant be needed for a search after a shooting in the location
where the first warrant was already served???

 

[Primus]

SO AM I!!!
Usually a raid where guns are shot!!!
The cops make SURE the target BG,,, DIES!!!
Makes the investigations much easier...



WHY???? Would Another warrant be needed for a search after a shooting in the location
where the first warrant was already served???

Warrants are very detailed, especially Search Warrants. So say the first warrant was for Marijuana Plants. They can only look in places that may contain said plants. So no kitchen drawers. No say after this shooting they are looking for evidence to the shooting. Pick something else. They would have to write a whole new warrant to look for something other then the original plants. Maybe they were looking for ammo that was used in the rifle. To get into the gun cases they would need a different warrant.