TexasCHLforum.com

just FYI I was being sarcastic in my intial post. At the newspapers stupid sheep recomendation.

The experts can say what they want but personaly I assume that anyone entering my home knowing that I am here intends to do harm to me especially if they get past my dog and stick around after I chamber a round in the shotgun which has a fairly loud action. I am not 1 that is "trigger happy" but in that circumstance it would be best for the thug to either leave ASAP or follow my instructions very closely because out in public I will make every effort to retreat but not in my house. As far as some one impersonating a LEO I would have to make the best decision possible to make the right choice based on the situation and hope for the best but I make it a point not to give the law a reason to come knocking.

G.C.Montgomery wrote: . . . I've seen HPD serve warrants with not a single marked vehicle in sight. When they've served warrants in my area, the marked units were down the street or even a couple streets over. But the vehicles in front of the offending home were completely unmarked.

This sort of thing is bothersome - if LEOs serving a warrant expect to be regarded as LEOs and treated as LEOs in lawful pursuit of their lawful duties, it is incumbent upon THEM to make THEMSELVES readily identifiable as such.

Drive marked cars, wear regular uniforms, knock on the door and present a valid warrant, and, by golly, the resident of the home BETTER comply peacefully - the T's have been crossed, the I's have been dotted, and we all have a responsibility to obey the law.

On the other hand, unmarked cars, masks, plainclothes, etc. all serve to conceal their identities, both as individuals and as LEOs - you can't tell them apart from invading imposters. IANAL, so I'm not "plugged in" to the legal system, but even I'm aware of at least a couple of cases over the years where juries refused to convict a homeowner who fired upon invading LEOs who were NOT readily identifiable as such. (Of course, if it's o'dark thirty and your first inkling that something is amiss happens when you wake to find half a dozen HK MP5SDs pointed at your head, your options are limited.)

HankB wrote:

G.C.Montgomery wrote: . . . I've seen HPD serve warrants with not a single marked vehicle in sight. When they've served warrants in my area, the marked units were down the street or even a couple streets over. But the vehicles in front of the offending home were completely unmarked.

This sort of thing is bothersome - if LEOs serving a warrant expect to be regarded as LEOs and treated as LEOs in lawful pursuit of their lawful duties, it is incumbent upon THEM to make THEMSELVES readily identifiable as such.

Drive marked cars, wear regular uniforms, knock on the door and present a valid warrant, and, by golly, the resident of the home BETTER comply peacefully - the T's have been crossed, the I's have been dotted, and we all have a responsibility to obey the law.

On the other hand, unmarked cars, masks, plainclothes, etc. all serve to conceal their identities, both as individuals and as LEOs - you can't tell them apart from invading imposters. IANAL, so I'm not "plugged in" to the legal system, but even I'm aware of at least a couple of cases over the years where juries refused to convict a homeowner who fired upon invading LEOs who were NOT readily identifiable as such. (Of course, if it's o'dark thirty and your first inkling that something is amiss happens when you wake to find half a dozen HK MP5SDs pointed at your head, your options are limited.)

Well, LE argues that flashing lights and marked cars gives the bad guys a clue and gives them time to conceal/destroy evidence and/or prepare a defense for their assault. So the resulting conclusion is no knock warrants, unmarked vehicles, and men in masks protects the officers and, in theory, protects the citizens and criminals. How? In theory, being hit with overwhelming force suppresses resistance so the officers don't have to escalate to deadly force. Of course there's more to it but that's a short version of the answers I've gotten while growing up with family and friends in LE.

I understand the reasoning even if I don't agree that such tactics should be used in many situations. But, what bugs me most is the attitude some officers and even whole agencies have that any property damage or non LE lives ruined/lost in pursuit of justice are justified so long as the officers get to go home to their families. I don't know what the answer is, but it seems there are some serious flaws in the way things currently work.

G.C.Montgomery wrote:LE argues that flashing lights and marked cars gives the bad guys a clue and gives them time to conceal/destroy evidence and/or prepare a defense for their assault.

I've made this point before, but I think it's worth repeating: if the goal is to get the supply of drugs off the street, then I'd surround the house with marking vehicles and flashing lights, call the occupants to let them know a warrant was about to be served, and wait a few minutes before walking up to knock on the door.

If the evidence gets flushed, then hasn't the objective been met?

"But... he can get more!" Perhaps so. But in the meantime, he's still on the street, and doesn't have the drugs that had been entrusted to him by someone higher in the chain. He doesn't even have the "honorable excuse" of having been busted, which might make life on the street very uncomfortable.

Kevin

HankB wrote:

Rex B wrote:
IMHO police imposters who attempt to force entry to my home pose a real and immediate threat to life, and I'll deal with them accordingly, to the best of my ability.

Then what is a real police officer in plain clothes (or something anyone could get) when you see them in your house, or in the eyes of the law?

There isn't a single reason that exceeds the chance of a dead suspect when considering no knock warrents, you lose so evidence? I don't care, no evidence is worth someones life. The property damage should be a major consideration too.

Will938 wrote:There isn't a single reason that exceeds the chance of a dead suspect when considering no knock warrents, you lose so evidence? I don't care, no evidence is worth someones life. The property damage should be a major consideration too.

That assumes the suspect is believed to be innocent until proven guilty. I have no way of knowning it's true but I grew up hearing officers joke that dead suspects have been known to clear felony cases. On the outside looking in, it seems like there's been some truth to those jokes.

Will938 wrote:Then what is a real police officer in plain clothes (or something anyone could get) when you see them in your house, or in the eyes of the law?

If his identity as an LEO is concealed (as with plain clothes) why in the world should you assume an intruder is a cop?

There are plenty of instances on record where plainclothes or undercover cops were shot . . . not just by civilians, but by other cops!!

Undercover investigations are one thing, but confronting suspects, serving warrants, and attempting arrests when you're NOT readily identifiable as an LEO is not such a good idea, IMHO, especially when police imposters are known to be running around.

(BTW, has anyone found out whether or not those were real LEOs or imposters who set up an illegal "sobriety checkpoint" recently near the new IKEA store in Round Rock, just north of Austin?)

There may be real justice with the so called police officers who killed the 88 year old lady. It looks like 3 of them might be on the way to prison
Maybe just maye if we start throwing a few renegade cops in jail, they might start believing in " to protect and serve". instead of storm trooper tactics. I am willing to bet if they go to prison they won't last to long.

Liberty wrote:There may be real justice with the so called police officers who killed the 88 year old lady. It looks like 3 of them might be on the way to prison
Maybe just maye if we start throwing a few renegade cops in jail, they might start believing in " to protect and serve". instead of storm trooper tactics. I am willing to bet if they go to prison they won't last to long.

Not enough is known about that case, at least to me, to celebrate the burning at the stake of the officers involved. While I may not be afforded as much were I in the same position, I will assume for the time being that they are innocent until I see evidence to the contrary.

I do know the officers originally reported a crack purchase from that woman in that house. That was supposedly the justification for the warrant. The problem came when no crack or powder cocaine was found after the woman was shot. IIRC, the police also indicated they had at least one marked vehicle in front of the home at the time they serviced the warrant. They also reported that the woman fired first. Of course, with what is indicated in the article above, an indictment and indeed a conviction might be justified.

Still, I've known the media to get things completely wrong before. I knew an officer who came close to facing criminal homicide charges after a justified shooting. Many witnesses told the grand jury they saw things they couldn't have possibly seen or that just didn't happen. LULAC and the NAACP were originally all over the poor guy until it came to light that he himself was a minority...Kinda hard to argue a Latino shot another Latino because he(the victim) was a Latino. Quanell X, grandstanding as usual, complained of a cover up because it was originally reported that the suspect was unarmed and handcuffed.

Fact was, the gun was recovered at the scene. The suspect's dead body landed on it but, this was not public knowledge as it was part of the investigation. The point lurking here is that "we" rarely hear all the facts when it comes to shootings and the media often spin things for the greatest effect. Which headline will get more attention? "Police Kill Drug Dealer While Serving Warrant" or "Police Kill 92-year-old Grandmother in Shootout."

G.C.Montgomery wrote:

Liberty wrote:There may be real justice with the so called police officers who killed the 88 year old lady. It looks like 3 of them might be on the way to prison
Maybe just maye if we start throwing a few renegade cops in jail, they might start believing in " to protect and serve". instead of storm trooper tactics. I am willing to bet if they go to prison they won't last to long.

Not enough is known about that case, at least to me, to celebrate the burning at the stake of the officers involved. While I may not be afforded as much were I in the same position, I will assume for the time being that they are innocent until I see evidence to the contrary.

I do know the officers originally reported a crack purchase from that woman in that house. That was supposedly the justification for the warrant. The problem came when no crack or powder cocaine was found after the woman was shot. IIRC, the police also indicated they had at least one marked vehicle in front of the home at the time they serviced the warrant. They also reported that the woman fired first.

Very well said! Too many people are ready to hang the police out to dry. There are bad apples in every bunch, but no all are bad. I have seen officers cursed for writing tickets just to have to turn around and go to the violators home later for a family disturbance, etc. . . There are a lot of who want the drugs to stop destroying our families, but are quick to use terms as "gestapo tactics, etc. . " I appreciate the job our LEO do.

Will938 wrote:

HankB wrote:

Rex B wrote:
IMHO police imposters who attempt to force entry to my home pose a real and immediate threat to life, and I'll deal with them accordingly, to the best of my ability.

Then what is a real police officer in plain clothes (or something anyone could get) when you see them in your house, or in the eyes of the law?

Just for the record, non of the above was written by me.
Please be careful about attribution.

Rex B

carlson1 wrote:Very well said! Too many people are ready to hang the police out to dry.

In this case, I think people are ready to "hang out to dry" the system of armed home invasions dressed up as "no-knock warrants".

The majority here have publicly stated that they'd have opened fire under the same circumstances faced by Kathryn Johnston, as would I.

There are a shocking number of innocent people whose homes are violated by these tactics. Their safety is placed in jeopardy, their families are terrorized, pets have been killed, people injured, and both homeowners and police officers have been killed.

This is inexcusable. The system must be stopped.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Very well said! Too many people are ready to hang the police out to dry.

In this case, I think people are ready to "hang out to dry" the system of armed home invasions dressed up as "no-knock warrants".

The majority here have publicly stated that they'd have opened fire under the same circumstances faced by Kathryn Johnston, as would I.

There are a shocking number of innocent people whose homes are violated by these tactics. Their safety is placed in jeopardy, their families are terrorized, pets have been killed, people injured, and both homeowners and police officers have been killed.

This is inexcusable. The system must be stopped.

Kevin

No-knocks are important. The system needs fixing, not eliminating.

Judges won't issue warrants for the police to "allow the bad guys to dispose of the evidence to rid the streets of those drugs". The purpose of a search warrant is to RECOVER the evidence, not have it destroyed.

I never worked dope, but even I know that CI's are notoriously poor information providers. That's why they should be searched prior to going in, the money should be marked, and they should be searched immediately after leaving.

THEN an undercover officer SHOULD be required to follow up by actually making a buy with the CI to confirm information.


And all no-knocks should be made in the company of a LEO who has actually been to the house and can verify the accuracy of the location of the residence by address AND visual appearance.

I live at 2704 X street. But it is also a light tan brick 2 story with specific features and objects in the yard. If the warrant gets transposed to 2407 X street, someone who has been to my house will instantly know something is wrong.

Prior surveillance before a no-knock can also be VERY useful.

I agree that the injury and death to innocents is UNACCEPTABLE. There is much that can be done to fix that.