Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 15, 2007.
Judge is issuing self defense instruction to jury.
That first link doesn't link to the correct story...
This one does as of 1727.
I sometimes think about this very situation. With all those No knock warrents, and cops busting down the wrong doors.
I am surprised the guy survived to go to trial.
So let me get this straight. Some anonymous snitch that's probably a druggy criminal of scrupulous moral character themselves "gives" the police a tip out of the kindness of their heart expecting no financial or other benefit, that this guy wants a detective dead.
What do the cops do? Pick the dude up at work? Nope. Catch him outside his home on a minor traffic violation in broad daylight? Nah... that'd make to much sense. Oh! Oh! I know let's send the SWAT team ninjas with REAL fully automatic assault weapons to his house at 4am blow the door, toss in a couple of flash bang GRENADES, trash the place, and yank him and his elderly momma out of bed in their undies. Yup that's the safest, most professional, and least disruptive way to do it.
The only reason I can see sending in the swat team on this guy is if he had a history(i.e. violent criminal record). I'd like to know more background info about this case. If the guy is truly an innocent victim more power to him. I still think he'll get screwed either way though.
Something similar happened in Douglas County a few years ago http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=59495
They could have picked this guy up pulling out of his drive way, at work or while cutting grass.
If they did that, they couldn't justify their existence.
Did you see that the grand jury did not return an indictment on the charges that prompted the SWAT entry? They indicted him only for the two counts related to shooting at the SWAT team.
This is why I am very much agianst the use of these "no-knock" warrents and the use of SWAT teams. Who are blurring the lines of law enforcement and the military. It was this sort of behavior which created the Posse Comitatus Act in the first place. We have police units useing M113 tracked vehicles, trained in military tactics, and dress out like an Army Ranger.
Judges also need to question and become more hestitant on the issuing of no-knocks, instead of issuing them out like candy. Actually investigate the person in question, because sometimes LEOs either don't have good intel or embelish the "probable cause" for the warrent.
Yes, sometimes a no-knock is needed for dangerous persons and the safety of the officers.Same goes for the use of SWAT teams. They shouldn't be used to validate their existence. But, used as the expection, not the rule for law enforcment. But, what do I know, to most law enforcment types I am just a "civilian".
That's a link to an interesting read about SWAT and how even little podunk towns with less than 5,000 people have SWAT teams and how more and more they are being used to execute simple arrest warrants on non-violent offenders based on the word of paid informants.
I don't think there is anything wrong with SWAT Teams and their use, the problem is the restraints in using them. Everything has a place finding judges and chief law enforcement officers that can appropriately deploy them.
Careful PT, your genius is showing.
Just like the government could have arrested David Koresh while he was eating at his favorite restaurant in town. A restaurant he ate in every week on the same day of the week. But then they wouldn't have gotten to use all their fancy toys and neato equipment.
Exactly the point of the CATO article. The problem is that when these small towns get SWAT teams they are cheap to start up because the government gives them huge discounts on military surplus weapons and gear, then after the first two or three years they start eating into the budget of the small town's police force. It gets better though because they get federal funds based on how many drugs they confiscate. So they start using the SWAT teams more and more to carry out simplier warrants and arrests. That link has numerous examples of raids (carried out by SWAT) that were against non-violent criminals and or innocent civilians. Many of those raids could have been performed by uniformed officers during daylight hours.
I was being sarcastic. I should have added that the snitch was so not credible that the grand jury no billed that charge.
I have noticed more and more that SWAT teams have been used for more than they should. Yes I am military and there is alot that we see and try to figure out.
We look at things and see that in the news there is SWAT doing this and that and we ask should or could the regular cops do this or that.
I can tell you if someone come running in my house at oh dark thirty and I dont know who or what it is they will be greeted by a hell of alot of firepower from my end.
If you ask me the SWAT team got what they deserved when the guy shot at them. I have never liked the " NO KNOCK " warrent and it seemd like judges do give them out like candy. Cops also make the thing up to be soo big that they have to do this and they really dont.
Yes I do see a need for " NO KNOCK " warrents for the really bad guys. I would also recommend the use of SWAT for these guys.
Mr. Urquiza has been convicted of shooting at one officer and acquitted of shooting at another. That's an odd results. There must be some more to this story that we don't know. He was sentenced to the minimum 5 years.
http://www.courier-gazette.com/articles ... ews/69.txt
It certainly has its place. It is just over-used.
Wow, that is odd. The educated reporter seems to think that the jury sentenced him as well as finding him guilty.