No Knock Warrants and the EMT

[3point14]

I couldn't find a thread on this. I think it deserves it's own one.

"Breonna Taylor: Black healthcare worker 'shot at least eight times by police' in own home, lawsuit says."

A no knock warrant at the wrong address.


I mention it here, because I've often wondered what happens if a citizen shoots back at a LEO that's shooting up the wrong house. It's this:


"None of the officers involved have been charged in connection with the shooting. Mr Walker was arrested following the incident and faces charges of first-degree assault and attempted murder of a police officer."

From:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9510591.html

This thread was originally merged into the catch-all 'the behaviour of US police officers' thread but the issue of no-knock warrants is, I think, deserving of a thread of its own.

Posted By:Agatha

[JoeMorgue]

Okay one very, very small caveat to get out the way first.

In incidents like this the victims to have more leeway to talk to the press then the authorities do, so sometimes, speaking only in the generalities, this can sometimes give the impression that the authorities side of things aren't reacting to the incident because they can't talk as openly and easily about things like internal investigations.

That being said... what do we even have to say at this point? Just cut and paste the last 20 threads of racists apologetics and be done with it. Start going through the victim's life history until you find out that she smoked pot or shoplifted when she was a teenager or there's an old social media post of her throwing up a gangsign. Spend 50 pages dissecting every action she took.

[pgwenthold]

I mentioned it in the other thread, but, yeah, it's a problem for many reasons:

1) No knock warrants on a drug raid
2) What were they doing at this place anyway? The suspect didn't even live in the apartment complex
3) Oh, the suspect was already apprehended (saw someone ask, "But how would they know?" Like, there's no such thing as a radio)

And then there are the more overbearing issues
1) Why wouldn't the castle doctrine apply? and (my pet question)
2) The whole reason that the 2A is supposed to be so wonderful is because it allows the citizenry to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government. I have said for years that there are enough examples to make black people believe they are facing governmental tyranny, and here is an example. The NRA and 2A people should be praising this guy for standing up for his rights. According to them, this is exactly the type of situation that the 2A was meant for.

I'll wait for their action.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay one very, very small caveat to get out the way first.

In incidents like this the victims to have more leeway to talk to the press then the authorities do, so sometimes, speaking only in the generalities, this can sometimes give the impression that the authorities side of things aren't reacting to the incident because they can't talk as openly and easily about things like internal investigations.

That being said... what do we even have to say at this point? Just cut and paste the last 20 threads of racists apologetics and be done with it. Start going through the victim's life history until you find out that she smoked pot or shoplifted when she was a teenager or there's an old social media post of her throwing up a gangsign. Spend 50 pages dissecting every action she took.

The police even tried that. In the post-event interviews, they were trying to get dirt on the victims, asking neighbors if they knew if the couple argued or anything.

It's the same MO, and coming from the police.

[SuburbanTurkey]

People have killed police in no-knock warrants and been exonerated in the courts under the very reasonable claim of self-defense from unidentified intruders. It's rare, because usually the residents don't survive the encounter.

No-Knock warrants are a terrible practice, among many other terrible practices that are common because of our absurd War on Drugs.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

1) Why wouldn't the castle doctrine apply? and (my pet question)

Castle doctrine is a defense for charges. They will not be charging the EMT with a crime.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

People have killed police in no-knock warrants and been exonerated in the courts under the very reasonable claim of self-defense from unidentified intruders.

How many were black, I wonder....

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Castle doctrine is a defense for charges. They will not be charging the EMT with a crime.

Yes Bob. They will not be charging the corpse with a crime. That is very rarely done.

They have already charged the other person in the house with a crime however.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

How many were black, I wonder....

Quote:

From 2010 through 2016, at least 81 civilians and 13 officers died during SWAT raids, including 31 civilians and eight officers during execution of no-knock warrants.[1] Half of the civilians killed were members of a minority.[1] Of those subject to SWAT search warrants, 42% are black and 12% are Hispanic.[1] Since 2011, at least seven federal lawsuits against officers executing no-knock warrants have been settled for over $1 million.[1]

Wiki Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-kno...ant#Statistics
Source links: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tType=REGIWALL

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Castle doctrine is a defense for charges. They will not be charging the EMT with a crime.

Your keen eye for detail is quite exceptional.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Wiki Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-kno...ant#Statistics
Source links: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tType=REGIWALL

But I wonder how many black people have been exonerated for killing police who entered their residence in warrants. That's what SuburbanTurkey said has happened. I just wonder how often it works for black people

[Leftus]

The most disturbing part of this, to me, is the guy they were looking for was already in custody. I've got to think there has to be a way to cross reference the booking information with warrants. Perhaps they could use a computer?

Yeah, the dead woman is a problem too, and the lack of responsibility for that action, but when the person you are looking for, the reason you are on a high risk search is moot because you already have him in custody just adds to the tragedy.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

But I wonder how many black people have been exonerated for killing police who entered their residence in warrants. That's what SuburbanTurkey said has happened. I just wonder how often it works for black people

It's hard to say. It's a fact pattern that doesn't happen very often, it's hard to draw wider conclusions. People who shoot back and survive to make a self-defense claim are pretty rare. Most end up dead in their homes.

A hispanic man named Ray Rosas was found not guilty of attempted murder after he shot some cops during an unannounced raid. Seems that if you're gonna kill a cop during such a raid, Texas is where you wanna be. Mr. Rosas still spent 600+ days in jail during his trial.

[3point14]

There used to be a similar problem with patients undergoing surgery and the wrong one ending up in the wrong theatre and having the wrong bit cut off them.

Because this was both an absolute disaster for all concerned, and because it was very, very expensive, there are now lots of things in place to stop it happening.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

There used to be a similar problem with patients undergoing surgery and the wrong one ending up in the wrong theatre and having the wrong bit cut off them.

Because this was both an absolute disaster for all concerned, and because it was very, very expensive, there are now lots of things in place to stop it happening.

Yeah - it took a Sharpie* and a clip board to prevent most of that (seriously).



*Other markers are available.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Darat

Yeah - it took a Sharpie* and a clip board to prevent most of that (seriously).



*Other markers are available.

I've seen "THIS ONE" written in beg letters on one leg and "NOT THIS ONE" written on the other

[Ranb]

A nurse supplied me with a pen to mark my legs prior to an ankle fusion. There is normally 3-4 people asking the patient what procedure they are in for prior to the operation taking place.

How many examples need to be set (charging the authorizing officer of the no-knock warrant with murder) will it take until the police as a whole are more cautious?

[SuburbanTurkey]

The surviving resident who is charged with attempted murder during the wrong-address raid is allowed home incarceration instead of cash bail.

https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/attorn...5530c8830.html

The suspect the police were looking for had already been located and arrested prior to the raid on the wrong address taking place.

The woman killed by the police was an EMT who worked volunteer hospital shifts in addition to her normal job.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ranb

A nurse supplied me with a pen to mark my legs prior to an ankle fusion. There is normally 3-4 people asking the patient what procedure they are in for prior to the operation taking place.

How many examples need to be set (charging the authorizing officer of the no-knock warrant with murder) will it take until the police as a whole are more cautious?

Well first we would have to make a habit of charging the police in such situations at all. As they can get away with such accidental killings with little or no consequence why should they change their behavior over worries about getting charged?

No the clear answer is to train people to not fight back against home invasion and comply with any such illegal actions rather like when they should comply and just go along with people chasing them in pick up trucks with shotguns for no reason.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Ranb

A nurse supplied me with a pen to mark my legs prior to an ankle fusion. There is normally 3-4 people asking the patient what procedure they are in for prior to the operation taking place.

How many examples need to be set (charging the authorizing officer of the no-knock warrant with murder) will it take until the police as a whole are more cautious?

Any change has to be a political response. Police don't pay for the damages, taxpayers do.

So long as the "reduce taxes" folks are aligned with the "tough on crime" folks nothing will change.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The surviving resident who is charged with attempted murder during the wrong-address raid is allowed home incarceration instead of cash bail.

https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/attorn...5530c8830.html

The suspect the police were looking for had already been located and arrested prior to the raid on the wrong address taking place.

The woman killed by the police was an EMT who worked volunteer hospital shifts in addition to her normal job.

Hopefully this arrest and charge will be a lesson to those who fire on unknown armed invaders instead of meekly complying with them as they should.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Any change has to be a political response. Police don't pay for the damages, taxpayers do.

So long as the "reduce taxes" folks are aligned with the "tough on crime" folks nothing will change.

No he has some crazy idea that the police here will be charged with murder. And could possibly be convicted of it for something as clear cut normal as this.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Well first we would have to make a habit of charging the police in such situations at all. As they can get away with such accidental killings with little or no consequence why should they change their behavior over worries about getting charged?

Part of the problem is that these things are called accidents so that the authorities can avoid being held responsible. Someone purposely applied to a judge for a warrant with an address on the document. Not really an accident to screw up something that bad.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No the clear answer is to train people to not fight back against home invasion and comply with any such illegal actions rather like when they should comply and just go along with people chasing them in pick up trucks with shotguns for no reason.

I assume that you're being sarcastic. but that is no solution either.

A person can be found outside their house with police snipers aiming at them from across the street. The slightest movement by the victim can cause the police to "fear for their life" and kill the victim.

Or the police can have their perp on the ground with rifles (engraved with you're ******) aimed and screaming at him. Then when the perp moves his arm, he is killed by the officer who "feared for his life".

Or the police show up and shoot the caregiver, then claim they were trying to kill the disabled man with the toy truck instead.

In all three cases the police officer that pulled the trigger was not jailed for murder or attempted murder.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by 3point14

I couldn't find a thread on this. I think it deserves it's own one.

"Breonna Taylor: Black healthcare worker 'shot at least eight times by police' in own home, lawsuit says."

A no knock warrant at the wrong address.


I mention it here, because I've often wondered what happens if a citizen shoots back at a LEO that's shooting up the wrong house. It's this:


"None of the officers involved have been charged in connection with the shooting. Mr Walker was arrested following the incident and faces charges of first-degree assault and attempted murder of a police officer."

The local DA's are basically the ones who get to decide if charges are filed. The problem with charging police in this circumstance is that the officer who pulled the trigger may have been acting in good faith, which would absolve them of criminal responsibility. Screwups higher up the chain of command (for example, going to the wrong house) are separated enough from the results that prosecutions are difficult.

As for a homeowner shooting back, criminal responsibility depends on whether or not they reasonably believed it was a home invasion rather than a police raid. If they knew it was a police raid, then they cannot fire at the police. If they reasonably thought it was a home invasion, then they have a legal right to self defense and are not criminally liable for shooting at the police. The problem for the defendant is basically whether the jury believes them or not. For example, if police announced their presence before entry but the defendant was asleep until after entrance, but the jury doesn't believe that, then they're screwed.

ETA: Regardless of prosecutorial decisions, if an officer or a homeowner is killed during a mistaken raid, that's a tragic outcome. Bad prosecutorial decisions after the fact can compound that tragedy, but the inherent risk in no-knock raids is reason enough to use them FAR less often than they are currently being used. Very few cases justify that risk.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Part of the problem is that these things are called accidents so that the authorities can avoid being held responsible. Someone purposely applied to a judge for a warrant with an address on the document. Not really an accident to screw up something that bad.


I assume that you're being sarcastic. but that is no solution either.

Well yes but it is a popular argument in the thread there about always meekly submitting to those with guns regardless of the legality of their actions. I was just applying it to new situations.

Quote:

A person can be found outside their house with police snipers aiming at them from across the street. The slightest movement by the victim can cause the police to "fear for their life" and kill the victim.

Hell doing what the police tell them to do can cause the police to totally legally fear for their life and kill them, all perfectly fine of course.

Quote:

Or the police can have their perp on the ground with rifles (engraved with you're ******) aimed and screaming at him. Then when the perp moves his arm, he is killed by the officer who "feared for his life".

Or the police show up and shoot the caregiver, then claim they were trying to kill the disabled man with the toy truck instead.

In all three cases the police officer that pulled the trigger was not jailed for murder or attempted murder.

Exactly the officers involved with face no consequence and there will be a settlement. THe only question is will the boyfriend go to prison for shooting at cops.

Also my personal favorite is the cop who killed a small girl because he was shooting at a non threatening dog. The mere existence of a dog is enough of a threat justify killing anyone to a cop.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

But I wonder how many black people have been exonerated for killing police who entered their residence in warrants. That's what SuburbanTurkey said has happened. I just wonder how often it works for black people

No idea where to find statistics about this. In addition, I don't know how you disentangle racial factors from other stuff like economic factors. A defendant who must rely on a public defender is going to be at a disadvantage compared to a defendant who can hire their own attorney. But even if you are acquitted, the trial itself can be an injustice.

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

A defendant who must rely on a public defender is going to be at a disadvantage compared to a defendant who can hire their own attorney. But even if you are acquitted, the trial itself can be an injustice.

The fact that this is accepted (by the masses/media, not you ) and not viewed as a utter perversion of justice is something I can't wrap my head around.

Justice may be blind, but she seems really, really good at working out how many notes are in a stack just from the weight.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No idea where to find statistics about this. In addition, I don't know how you disentangle racial factors from other stuff like economic factors. A defendant who must rely on a public defender is going to be at a disadvantage compared to a defendant who can hire their own attorney. But even if you are acquitted, the trial itself can be an injustice.

I think state is going to matter too.

I don't think it's a coincidence that multiple notable cases of cop shooters successfully arguing self-defense during a no-knock raid come out of Texas. Self-defense in the home is something they aren't screwing around with down there.

It's probably easier to find a sympathetic jury in a place where many people might grab a gun in response to things going bump in the night.

[pgwenthold]

One thing that we need to be clear about: there is no basis for the claim that they went to the wrong place. We know that the person they were looking for was not at the place, nor even lived in the apartment complex, but we do not know that they did not have a warrant for that place. Therefore, the medical checklist approach may not apply.

Now, we can say that the person wasn't there, so whatever basis they used for the warrant is who knows what. One would hope that the granting of a no-knock-middle-of-the-night warrant needs to be based on the knowledge of an immediate threat, and that was clearly not the case here. Even if the claim is that there was basis to believe there were drugs in the apartment, that is not a justification for the middle of the night raid.

If the judge thinks that was a warranted search, then either the judge failed miserably or the law fails miserably. But we can't necessarily blame the police for going to the wrong address. Blame the system that allows warrants to searches based on tenuous information. It's possible that the victim or the guy arrested knew the suspect they were looking for. But is that enough to justify busting into their apartment in the middle of the night?

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think state is going to matter too.

I don't think it's a coincidence that multiple notable cases of cop shooters successfully arguing self-defense during a no-knock raid come out of Texas. Self-defense in the home is something they aren't screwing around with down there.

It's probably easier to find a sympathetic jury in a place where many people might grab a gun in response to things going bump in the night.

Yeah, Texas is the place where it is argued that "self-defense in the home" consists of shooting someone in THEIR home on the mistaken belief that it is your home.

Granted, that argument didn't hold up, but it took a jury trial to sort it out.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yeah, Texas is the place where it is argued that "self-defense in the home" consists of shooting someone in THEIR home on the mistaken belief that it is your home.

Granted, that argument didn't hold up, but it took a jury trial to sort it out.

Defense had to try something. If failed, what more do you want?

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Defense had to try something. If failed, what more do you want?

It wasn't just the defense that tried that argument. It was presented by multiple people here as if it were serious.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It wasn't just the defense that tried that argument. It was presented by multiple people here as if it were serious.

These old-timey self-defense laws are a double edged blade. Sure, you get dumb arguments for why someone who is obviously in the wrong should be allowed to commit murder.

Occasionally you also get arguments for why someone was justified in killing incompetent and malicious cops doing no-knock raids.

Yee-haw culture giveth and taketh away.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yeah, Texas is the place where it is argued that "self-defense in the home" consists of shooting someone in THEIR home on the mistaken belief that it is your home.

Granted, that argument didn't hold up, but it took a jury trial to sort it out.

Do you actually object to that argument? Not as a question about the law, but do you disagree with that that argument that one should be permitted to defend their home even if mistaken?

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

These old-timey self-defense laws are a double edged blade. Sure, you get dumb arguments for why someone who is obviously in the wrong should be allowed to commit murder.

Occasionally you also get arguments for why someone was justified in killing incompetent and malicious cops doing no-knock raids.

Yee-haw culture giveth and taketh away.

Unfortunately, the argument that gets used depends on the simple question of, "Which one is the black guy?"

To be fair, the usual apologists have not shown up in this thread yet.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Unfortunately, the argument that gets used depends on the simple question of, "Which one is the black guy?"

To be fair, the usual apologists have not shown up in this thread yet.

It's a different crowd. Do we have any Blue Lives Matters weirdos on this forum?

The Fraternal Order of the Police already sent out a letter crying about how this guy has been released to home confinement.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hopefully this arrest and charge will be a lesson to those who fire on unknown armed invaders instead of meekly complying with them as they should.

Now it's past the point of parody. In that article, the police union rep stated that the person who shot at the cops is, somehow, a danger to the community. While they may be a danger to those who kick in a door unannounced, the general community is safe.

[BStrong]

Specific to the case at hand:

Piss poor preparation by the agency involved.

The survivor shouldn't be prosecuted.

The victim should sue the agency and the municipality.

General.

All agencies should be held to best practices of warrant service and or dynamic entry (outside of legit exigent circumstances) ie - two supervisors review all pertinent facts with the first requirement being that the correct location is verified and all officers involved are briefed on the address/location etc. and they correctly identify the A/L in the brief-back.

Ending the no-knock (outside of a narrow exception) would be ideal, but Trump will be admitted to Mensa before that happens.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Leftus

Now it's past the point of parody. In that article, the police union rep stated that the person who shot at the cops is, somehow, a danger to the community. While they may be a danger to those who kick in a door unannounced, the general community is safe.

It is just applying the arguments from the jogger thread to the general situation of home invasion.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Specific to the case at hand:

Piss poor preparation by the agency involved.

The survivor shouldn't be prosecuted.

The victim should sue the agency and the municipality.

General.

All agencies should be held to best practices of warrant service and or dynamic entry (outside of legit exigent circumstances) ie - two supervisors review all pertinent facts with the first requirement being that the correct location is verified and all officers involved are briefed on the address/location etc. and they correctly identify the A/L in the brief-back.

Ending the no-knock (outside of a narrow exception) would be ideal, but Trump will be admitted to Mensa before that happens.

I'm old enough to remember when no-knock warrants were first allowed (at least at the federal level) IIRC, it was during the Nixon administration, and the original justification was that it was to prevent people from disposing of evidence in drug raids. I have to wonder though, if a quantity of drugs that can be readily flushed down a toilet after the cops knock on the door ever justifies the risk of a no-knock raid. I do realize that a few pounds of many drugs is a fairly significant amount, in terms of monetary value or number of doses; however, we're still probably looking at a retail level dealer if that's all they have.

I suppose that there are situations that justify a no-knock raid, but I think they are grossly overused, resulting in a lot of unnecessary risk to both law enforcement and civilians.