No Knock Warrants and the EMT

[ponderingturtle]

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/attorneys-claim-lmpd-officers-killed-26-year-old-emt-in-botched-police-raid/article_4bb33de6-704e-11ea-bb3c-4785530c8830.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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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]

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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]

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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]

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]

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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]

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]

My .02

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]

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]

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.