Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 03-27-2012, 12:54 AM
Bodei Bodei is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
You seem to mistake the intent of the law. It is not to allow reason for using force against an officer. It is for protection of a homeowner who in defense of his family happens to shoot someone he perceived as a threat, and that person happened to be a police officer. In such a situation the person acted reasonably in defending himself against an unknown intruder, however without a law such as this he would be tried as a murderer.
What you're talking about is a mistake. There are legal remedies for such actions. If a man really shot a cop that was entering his house on a warrant (assuming he lives) and was totally justified by your scenario, then he would a) not have commited murder (by legal definition) and b) would be found not-guilty by a jury of his peers if he happened to be prosecuted. A law telling him it's ok to shoot cops is not the answer. I understand the point of the law, to prevent cops from committing unlawful acts under color of authority. As pointed out in earlier posts, there are sufficient laws that cover this. This law encourages the public to use force and makes a dangerous situation for cops and civilians.

Last edited by Bodei; 03-27-2012 at 1:04 AM..
  #122  
Old 03-27-2012, 1:17 AM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodei View Post
What you're talking about is a mistake. There are legal remedies for such actions. If a man really shot a cop that was entering his house on a warrant (assuming he lives) and was totally justified by your scenario, then he would a) not have commited murder (by legal definition) and b) would be found not-guilty by a jury of his peers if he happened to be prosecuted. A law telling him it's ok to shoot cops is not the answer
I wouldn't be so sure. This very thing happened in Canada and the man very nearly spent the rest of his life in jail. The law enforcement community did its very best to paint the man as a "cop killer"

I'm not so trusting that 'cooler heads would prevail' if such a case happened in the U.S. The law is bad, but the reason for the law is worse.

If cops weren't in peoples home's this would be a non-issue. Instead of protesting laws like this, LEO's should protest the policies that would put them in situations where they would likely be shot by a well meaning individual, or conversely be likely to shoot a well meaning individual who is attempting to defend his home. No-knock warrants are the issue here, everything else is as a result of that issue.
  #123  
Old 03-27-2012, 3:22 AM
Squid Squid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Los Altos, just north of San Jose
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default In France the cops can only make 'house calls' during normal daylight biz hours.

And that is even for wanted murderers.

That came up a few years ago when some Frog murdered his American wife in SF Bay area and fled back to France.

IIRC, the cops knock and even after you open the door they let you close it again to make a phone call, have a drink, and generally "put your affairs in order" and come out when you are ready.

Apparently that doesn't cause the police or public much of a problem. "Those that want respect give respect".

I heard the cops in Japan will never go to your house to make an arrest, but will only arrest you "on the fly" away from your neighbors. But they do make regular "courtesy calls" to all homes just to see what everyone is up to.
  #124  
Old 03-27-2012, 7:36 PM
Bodei Bodei is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I posted this topic to get responses from fellow LEOs on what they think about it. I feel the law promotes danger to LEOs, citizens and betrays the law & order aspect that the NRA and Republican Party claim to stand for. I have a feeling that the persons not grasping the legal, practical consequences of this law that continue to argue the same points over and over are not LEOs. Statements like "if cops weren't in peoples homes this would be a non-issue" are not helpful. Cops DO enter peoples homes, either invited or uninvited for a myriad of reasons.
  #125  
Old 03-27-2012, 7:56 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,783
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodei View Post
I posted this topic to get responses from fellow LEOs on what they think about it. I feel the law promotes danger to LEOs, citizens and betrays the law & order aspect that the NRA and Republican Party claim to stand for. I have a feeling that the persons not grasping the legal, practical consequences of this law that continue to argue the same points over and over are not LEOs. Statements like "if cops weren't in peoples homes this would be a non-issue" are not helpful. Cops DO enter peoples homes, either invited or uninvited for a myriad of reasons.
As one of the great unwashed whose opinion you deem unworthy, obviously anything I have to say is a non-issue, but are the LEO responses in this thread contrary to your opinion also "not grasping" the issue?
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #126  
Old 03-27-2012, 8:23 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,956
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
As one of the great unwashed whose opinion you deem unworthy, obviously anything I have to say is a non-issue, but are the LEO responses in this thread contrary to your opinion also "not grasping" the issue?
And how about the converse, non-LEOs who agree with the OP's position (or at least part of it)? Are their opinions discounted because they aren't LEOs, too?
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
  #127  
Old 03-27-2012, 8:50 PM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodei View Post
Statements like "if cops weren't in peoples homes this would be a non-issue" are not helpful. Cops DO enter peoples homes, either invited or uninvited for a myriad of reasons.
The issue isn't whether cops are in people's home. It is the no-knock warrants that put LEO's in people's houses unannounced without the people knowing they are LEO's. I don't think YOU are 'grasping' this concept.

if you don't like this issue, protest the root of the issue. LEO's going into people's homes 'guns hot', unannounced creating confusion and the potential that someone, cop or civilian, could be hurt or killed with the intention of self-defense.

If you don't like non-LEO's commenting on this issue, I don't know what to tell you. I've been nothing but respectful to you and your opinion while giving my take. If you don't like my take, don't read it, ignore me. If you just want to talk about a controversial issue without any dissenting opinions or counterpoints, again I don't know what to tell you. This is a non-LEO issue just as much as it is a LEO issue, I don't see how a non-LEO's position on the matter is of no relevance. I find it disturbing that you, presumably a LEO, doesn't want to hear a non-LEO's take on laws that affect both parties in very substantial ways.
  #128  
Old 03-27-2012, 9:22 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,372
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Really the issue is not "no knock warrants" it's serving said warrants on the wrong house.

There are times and situations where a no knock warrant is the proper tactic.


But in reality true "no knock" warrants are so so very rare here in California that they really don't deserve any real mention.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
  #129  
Old 03-27-2012, 9:46 PM
Falconis Falconis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,691
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

i guess we would have to define rare in statistical numbers. i would rather wait for the end of time, it would get here faster
  #130  
Old 03-27-2012, 10:02 PM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Really the issue is not "no knock warrants" it's serving said warrants on the wrong house.

There are times and situations where a no knock warrant is the proper tactic.


But in reality true "no knock" warrants are so so very rare here in California that they really don't deserve any real mention.
If something exists there is always the possibility that it will be used incorrectly. I know this can be said abut many things that should not be 'banned' (cars, firearms, baby formula, cough syrup, etc. etc. etc) but this particular tactic can and does lead to deaths of both the occupants of the house and the LEO's executing the warrant because of the confusing and aggressive situation it creates for both parties (which is actually the reason it is useful in certain cases, for the LEO).

I will concede that the existence of the tactic itself is not 'exactly' the problem, but rather the overuse and misuse of the tactic. I agree, and can see the point, that the tactic has its place in the case of a dangerous individual. I reject the idea that they are correctly applied in cases to 'prevent the disposal of narcotics' that would be possible with normal warrant. But this ties into my beliefs on the ridiculousness and futility of the 'war on drugs'.

While "no-knock" warrants may not be an issue here in CA, but are in other parts of the country and are on the rise nationwide. Perhaps a more sensible way to counter this issue would be to severely regulate the use of the tactic and issuance of such warrants to cases severe enough and with sufficient danger to necessitate such tactics.

"Joe Shmo" who "so in so" informant claimed is a "drug dealer" is not justification enough in my mind for LEO's to perform a "no-knock" warrant and endanger themselves and the occupants of the home they enter unannounced. Storming someone's house unannounced at gunpoint, shooting people's pets, and endangering lives because "whoops, wrong address" is unacceptable. There should be minimum investigative standards on the target address and suspect before such tactics are employed. Also, thought should be given to alternative methods, such as apprehending the suspect when he/she is leaving his/her home and performing the search with someone in custody which would greatly mitigate loss of life and danger of accidental shootings from either side.

But what do I know, I'm not a LEO.
  #131  
Old 03-27-2012, 11:21 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,783
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yep. So rare it's almost not an issue at all......

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
  #132  
Old 03-27-2012, 11:41 PM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Yep. So rare it's almost not an issue at all......

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
I remember looking that site over but couldn't remember the address. Thanks.

The red Ventua County dot is especially sad and rage-inducing. LASD and a few other departments raided a home in Ventura county with no notification or help from the Ventura SD with no proof or probably cause with the intent to seize property for its monetary value (per the discovery of the investigating DA) resulting in the home owners death for presenting a weapon for self defense. No apology or confession of wrongdoing from any of the departments involved.
  #133  
Old 03-28-2012, 9:27 AM
Cowboy T's Avatar
Cowboy T Cowboy T is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PAULestine, USA
Posts: 3,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Given the responses against this bill, both by LEO's and those who are for them, I now am totally in favour of this bill. The infamous "Blue Shield" protected Kevin Flanagan after Julian Alexander's murder. Too often, the police take a "we've got the guns and the badge, and we can beat/shoot you and walk if we feel like it!" attitude, even when their conduct is clearly illegal. How many more Rodney Kings out there didn't get filmed? How many more Abner Louimas got sodomized by the police with a broomstick? How many more grandmas in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina got their homes violated and their persons gang-tackled? And that's why this bill exists, and I'm all for it. Apparently those police there are not willing to police *themselves*.

And some cops wonder why we "mere citizens" don't trust you sometimes?

To the LEO's that don't like the bill: just remember your oath to the Constitution and actually follow the Constitution, both its spirit and its letter, and you shouldn't have a problem. Stop giving even tacit approval to this sort of breaking into people's homes. Stop defending that infamous "Blue Shield" like in the Abner Louima case. Stop the "oh crap, we gotta cover our butts at any cost!" behaviour like what the police have done in the Trayvon Martin case...and the Oscar Grant case...and countless others.

And if you can't or won't do that, then don't be surprised when bills like this come up. Wanna stop that? It's like how you tell people how not to get speeding tickets--"don't speed!" You want to avoid bills like this? Quit breaking into innocent people's homes!
__________________
"San Francisco Liberal With A Gun"
F***ing with people's heads, one gun show at a time. Hallelujah!
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com (reloading info w/ videos)
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com (podcast)
http://www.youtube.com/sfliberal (YouTube channel)
----------------------------------------------------
To be a true Liberal, you must be 100% pro-Second Amendment. Anything less is inconsistent with liberalism.

Last edited by Cowboy T; 03-28-2012 at 9:32 AM.. Reason: Replaced "law" with "bill" since the Governor hasn't signed it yet
  #134  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:04 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,372
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
.While "no-knock" warrants may not be an issue here in CA, but are in other parts of the country and are on the rise nationwide. Perhaps a more sensible way to counter this issue would be to severely regulate the use of the tactic and issuance of such warrants to cases severe enough and with sufficient danger to necessitate such tactics.
They are severely regulated. During my 29 year career which included patrol , detective, SET and serving on a narcotics task force I only ever heard of ONE no knock warrant being served during my entire career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
"Joe Shmo" who "so in so" informant claimed is a "drug dealer" is not justification enough in my mind for LEO's to perform a "no-knock" warrant and endanger themselves and the occupants of the home they enter unannounced. Storming someone's house unannounced at gunpoint, shooting people's pets, and endangering lives because "whoops, wrong address" is unacceptable. There should be minimum investigative standards on the target address and suspect before such tactics are employed. Also, thought should be given to alternative methods, such as apprehending the suspect when he/she is leaving his/her home and performing the search with someone in custody which would greatly mitigate loss of life and danger of accidental shootings from either side.

But what do I know, I'm not a LEO.
You over simplify how a search warrant is obtained, and minimize the actual evidence needed to obtain a search warrant.

A mere tip or report is way below the threshold needed to ask a judge to sign any sort of search warrant, much less a no knock or night endorsed warrant. You would be laughed out of the judges office if you tried that.

I'll bet you did not know that in order for any search warrant to be served at night a special "night time endorsement is needed from a judge.....So there are many restrictions place on warrants.

There are as you said "minimum investigative standards" needed to ask for and obtain a search warrant. But because you are not educated in search warrants you would not know that.

You are correct that since you are not a LEO you lack the training and expertise a LEO has related to what is needed to obtain a search warrant as well as how a warrant is obtained. You read about mistakes and errors as well as out right wrongdoing and believe it's so easy to get any type of search warrant, when in fact the standard to obtain a warrant is pretty tall.

No roll eyes as you posted, because how can you truly know anything about search warrants when you have absolutely zero experience and training, and your only source of information is sites such as the CATO site.

I'm not banging on you at all. I'm just asking that you actually educate yourself before you come to conclusions which are not based on the best information available.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
  #135  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:14 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,372
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
Yep. So rare it's almost not an issue at all......

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
Many issues with the stats on that site. Just a few are their criteria for what they term is a "botched raid", as they include many non "raid" type incidents. Plus they do not enumerate the no knock search warrant services from other types of search warrants.

They also list a "raid" as botched if a officer or suspect is injured or killed. Which has little or nothing to do if there was any wrong doing or errors made by law enforcement.

They list raids on doctors or "sick" people as botched calling into question their ability to remain neutral and not show a bias.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
  #136  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:40 AM
thomashoward's Avatar
thomashoward thomashoward is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 2,001
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy T View Post
Given the responses against this bill, both by LEO's and those who are for them, I now am totally in favour of this bill. The infamous "Blue Shield" protected Kevin Flanagan after Julian Alexander's murder. Too often, the police take a "we've got the guns and the badge, and we can beat/shoot you and walk if we feel like it!" attitude, even when their conduct is clearly illegal. How many more Rodney Kings out there didn't get filmed? How many more Abner Louimas got sodomized by the police with a broomstick? How many more grandmas in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina got their homes violated and their persons gang-tackled? And that's why this bill exists, and I'm all for it. Apparently those police there are not willing to police *themselves*.

And some cops wonder why we "mere citizens" don't trust you sometimes?

To the LEO's that don't like the bill: just remember your oath to the Constitution and actually follow the Constitution, both its spirit and its letter, and you shouldn't have a problem. Stop giving even tacit approval to this sort of breaking into people's homes. Stop defending that infamous "Blue Shield" like in the Abner Louima case. Stop the "oh crap, we gotta cover our butts at any cost!" behaviour like what the police have done in the Trayvon Martin case...and the Oscar Grant case...and countless others.

And if you can't or won't do that, then don't be surprised when bills like this come up. Wanna stop that? It's like how you tell people how not to get speeding tickets--"don't speed!" You want to avoid bills like this? Quit breaking into innocent people's homes!
^^ Winner
  #137  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:49 AM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,136
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

This thread is very frustrating...even as a LEO, I typically don't agree with biochembruin. We have had differences in opinions in the past. However, I have yet to read where he, or any other LEO for that matter, is advocating illegal entries. It seems that most of the arguments against this law are based on a fear of the unintended consequences of said law. I understand both the LEO and "civilian" perspective of this issue.

I don't believe the hyperbole that this law creates an "open season" on cops. That, IMHO, is fear mongering. However, as several have pointed out, the language of the bill may create unintended problems.
  #138  
Old 03-28-2012, 12:09 PM
Shrubmaster's Avatar
Shrubmaster Shrubmaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,369
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomashoward View Post
^^ Winner

And he says he's a liberal...... something doesn't add up.
__________________
WTB: Marlin 989 M2 stock (uncracked), and 989 M2 rifles
Thanks
  #139  
Old 03-28-2012, 3:07 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy T View Post
Given the responses against this bill, both by LEO's and those who are for them..............You want to avoid bills like this? Quit breaking into innocent people's homes!
Note to Cowboy for future arguments: Try not to use examples where the suspect had some culpability.....like Rodney King did; or where we don't yet have all the facts, as in Treyvon Martin. These examples muddy your argument and remove any sense of credibility you and your argument may have had.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
  #140  
Old 03-28-2012, 8:37 PM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
They are severely regulated. During my 29 year career which included patrol , detective, SET and serving on a narcotics task force I only ever heard of ONE no knock warrant being served during my entire career.
Your anecdotal experiences do not quite match up with the facts. There are a lot of departments across this country and a lot of poorly executed, botched, and even illegal warrants/raids. The fact that you, a single LEO, did not hear about one does not render this issue irrelevant or moot.


Quote:
You over simplify how a search warrant is obtained, and minimize the actual evidence needed to obtain a search warrant.
It would be a mistake to assume that I do not understand that there is standards and approval required to be issued a warrant or the laws surrounding such. I will dismiss your jabs for what they are, hyperbolic rhetoric with the intent to discount my opinion and position, to prevent this discussion from going off track.

You and I both know many times 'evidence' is trumped up, inflated, and even fabricated when its given to the judge and rules are bent in order for a 'do good' officer or dept. under a lot of pressure to get his/it's next big bust or prevent someone from 'slipping through the cracks'.

Clearly if the investigative standards were 'good enough' there wouldn't be so many instances of botched raids on the wrong address and more thought would be given to apprehending the suspect(s) of the warrant when he/she is more vulnerable instead of rushing into an unknown situation (knocking or not) where people are more likely to get hurt and serious mistakes are more likely to happen.
  #141  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:19 PM
Bodei Bodei is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrubmaster View Post
And he says he's a liberal...... something doesn't add up.
One thing I've learned from this forum is that extreme liberals and extreme right wingers share their contempt for law enforcement. Its the point on the political spectrum that begins to overlap.
  #142  
Old 03-29-2012, 1:27 AM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,473
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodei View Post
One thing I've learned from this forum is that extreme liberals and extreme right wingers share their contempt for law enforcement. Its the point on the political spectrum that begins to overlap.
One thing I've noticed is many LEO's seem to mistake the criticizing of wrongs made by some LEO's and proposal of regulations on LEO's for the protection of citizens and their rights as "contempt for law enforcement". Playing the victim when we're trying to have a reasonable discussion is oh so very easy.

But sure, block everyone that holds a different position than you. That's sure to solve the problem...

But it begs the question, why even bring up the discussion? Do you only want to talk to people that agree with you?
  #143  
Old 03-29-2012, 8:03 AM
Samuelx's Avatar
Samuelx Samuelx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,454
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodei View Post
One thing I've learned from this forum is that extreme liberals and extreme right wingers share their contempt for law enforcement. Its the point on the political spectrum that begins to overlap.
And also dirtbags and aholes in general...
  #144  
Old 03-29-2012, 10:12 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,372
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
Your anecdotal experiences do not quite match up with the facts. There are a lot of departments across this country and a lot of poorly executed, botched, and even illegal warrants/raids. The fact that you, a single LEO, did not hear about one does not render this issue irrelevant or moot.
Ha, my so called "anecdotal" evidence is based on facts not flawed second hand biased information posted on the internet. I worked in the La County during my career, as well as all over California during my three years
on a state wide narco task force. So I saw and participated in literally hundreds of warrants. So I would say I have more than "anecdotal" experience.

So what experience do you have other than "the internet" to back up your claim????

Sure there have been mistakes and issues with some search warrants across the country. But when compared to the actual number of warrants actually served in the same time periods the number of problem , botched or improperly served warrants is extremely small.




Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
It would be a mistake to assume that I do not understand that there is standards and approval required to be issued a warrant or the laws surrounding such. I will dismiss your jabs for what they are, hyperbolic rhetoric with the intent to discount my opinion and position, to prevent this discussion from going off track.
Ones opinion and the amount of credibility one attaches to it is based on that persons expertise in that area. I'm not "jabbing" at you. It's your opinions which I'm calling into question.

So what is your training and experience related to search warrants?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
You and I both know many times 'evidence' is trumped up, inflated, and even fabricated when its given to the judge and rules are bent in order for a 'do good' officer or dept. under a lot of pressure to get his/it's next big bust or prevent someone from 'slipping through the cracks'.
Your claims would be felony crimes if they were true so please let us know how you are privy to direct knowledge of these allegations, and what you did to report these criminal allegations? I never "trumped" up, inflated or fabricated any evidence during my career, nor did I ever see any of my fellow officers do any of those things.

You seem to have a very poor opinion of "most" law enforcement and I seriously doubt you have any actual first hand knowledge to back up your opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
Clearly if the investigative standards were 'good enough' there wouldn't be so many instances of botched raids on the wrong address.
As I said mistakes sometimes do happen I'm not excusing them, however to make the claim that these mistakes occur often is patently false.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
and more thought would be given to apprehending the suspect(s) of the warrant when he/she is more vulnerable instead of rushing into an unknown situation (knocking or not) where people are more likely to get hurt and serious mistakes are more likely to happen.
Those attempts are often made. However most of the time those pesky criminals will do everything they can to make it as hard as possible to do just that. In fact often those pesky criminals just don't want to be detained and don't stop for LEO's. Pursuits occur where thousands of innocent motorists are endangered by their actions.

There is no magic tactic LEO's can use to always assure nothing bad ever happens. So LEO's do try and serve warrant in as safe a manner as possible.


However remember a search warrant is just that a warrant to search a specific location for evidence of a crime. So even if you can detain a person away from the location where you want to search you still need to make entry into that location. It's naive to believe that once a person or persons are detained away from a particular location that it's absolutely safe to just walk up to that location and knock on the door.

Entry will still need to be made .
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
  #145  
Old 03-29-2012, 10:30 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,372
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
One thing I've noticed is many LEO's seem to mistake the criticizing of wrongs made by some LEO's and proposal of regulations on LEO's for the protection of citizens and their rights as "contempt for law enforcement". Playing the victim when we're trying to have a reasonable discussion is oh so very easy.
Being critical of actual mistakes and wrong doing is absolutely proper and needed. In fact LEO's themselves are the strongest critics of those things.


Changes only occur when any group, LEO's, the military a corporation Ect when the members in those groups use past mistakes Ect to refine training and tactics.

In fact the number of so called "botched" raids have diminished greatly in the last decade, even when the actual number of search warrant served has grown greatly.

So law enforcement has made and continues to make great strides to improve it's practices.

I'm always in favor of legitimate criticism, however often here the criticism is over the top and based on little true information. Posters use terms which paint ALL or MOST law enforcement in a bad light.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
But sure, block everyone that holds a different position than you. That's sure to solve the problem...
Again it's how the questions are asked. If you want your positions to be judged as reasonable make sure you don't unfairly criticize and don't make inflated accusations of wrongdoing by law enforcement here in the Law Enforcement forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
But it begs the question, why even bring up the discussion? Do you only want to talk to people that agree with you?
This is the Law enforcement forum so the issue was brought up to be discussed by law enforcement.

If you want to participate don't unfairly stereotype and don't make wild accusations of wrongdoing on the part of "most" or "many" law enforcement personal.

Stick to facts you actually know based on your own experiences. Don't tell stories which "you heard from a friend". Don't just regurgitate what you read on the internet.

In other words use common sense and courtesy.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.

Last edited by SVT-40; 03-29-2012 at 10:40 AM..
  #146  
Old 03-29-2012, 11:11 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,783
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

First, based on the statements from SVT-40, if my statements were interpreted as "cop-bashing", that was never the intent. My uncle was a police captain for a city (state capital) in the midwest before he retired. 2 of his sons, who I grew up with, played baseballl and football with, are currently LEO's in that same city. One of those cousins and I joined the military together and were supposed to be in on the "buddy system" they had going at the time. I failed MEPS, he became an MP because his father had been an MP. My gf's nephew is a San Bernardino county sherrif's deputy, and one of the people we talked to about what gun to get her for HD and possible CCW if/when that ever comes to fruition. For the police that show integrity and do the job because they care, I have the utmost respect. That does NOT make them better or worse, or more or less important, than an average citizen, but I do respect the job they do as dangerous and important. My concern was for the citizens lack of legal recourse, and the subsequent problems associated with NOT having this specific law in place. However, based on the comments frm Biochembruin, I also see how this could be interpreted as a license for some to resist and claim they were legally able to do so under law. I'm sure they would do it anyway, but that's a side issue. I do see the opposing argument, and the valid points, but without discussion, these points on both sides can easily be swept under the rug and the probelms with any law will only become manifest after it's ruined someone's life.

If my comments were seen as attempting to place the police in a negative light AS A WHOLE, that was not the case, and I apologize for my lack of clarity. Sometimes my passion for people being treated well makes me seem like a jerk.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth

Last edited by njineermike; 03-29-2012 at 1:43 PM..
  #147  
Old 03-29-2012, 11:49 AM
Patrick Aherne Patrick Aherne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SF Bay Area - Peninsula
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just a little thread drift: In 19 years, I have never SEEN a no-knock warrant in California. I have served a warrant where the knock-notice time was compressed, but we still knocked, demanded entry and then rammed the door. Has any other California LEO seen or heard of an agency using a no-knock warrant. Admittedly, I work for an agency that does not serve many search warrants at physical addresses, most of our warrants are for cell and bank records, etc.
  #148  
Old 03-29-2012, 2:29 PM
whitehatt whitehatt is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 27
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This law is dealing with specific concerns and perceived abuses in a completely separate state. Trying to apply it to specific experiences and law here in Cali is pissing in the wind. That said, as a non-LEO newly interested in firearms and 2A rights, I am concerned when I hear of specific abuses by law enforcement which gave rise to this bill.

I have great respect and no wish for any harm to come to LEO's but in a situation where both parties are not at fault (ie innocent homeowner in the middle of night reasonably believing he is defending his family from armed intruders) and police officers who make a lawful but mistaken entry to either wrong address or innocent person then the question becomes who must bear the onus if the worst happens and someone is harmed.

I understand LEO's desire to maximize their own safety in an inherently dangerous job but I also think that if the homeowner did nothing but "reasonably" defend his family (according to the average citizen) and the LEO's acted lawfully but still mistakenly, the onus should not fall on the citizen. Its a worst case scenario I hope does not happen but between the two its the officers who took affirmative steps and created the situation and who voluntarily take up a dangerous job.

There is almost certainly unintended consequences for this bill but I would rather err upon the side of it falling on the LEO's (whose are bestowed a significant amount of power to enable their service) than upon a citizen who reasonably, defends his family.

I feel even more strongly about this in the face of abuses such as the officer who beat up his ex's new boyfriend and charged him for assault as alleged by a previous poster. I don't know how truthful this fact pattern by a previous poster was, but if I have to choose between this possibility of abuse and LEO's bearing an additional safety concern or even the occasional guilty person walking, I vote for the LEO's bearing the burden or guilty person walking (and I will be grateful you are willing to serve in an inherently dangerous and thankless job). I get that such a LEO is a rare bad actor but "Better than 100 guilty men to walk then 1 innocent to be jailed" (mangled that quote I know) although in this law we are measuring potential physical harm to LEO's against potential physical harm or unjust incarceration of innocent citizens. You can quibble with the ratio but I strongly believe the concept and the need to err on the side of liberty.
  #149  
Old 03-29-2012, 8:28 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,372
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default



Socal-shooter your ignorance is showing.

During my career after each warrant service we would always debrief and go over what went both right and wrong. Thats how tactics are refined and improvements are made. During my time training new officers I employed the same philosophy, always teaching new officers to seek better and safer ways to do their jobs both for themselves as well as the public in general. If you don't think those type of activities are common in law enforcement in general then that shows just how much you really don't know about law enforcement.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.

Last edited by SVT-40; 03-29-2012 at 8:38 PM..
  #150  
Old 03-29-2012, 10:36 PM
CalCop CalCop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacto Area
Posts: 573
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
During my career after each warrant service we would always debrief and go over what went both right and wrong. Thats how tactics are refined and improvements are made. During my time training new officers I employed the same philosophy, always teaching new officers to seek better and safer ways to do their jobs both for themselves as well as the public in general.
+1
This is a regular occurrence in my experience also....sometimes we really tear into each other during our criticisms of each other because of the critical nature of the activity we are critiquing each other on. Sometimes mistakes are literally deadly.
__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel
  #151  
Old 03-30-2012, 8:58 AM
Cowboy T's Avatar
Cowboy T Cowboy T is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: PAULestine, USA
Posts: 3,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalCop View Post
+1
This is a regular occurrence in my experience also....sometimes we really tear into each other during our criticisms of each other because of the critical nature of the activity we are critiquing each other on. Sometimes mistakes are literally deadly.
I agree. Just ask Julian Alexander's family.

Note to CalCop: next time you want to attack someone's credibility, walk a mile in their shoes. Recognize, for a change, that there are some bad LEO's out there with a bully-mentality that should never be LEO's. They routinely get protected by the infamous "Blue Shield", which you seem to want to ignore here. That damages *your* credibility, at least with non-LEO's. You are there to protect and to serve, not to beat up people willy-nilly or just shoot first and ask questions later, like this fellow Kevin Flanagan did...nor are you there to back up those who do.

Cops don't like to see bills like this one in Indiana? Then cops need to stop acting in ways that bring such bills into existence.

I have no contempt for *cops*. Your job is a tough one. However, I do most definitely have contempt for anyone who has taken that oath that you all take to the US Constitution and doesn't actually follow it. And I remind you that nobody put a gun to your head and told you to become a cop. You *chose* to become an LEO. That means yes, We, The People do hold you to a higher standard than others who have not taken that oath. When that oath is violated, we don't like it. And when we see the Blue Shield backing the assaulters of Abner Louima, we like it even less. And that's why you're seeing support of this Indiana bill here in this thread. Remember that "YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!" only goes so far.
__________________
"San Francisco Liberal With A Gun"
F***ing with people's heads, one gun show at a time. Hallelujah!
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com (reloading info w/ videos)
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com (podcast)
http://www.youtube.com/sfliberal (YouTube channel)
----------------------------------------------------
To be a true Liberal, you must be 100% pro-Second Amendment. Anything less is inconsistent with liberalism.
  #152  
Old 03-30-2012, 12:50 PM
Sniper3142's Avatar
Sniper3142 Sniper3142 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 2,528
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy T View Post
I agree. Just ask Julian Alexander's family.

Note to CalCop: next time you want to attack someone's credibility, walk a mile in their shoes. Recognize, for a change, that there are some bad LEO's out there with a bully-mentality that should never be LEO's. They routinely get protected by the infamous "Blue Shield", which you seem to want to ignore here. That damages *your* credibility, at least with non-LEO's. You are there to protect and to serve, not to beat up people willy-nilly or just shoot first and ask questions later, like this fellow Kevin Flanagan did...nor are you there to back up those who do.

Cops don't like to see bills like this one in Indiana? Then cops need to stop acting in ways that bring such bills into existence.

I have no contempt for *cops*. Your job is a tough one. However, I do most definitely have contempt for anyone who has taken that oath that you all take to the US Constitution and doesn't actually follow it. And I remind you that nobody put a gun to your head and told you to become a cop. You *chose* to become an LEO. That means yes, We, The People do hold you to a higher standard than others who have not taken that oath. When that oath is violated, we don't like it. And when we see the Blue Shield backing the assaulters of Abner Louima, we like it even less. And that's why you're seeing support of this Indiana bill here in this thread. Remember that "YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!" only goes so far.

In My Humble (Non-LEO) Opinon, ^ this hits the nail on the head.


While I understand that LEOs have a very tough job, there needs to be a more open and accountable process in place to protect the rights of citizens and LEO. The infamous "Blue Wall" is a huge part of the problem.

I ran into a lot of LEOs in several U.S. states and even different countrys during my decade plus in the USMC. The overwhelming majority were professional and wanted to do a good job & go home safe at the end of the day. I don't think this bill is not aimed at them.
__________________
Internet Talk is Cheap

Man Up, Show Up, or Shut the @#$! Up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C74HgbjSCLM
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:12 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.