Anyone remember that 92 year old woman getting shot by cops?

[Wanderer]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that just because abuse exists you don't take away an important tool from every single person.

Again, why not change the way we serve a warrant. A suspect doesn't know he has a warrant against him till you serve it. Why not send him a letter saying he won a vacation or something tell him to come to a room at the local mall, when he step through the door arrest him/her before they have a chance to react.

There is no need for a dangerous no knock warrant with the indirect approached outlined here. you need only use good intelligence and an irresistible lure.

Remember a Police Officer's first responsibility is to protect the innocence, even suspects till they are found guilty in a court of law.

You assume that they don't already do these things. Again, no knock warrants are for special circumstances where there is an increased amount of danger, strong possibility of evidence destruction, and other unknowns.

See above and I rather a few guilty go free than an innocent get convicted or killed in these fuckups with no knock warrants.

For such a person you probably wouldn't need a no knock warrant.

Then manipulate the situation to that point. Remember, the suspect doesn't know there is a warrant for his arrest till you serve it.

You have the initiative, use it to create a peaceful arrest.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Again, why not change the way we serve a warrant. A suspect doesn't know he has a warrant against him till you serve it. Why not send him a letter saying he won a vacation or something tell him to come to a room at the local mall, when he step through the door arrest him/her before they have a chance to react.

There is no need for a dangerous no knock warrant with the indirect approached outlined here. you need only use good intelligence and an irresistible lure.

Another reason why no knock warrants are issued is because the police have information that immediate action is necessary. In fact, that is one of the requirements in order to obtain a no knock warrant, and it is also stated that if the situation changes where immediate action is no longer necessary than the no knock warrant is no longer valid.

In other words, Wanderer, waiting for them to win the lottery or any of these other ideas of yours, that they already use, aren't good enough to accomplish the job.

Remember a Police Officer's first responsibility is to protect the innocence, even suspects till they are found guilty in a court of law.

The below is a bit more accurate.

Innocents
Police Officers
Suspects

See above and I rather a few guilty go free than an innocent get convicted or killed in these fuckups with no knock warrants.

This isn't a fuck up though. You aren't being honest by using this story as an example of why legally obtained no knock warrants shouldn't be used. Remember, this is the illegal use of a no knock warrant.

Then manipulate the situation to that point. Remember, the suspect doesn't know there is a warrant for his arrest till you serve it.

You have the initiative, use it to create a peaceful arrest.

Again, for such a situation you would not need a no knock warrant.

1 - Dangerous situation
2 - Strong possibility of evidence being destroyed
3 - Immediate action is required to secure evidence, and take suspects into custody.

[Kanastrous]

Don't be an ass. The entire threat of a gun is based on some one USING IT. If someone breaks into my house and is waving it around and threatening to use it and I open fire with my own weapon, I am FULLY going to expect that person to shoot back.

This is why your intent is to hit them and disable or kill, so that they can't shoot back.

I don't object to the observation that being armed, or using our weapon, is not a guarantee you'll survive, or come out unscathed.

I object to your insistence that being armed, or using your weapon, guarantees that you won't survive or come out unscathed, which is such an obviously stupid thing to suggest, that I'm startled you're suggesting it.

[Havok]

Don't be an ass. The entire threat of a gun is based on some one USING IT. If someone breaks into my house and is waving it around and threatening to use it and I open fire with my own weapon, I am FULLY going to expect that person to shoot back.

This is why your intent is to hit them and disable or kill, so that they can't shoot back.

I don't object to the observation that being armed, or using our weapon, is not a guarantee you'll survive, or come out unscathed.

I object to your insistence that being armed, or using your weapon, guarantees that you won't survive or come out unscathed, which is such an obviously stupid thing to suggest, that I'm startled you're suggesting it.

Well certainly in the context of THIS instance, and for that matter, no knock warrants or home invasion where the perpetrators are posing as police, there is going to be more then one person with a gun. If you, more than likely a SINGLE person, unless you always have your armed posse with you, are siting at home and your door busts in and multiple armed people enter and you start firing, yes you may get one, maybe two, but the rest are going to get you. You can look over the history of assailants firing on cops to see what I mean. Just in this case, the lady fired once and was then hit with 39 bullets. Overkill to say the least and criminals have zero restraint as compared to police. You are going to be fucking dead.

I'm not saying you will for sure be dead in a one on one situation, or even a one on two, but four? Five? Six? No, sorry, you're toast.

[General Zod]

I'm not saying you will for sure be dead in a one on one situation, or even a one on two, but four? Five? Six? No, sorry, you're toast.

Do you actually think 5 or 6 people breaking into your house and carrying guns would have the intent of doing anything but killing whoever happened to be there, regardless of whether the owner shot back?

[Kanastrous]

I'm not saying you will for sure be dead in a one on one situation, or even a one on two, but four? Five? Six? No, sorry, you're toast.

From this and other threads I got the impression that you adhere to the being armed will never ever accomplish anything but get you killed in any and every imaginable situation.

If that's not your position, I'm sorry for having concluded that it was.

[Havok]

I'm not saying you will for sure be dead in a one on one situation, or even a one on two, but four? Five? Six? No, sorry, you're toast.

Do you actually think 5 or 6 people breaking into your house and carrying guns would have the intent of doing anything but killing whoever happened to be there, regardless of whether the owner shot back?

Yes. How fast do you think that you could clean out a house by yourself? 3,4 or 5 guys is absolutely common for that type of robbery.

[Wanderer]

Another reason why no knock warrants are issued is because the police have information that immediate action is necessary. In fact, that is one of the requirements in order to obtain a no knock warrant, and it is also stated that if the situation changes where immediate action is no longer necessary than the no knock warrant is no longer valid.

Then use a uniformed SWAT Team, not Plainclothes Detectives, because if there is a dangerous and potentially deadly confrontation, you need the SWAT and their stun grenades to quickly suppress resistance.

The below is a bit more accurate.

Innocents
Police Officers
Suspects

You have a warped sense of duty to protect society and uphold the Law if you see suspects lives as not being a high priority to preserve.

It is a Jury's job to decide if a suspect is guilty and deserves death.

This isn't a fuck up though. You aren't being honest by using this story as an example of why legally obtained no knock warrants shouldn't be used. Remember, this is the illegal use of a no knock warrant.

Care to explain how their lie wasn't a fuckup and shouldn't be included with all the other fuckups which started with lies?

Again, for such a situation you would not need a no knock warrant.

1 - Dangerous situation
2 - Strong possibility of evidence being destroyed
3 - Immediate action is required to secure evidence, and take suspects into custody.

Then use SWAT, not regular Police or Plainscloth Police.

[General Zod]

Yes. How fast do you think that you could clean out a house by yourself? 3,4 or 5 guys is absolutely common for that type of robbery.

Why should they be given the benefit of the doubt at all? They've already demonstrated that they don't care about the law by breaking in, so what incentive is there for me to assume that they wouldn't try killing me if they saw me there and decided disposing of the witnesses would be in their best interest?

[Havok]

I'm not saying you will for sure be dead in a one on one situation, or even a one on two, but four? Five? Six? No, sorry, you're toast.

From this and other threads I got the impression that you adhere to the being armed will never ever accomplish anything but get you killed in any and every imaginable situation.

If that's not your position, I'm sorry for having concluded that it was.

No it's not, but thats OK. You never asked and I never told, so no worries.

[Havok]

Yes. How fast do you think that you could clean out a house by yourself? 3,4 or 5 guys is absolutely common for that type of robbery.

Why should they be given the benefit of the doubt at all? They've already demonstrated that they don't care about the law by breaking in, so what incentive is there for me to assume that they wouldn't try killing me if they saw me there and decided disposing of the witnesses would be in their best interest?

I don't give them the benefit. Like I said, if some one has a gun out and pointed at me, I assume they are going to use it, but there is a chance you may just get tied up and shoved in a closet or just get beat. If you start shooting you are drastically lowering your chances of survival and possibly eliminating it all together. Especially if they turn out to actually be cops that either fucked up the address. Or in this case dirty cops, even though I doubt they had the intention of killing people and were just trying to make the bust.

And to clarify, just because I do assume someone is going to use a gun doesn't mean I am automatically going to start shooting at them if I had my own, it means I am going to do what the fuck they say and hope I get out of the situation alive. THEN I can track them down at a later date and cut their fucking throat out.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Like I said, if some one has a gun out and pointed at me, I assume they are going to use it, but there is a chance you may just get tied up and shoved in a closet or just get beat.

Remember that the woman in this case fired as the police were busting in. She would not have known how many there were or whether they were armed, and given the situation there was more reason for her to think that she was being burglarized by drug addicts or other thugs, who would probably be driven off by a show of force.

If you start shooting you are drastically lowering your chances of survival and possibly eliminating it all together.

So you're argument is that it is impossible to scare a home invader away or kill him first, and that it is better to leave the situation completely in the hands of the said violent criminal, whatever the circumstances.

[Havok]

Like I said, if some one has a gun out and pointed at me, I assume they are going to use it, but there is a chance you may just get tied up and shoved in a closet or just get beat.

Remember that the woman in this case fired as the police were busting in. She would not have known how many there were or whether they were armed, and given the situation there was more reason for her to think that she was being burglarized by drug addicts or other thugs, who would probably be driven off by a show of force.

That is my problem with this situation. How did this 92 year old woman get her gun and fire just as the cops were breaking in? Does she sit facing her door with her gun at all times? She had to have known they were there already, so I am assuming she at least looked out the window or something. Like I said, I give her the benefit of the doubt in this situation because of her age and maybe bad eyesight, who knows. but if she did look outside, she would have seen there were quite a few men even with bad eyesight.

If you start shooting you are drastically lowering your chances of survival and possibly eliminating it all together.

So you're argument is that it is impossible to scare a home invader away or kill him first, and that it is better to leave the situation completely in the hands of the said violent criminal, whatever the circumstances.

No not whatever the circumstances. A single invader who is armed, sure fine shoot away. In the context of this situation and those like it, where there are multiple armed people, yes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Then use a uniformed SWAT Team, not Plainclothes Detectives, because if there is a dangerous and potentially deadly confrontation, you need the SWAT and their stun grenades to quickly suppress resistance

What part about immediate action is necessary do you not understand?

You have a warped sense of duty to protect society and uphold the Law if you see suspects lives as not being a high priority to preserve.

Exactly what is wrong with the list I posted? You have an ever more warped sense if you feel criminal suspects should be placed above police officers. Doesn't matter though because what I told you is how it is.

It is a Jury's job to decide if a suspect is guilty and deserves death.

Absolutely. Just because the priority goes like that does not mean police can use deadly force without being lawfully justified. What I am telling you is the police won't compromise tactical advantages to take suspects into custody.

Care to explain how their lie wasn't a fuckup and shouldn't be included with all the other fuckups which started with lies?

This is just semantics now. To me a fuck up is a mistake and not something someone intentionally sets out to do.

My point still stands. Illegal use is not a good example of why something should be taken away. Using your retarded logic most tools should be taken away from the police because they have been and will be abused.

Then use SWAT, not regular Police or Plainscloth Police.

SWAT can take anywhere 30 mins or more to deploy. Again, one of the requirements for no knock warrants is that immediate action is necessary to seize evidence/persons.

SWAT is more for barricaded persons, and hostage situations. Not for immediate action responses. Which is why after Columbine police departments nationwide began training officers in critical incidents.

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck is all this hysteria about? Generally speaking, the solution to police abuse of power is more independent oversight, not removal of essential tools. If the logic is that they can't have anything they can potentially abuse, why even give them guns?

[General Zod]

My point still stands. Illegal use is not a good example of why something should be taken away. Using your retarded logic most tools should be taken away from the police because they have been and will be abused.

What would be a good example then? If frequent abuse isn't good enough to remove or seriously re-tool a policy, I don't know what is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

My point still stands. Illegal use is not a good example of why something should be taken away. Using your retarded logic most tools should be taken away from the police because they have been and will be abused.

What would be a good example then? If frequent abuse isn't good enough to remove or seriously re-tool a policy, I don't know what is.

Thanks for pointing that out. I worded that poorly. Obviously illegal use could be a good reason for re-writing department policy, or other changes.

However, this one story is not going to cut it.

Also, removing a useful tool is never a good option because you are taking it away from honest officers.

Mike already stated the best option.