# Marijuana Grower Shot SWAT



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Marijuana Grower Shot SWAT Cops Who Kicked Down His Door, Jury Says They Don't Blame Him

"The ruling was clear that Magee would not be charged with capital murder for the death of Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, who was part of a SWAT team which attempted to raid Magee's rural home, in the execution of a search warrant.

The officers did in fact have a warrant, but a key factor in the grand jury's decision was that they did not knock before entering."

Source


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

I think the last question in the article says it all.
"Do you agree that you should be able to legally defend yourself from armed police officers who illegally enter your home? Let us know what you think."


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

MaterielGeneral said:


> I think the last question in the article says it all.
> "Do you agree that you should be able to legally defend yourself from armed police officers who illegally enter your home? Let us know what you think."


ANYBODY who kicks my door in the middle of the night had better have enough body armor to stop the first 59 rounds I throw out the door and through the wall.

I have that many before I have to reload.

I am a pastor, . . . don't cheat on my income tax, . . . don't do, handle, or promote drugs, . . . don't drink, . . . and in general, . . . do not have any unsavory characters on my property or in my house.

There is no legitimate reason to forcibly enter MY house, . . . and to attempt to, . . . will be met with resistance. Period.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

There is a concept called jury nullification. And it is legal.
i'm sure that Denton or Martell could explain it real well, but the basic point is if you are on a jury, and the trial is about a defendant charged with violating a law you think is wrong, you would be within your rights to vote Not Guilty.


----------



## rjd25 (Nov 27, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> There is a concept called jury nullification. And it is legal.
> i'm sure that Denton or Martell could explain it real well, but the basic point is if you are on a jury, and the trial is about a defendant charged with violating a law you think is wrong, you would be within your rights to vote Not Guilty.


That is the essence of Jury Nullification. If you know about jury nullification and you make it known before being selected for the jury you will be dismissed from the case.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

No-knock entry is a Gestapo tactic, plain and simple. We have a constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. We have a right to keep and bear arms, not so we can go plinking, but so we can defend our other rights. Yes, I think it's reasonable to meet a unknown armed intruder with lethal force.

I'm not anti-police. My heart goes out to Sgt. Adam Sowders, his family, and his friends. This was a tragic and avoidable death in the line of duty. He was doing his job, nothing more, nothing less.

Whoever is responsible for this no-knock policy should be charged with something. Reckless endangerment? Well, something. He recklessly endangered those under his (or her) command and should answer for it. If this causes a change in their policy, then that's some small consolation. For a good man to die a needless death to force such a change is appalling.

I mean really, what was the grower going to do, flush 50 full grown plants? Knock on the door, tell him you have a warrant, then execute the warrant. It's not rocket science.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Prepadoodle said:


> No-knock entry is a Gestapo tactic, plain and simple. We have a constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. We have a right to keep and bear arms, not so we can go plinking, but so we can defend our other rights. Yes, I think it's reasonable to meet a unknown armed intruder with lethal force.
> 
> I'm not anti-police. My heart goes out to Sgt. Adam Sowders, his family, and his friends. This was a tragic and avoidable death in the line of duty. He was doing his job, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> ...


Being on a SWAT is volunteer basis, he (the SGT) is partially responsible. You can refuse orders or just resign your position.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The war on drugs and the war on terror have eroded a lot of the 4th amendment. Middle of the night warrants are a real risk to everyone involved. I sleep pretty deep. I would never hear "We have a search warrant!" or "Police!" and even if I did, how would I know it wasn't thieves or worse just saying that? Complying with that command can turn out just as bad or worse than resisting. Sometimes information police act on is unreliable, incomplete or spotty at best. Unfortunately that results in dead police or dead innocent civilians. This stuff has got to end. 

Same goes with seizures claiming drug profits with no trial or evidence. Just the accusation. Even if you win you never get all your money and/or property back or your legal fees. Big brother just keeps your money/ property and moves on to hassle the next citizen. I haven't touched upon eves dropping of private electronic communications, but I digress. Sorry to go off subject.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Prepadoodle said:


> Marijuana Grower Shot SWAT Cops Who Kicked Down His Door, Jury Says They Don't Blame Him
> 
> "The ruling was clear that Magee would not be charged with capital murder for the death of Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, who was part of a SWAT team which attempted to raid Magee's rural home, in the execution of a search warrant.
> 
> ...


the raid team do not have to knock if the signing judge signed for a no knock warrant. There has been cases like this before and the shooter was found not guilty because the raiding team did not anounce themselves after entry. Also, the cops were not wearing garments with the word "police" that was visible. The defendant basically argued he thought that it was a home invasion instead of a police raid. it is also a good practice to bring uniformed police officers to the raid to avoid mistakes like this.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

There are 60,000 of these raids a year. 70% are search warrants, not arrest warrants. 30% of those result in nothing being found and no arrests. You simply have an innocent family getting their door broken down and the people roughed up. Maybe the family dog gets shot or the home set on fire by a flash bang. The results are lots of damage and lots of deaths and injuries when these raids are conducted. The only thing unusual about this one is a cop got killed instead of the victim.

There is a lawsuit going on in NY where a family has been subjected to 12 SWAT raids in 8 years. The police keep raiding looking for a guy who died in 2006. Even after presenting the death certificate there have been subsequent raids.

Trust me that finding a cop in your house who you did not let in the door will change your perspective on law enforcement.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Diver said:


> There are 60,000 of these raids a year. 70% are search warrants, not arrest warrants. 30% of those result in nothing being found and no arrests. You simply have an innocent family getting their door broken down and the people roughed up. Maybe the family dog gets shot or the home set on fire by a flash bang. The results are lots of damage and lots of deaths and injuries when these raids are conducted. The only thing unusual about this one is a cop got killed instead of the victim.
> 
> There is a lawsuit going on in NY where a family has been subjected to 12 SWAT raids in 8 years. The police keep raiding looking for a guy who died in 2006. Even after presenting the death certificate there have been subsequent raids.
> 
> Trust me that finding a cop in your house who you did not let in the door will change your perspective on law enforcement.


you have been complaining about that cop in your home a lot, what really happened. can you tell us what possed the cop to burglarize your house?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

mhans827 said:


> you have been complaining about that cop in your home a lot, what really happened. can you tell us what possed the cop to burglarize your house?


and give you background to attack me again? Not a chance. I don't trust you.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I don't anyone who is filled with hate.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

If this thread turns into another personal attackfest, I will take immediate administrative action against those involved.

You have been warned. Play nice.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Oil Well


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I can understand the decision. 

The raid happened during the "pre dawn hours" The guy was roused from sleep by a group of men entering his home uninvited and making a commotion. I think a lot of people would have reacted the same way. Hell, I keep a gun by the bed for this very reason. Not for police, but for uninvited folks. 

I think it would have turned out a lot different if they had served the warrant normally and during daylight hours.

All of this over a few plants. Sad.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Arklatex said:


> I can understand the decision.
> 
> The raid happened during the "pre dawn hours" The guy was roused from sleep by a group of men entering his home uninvited and making a commotion. I think a lot of people would have reacted the same way. Hell, I keep a gun by the bed for this very reason. Not for police, but for uninvited folks.
> 
> ...


No-knock, pre-dawn; what in the world could ever go wrong?


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

No knock warrants, in states that allow them, are designed to give the Officers serving the warrant a slight advantage. They have to prove to a Judge that by knocking and announcing the subject of the warrant poses a *clear and present danger* to the Officers or public at large. IE: You are attempting to serve a search warrant for illegal weapons and the individual has already shot and killed innocent civilians and/or Officers. Like John Dillinger or Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker. "No knock" warrants are _generally_ not allowed.

I do not like what the Boston Police did in the search for Djokar Tsarnaiev for the record. They just instructed people to step aside and searched their homes. The better option would have been to ask the homeowner to step outside and ask for consent. If consent was not given, move to the next house.

I really have the sense that Officers up north are far more liberal and therefore, violate the constitution with greater frequency than we do.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> No knock warrants, in states that allow them, are designed to give the Officers serving the warrant a slight advantage. They have to prove to a Judge that by knocking and announcing the subject of the warrant poses a *clear and present danger* to the Officers or public at large. IE: You are attempting to serve a search warrant for illegal weapons and the individual has already shot and killed innocent civilians and/or Officers. Like John Dillinger or Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker. "No knock" warrants are _generally_ not allowed.
> 
> I do not like what the Boston Police did in the search for Djokar Tsarnaiev for the record. They just instructed people to step aside and searched their homes. The better option would have been to ask the homeowner to step outside and ask for consent. If consent was not given, move to the next house.
> 
> I really have the sense that Officers up north are far more liberal and therefore, violate the constitution with greater frequency than we do.


With those conditions, how do we get to 60,000 SWAT raids a year? Most of the SWAT raids are searches for drugs with absolutely nothing to indicate any danger.

As for how things are here in the north you may be right. This would be an indicator:

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Diver said:


> With those conditions, how do we get to 60,000 SWAT raids a year? Most of the SWAT raids are searches for drugs with absolutely nothing to indicate any danger.
> 
> As for how things are here in the north you may be right. This would be an indicator:
> 
> Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute


I have no idea Diver. I never second guess other Officers, but from what I read Northern cops are pro union and just by that alone I place them firmly in the ranks of the gun grabbing, 2A hating, freedom despising liberals. We start our Officers around $15.00 per hour. I am vehemently anti-union.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> I have no idea Diver. I never second guess other Officers, but from what I read Northern cops are pro union and just by that alone I place them firmly in the ranks of the gun grabbing, 2A hating, freedom despising liberals. We start our Officers around $15.00 per hour. I am vehemently anti-union.


Are you also anti-SWAT? SWAT, which was originally justified by a couple high profile cases, was supposed to rarely used. Instead it is quite common.

The fourth amendment is toast. With the amount of SWAT activity, especially SWAT raids that don't present any real risk to the officers, we should all be second guessing the Officers that use them.

We've had raids on Gibson Guitars? Does somebody really think there is some danger in a guitar factory? That is TN. How about an organic farm? The stuff going on is nuts. I completely agree with your comment about the Boston Police and I don't understand why somebody hasn't filed a suit. I would have.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

We have so many SWAT raids because every small town feels it needs a SWAT team. If you have a shiny new hammer, you really want to hit something with it. They use SWAT on raids to justify having a SWAT team.

No, not always. In big cities, they are justified.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Even in the big cities they are wildly overused. The case of 12 raids on the same family is in NY.

Well, they're costing more than they are worth and I'm not talking dollars. I am talking public trust. Otherwise you wouldn't have the result indicated in the OP, nor many of the comments in this thread.

Do you trust people who violate basic constitutional rights on a day in day out basis? I don't.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I am absolutely not anti-SWAT. I was a SWAT Officer for many years. The Chrles Whitman Texas Tower shooting was the impetus for SWAT teams. They must be employed judiciously, however. Not every drug raid like so many are. Wait until growers and dealers are out of their homes to serve arrest and search warrants. SWAT should be reserved for incidents that TRULY put the public at risk.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

I don't trust anybody.

EDIT: No wait, I trust me.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

csi-tech said:


> No knock warrants, in states that allow them, are designed to give the Officers serving the warrant a slight advantage. They have to prove to a Judge that by knocking and announcing the subject of the warrant poses a *clear and present danger* to the Officers or public at large. IE: You are attempting to serve a search warrant for illegal weapons and the individual has already shot and killed innocent civilians and/or Officers. Like John Dillinger or Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker. "No knock" warrants are _generally_ not allowed.
> 
> I do not like what the Boston Police did in the search for Djokar Tsarnaiev for the record. They just instructed people to step aside and searched their homes. The better option would have been to ask the homeowner to step outside and ask for consent. If consent was not given, move to the next house.
> 
> I really have the sense that Officers up north are far more liberal and therefore, violate the constitution with greater frequency than we do.


Yeah, I learned all that, too. Still do not like them at all.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> I am absolutely not anti-SWAT. I was a SWAT Officer for many years. The Chrles Whitman Texas Tower shooting was the impetus for SWAT teams. They must be employed judiciously, however. Not every drug raid like so many are. Wait until growers and dealers are out of their homes to serve arrest and search warrants. SWAT should be reserved for incidents that TRULY put the public at risk.


Now this is a common sense solution. Too bad those who order these raids don't think that way often enough.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Camel923 said:


> Now this is a common sense solution. Too bad those who order these raids don't think that way often enough.


CSI has way too much common sense to really be a public servant. He is really a plant, sent by DHS to get us to like cops.

Don't fall for it!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Prepadoodle said:


> I don't trust anybody.
> 
> EDIT: No wait, I trust me.


I used to trust me, but then I took into account all my idiotic decisions and failed marriages and came to the conclusion I am an idiot. Only a moron would trust an idiot, and I am no moron.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Heading for bed. Gonna dream about donuts and coffee. Hope the coffee dreams don't keep me awake.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Denton said:


> CSI has way too much common sense to really be a public servant. He is really a plant, sent by DHS to get us to like cops.
> 
> Don't fall for it!


Nope, real deal. Sorry.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Prepadoodle said:


> If this thread turns into another personal attackfest, I will take immediate administrative action against those involved.
> 
> You have been warned. Play nice.


it is not about "attackfest". I am just simply calling out someone who likes to post bogus information. I think it is important for all to know that cops are now burglarizing peoples home.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Prepadoodle said:


> No-knock entry is a Gestapo tactic, plain and simple. We have a constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. We have a right to keep and bear arms, not so we can go plinking, but so we can defend our other rights. Yes, I think it's reasonable to meet a unknown armed intruder with lethal force.
> 
> I'm not anti-police. My heart goes out to Sgt. Adam Sowders, his family, and his friends. This was a tragic and avoidable death in the line of duty. He was doing his job, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> ...


 Apparently a no knock warrant was warranted for this raid. the reason a no knock warrant is allowed is because the cops want the tactical advantage during raids. Drug raids are dangerous, drug dealers are more than likely to be armed than not, in this case the marijuana grower was armed.
Someone has posted that because of the growing number of swat units in the USA our 4A is being diminished. that is not true and that is BS. SWAT or no SWAT you need a search warrant to raid a house. to get a warrant signed, the affiant needs to convince a judge that he has probable cause and his reasons to raid the house and to conduct the search are lawfull and reasonable, otherwise the judge would decline to grant the warrant. Therefore, if you have a search warrant you can enter the home and search for specific evidence and you wont be violating anyones 4A. 
The reasons why SWAT is always used in raids is because they are trained in raiding houses. The patrolmen are trained also, but not like SWAT. They are not only used for hostage and barricade incidents, they are used now for all high risk operations. and drug raids qualify as high risk, specially in big cities where drug dealers have a lot to lose.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Prepadoodle's a Moderator! Yay for him...


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Forums like this one are designed to talk about events and ideas: a way to share information with a community of people who have varying views. As such, they allow us all to hear views we might not have considered, thus adding valuable insights and gain a deeper understanding of the topic of discussion... from both sides.

This particular thread is a "hot button" topic. People feel strongly about it one way or the other. This is understandable. Many citizens feel their rights are being eroded, and that heavy handed tactics are a symptom of this erosion of our fundamental liberties.

The LE community feels it has the obligation to use whatever tactics best safeguard its members. 

As far as I can see, both sides are 100% correct. 

Police work, in general, is under appreciated, dangerous, and thankless. Nobody likes cops until they need a cop. It is what it is, and this shouldn't be news to anyone on either side of the aisle.

But that's not the issue.

The issue is that this isn't a forum for "calling people out." It's not a medium where "I don't trust you" should come into play. We don't know each other personally, so we should be adult enough to leave personalities out of it. 

The topic at hand are the ramifications of no-knock raids and their impact on society as a whole. Are the ever-present dangers of such tactics justified by their cost in human suffering? Is there a better way? At what point does the safety of police officers trump the rights of the average citizen?

I will point out that this raid (like so many) was based on imperfect intel. They didn't find illegal weapons. They didn't find a large scale grow operation. Their intel was seriously flawed, as is often the case when depending on street level snitches who have a quota. Considering that an officer lost his life, considering that a son and father and husband paid the ultimate price, is it really worth it?

How many people have died over pot in the last 25,000 years? None until they made it illegal. None from smoking it. It's pathetic.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Prepadoodle's a Moderator! Yay for him...


Thanks Snoopy!

I see it as an obligation. I work for you guys and gals. I will make you all this promise right here and now... I will never use the title to gain an unfair advantage.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> I am absolutely not anti-SWAT. I was a SWAT Officer for many years. The Chrles Whitman Texas Tower shooting was the impetus for SWAT teams. They must be employed judiciously, however. Not every drug raid like so many are. Wait until growers and dealers are out of their homes to serve arrest and search warrants. SWAT should be reserved for incidents that TRULY put the public at risk.


So how many SWAT raids a year are justified in your opinion? I'm asking for an opinion not a number you can back up. Right now we have 60,000 a year. I think maybe 10 are justified.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

knock or no knock.... BS

many times they knock and 1 second later kick the door down....

BS

just plain BS... most times they would be better served waiting until the person is in their car getting ready to leave the house and stop them on the road..where everybody knows what is happening and there is no worry about kids, or others in the house

these things should be reduced to 600 a year


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Seems to me its about self restraint or perhaps more appropriately to not use excessive force just because you can. With all the wack jobs out there 10 per year sounds insufficient to the needs of particular situations. Perhaps I am wrong on this. Acting on poor intelligence, questionable informants, over zealous enforcement/prosecution and judges that are not bothered by ignoring constitutional guarantees all are things that have to be restrained. Lets not forget dog and pony shows of force to justify huge government expenditures like Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians. Enforcement efforts that went wrong from the get go. 

On the other hand how much real danger are officers in by approaching a suspect or criminal on the loose? More dead police is not a palatable solution either. How many and which type of suspects/criminals are allowed to run amuck in our communities to avoid confrontation? Perhaps some of the laws that trigger this madness need reexamined and modified.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

mhans827 said:


> Apparently a no knock warrant was warranted for this raid. the reason a no knock warrant is allowed is because the cops want the tactical advantage during raids. Drug raids are dangerous, drug dealers are more than likely to be armed than not, in this case the marijuana grower was armed.
> Someone has posted that because of the growing number of swat units in the USA our 4A is being diminished. that is not true and that is BS. SWAT or no SWAT you need a search warrant to raid a house. to get a warrant signed, the affiant needs to convince a judge that he has probable cause and his reasons to raid the house and to conduct the search are lawfull and reasonable, otherwise the judge would decline to grant the warrant. Therefore, if you have a search warrant you can enter the home and search for specific evidence and you wont be violating anyones 4A.
> The reasons why SWAT is always used in raids is because they are trained in raiding houses. The patrolmen are trained also, but not like SWAT. They are not only used for hostage and barricade incidents, they are used now for all high risk operations. and drug raids qualify as high risk, specially in big cities where drug dealers have a lot to lose.


Are you suggestion that a no knock warrant should be issued if the person has a gun. I can show you a couple times where they busted down the door to the wrong house and KILLED an innocent person - that was armed...


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

mhans827 said:


> Apparently a no knock warrant was warranted for this raid. the reason a no knock warrant is allowed is because the cops want the tactical advantage during raids. Drug raids are dangerous, drug dealers are more than likely to be armed than not, in this case the marijuana grower was armed.
> Someone has posted that because of the growing number of swat units in the USA our 4A is being diminished. that is not true and that is BS. SWAT or no SWAT you need a search warrant to raid a house. to get a warrant signed, the affiant needs to convince a judge that he has probable cause and his reasons to raid the house and to conduct the search are lawfull and reasonable, otherwise the judge would decline to grant the warrant. Therefore, if you have a search warrant you can enter the home and search for specific evidence and you wont be violating anyones 4A.
> The reasons why SWAT is always used in raids is because they are trained in raiding houses. The patrolmen are trained also, but not like SWAT. They are not only used for hostage and barricade incidents, they are used now for all high risk operations. and drug raids qualify as high risk, specially in big cities where drug dealers have a lot to lose.


SWAT and no knock warrants are used because drug dealers are frequently armed? 
Where we live 90% (or more) of law abiding households are armed too, even if it's just a deer rifle. Also out here in fly-over country is where the two-bit meth labs are found, including one on the road we live on.
Suppose the law serves their warrant at the wrong address? It happens often. If it was my house, the first people in the door would be shot, too. How do I know it is not some kind of criminal gang posing as police to gain entry?
I guess I'm lucky my county sheriff and the county commissioners see no need to spend money we don't have on a SWAT team we don't really need.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Prepadoodle said:


> I don't trust anybody.
> 
> EDIT: No wait, I trust me.


Funny, I don't trust anybody or myself!! hehe


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> Seems to me its about self restraint or perhaps more appropriately to not use excessive force just because you can. With all the wack jobs out there 10 per year sounds insufficient to the needs of particular situations. Perhaps I am wrong on this. Acting on poor intelligence, questionable informants, over zealous enforcement/prosecution and judges that are not bothered by ignoring constitutional guarantees all are things that have to be restrained. Lets not forget dog and pony shows of force to justify huge government expenditures like Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidians. Enforcement efforts that went wrong from the get go.
> 
> On the other hand how much real danger are officers in by approaching a suspect or criminal on the loose? More dead police is not a palatable solution either. How many and which type of suspects/criminals are allowed to run amuck in our communities to avoid confrontation? Perhaps some of the laws that trigger this madness need reexamined and modified.


If 10 is insufficient what is your opinion of how many are appropriate. Again, you don't have to back up the number, I am just asking for an opinion.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Diver said:


> If 10 is insufficient what is your opinion of how many are appropriate. Again, you don't have to back up the number, I am just asking for an opinion.


I do not have a number. I also allowed that I may be wrong. The only way to reasonably do so would to review each raid, all the factors that went into it and the results. Now you have real statistics to make said analysis. I think it would be safe to say more than half are unnecessary but that is pure speculation and I am probably not being aggressive enough in cutting that figure. My comment is based on seeing how many crazy, viscous people are out there. While I do not endorse the idea of no knock raids, I have not participated in any and I am allowing leeway for the possibility of extreme cases. If you read the my prior post, the problem is over use and abuse with this sort of thing which I think we agree on. With the lack of moral character exhibited by a significant part of this society, not just criminals, entrusting such power to others is a dangerous thing and executing such action has been taken too lightly in my opinion.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Camel923 said:


> I do not have a number. I also allowed that I may be wrong. The only way to reasonably do so would to review each raid, all the factors that went into it and the results. Now you have real statistics to make said analysis. I think it would be safe to say more than half are unnecessary but that is pure speculation and I am probably not being aggressive enough in cutting that figure. My comment is based on seeing how many crazy, viscous people are out there. While I do not endorse the idea of no knock raids, I have not participated in any and I am allowing leeway for the possibility of extreme cases. If you read the my prior post, the problem is over use and abuse with this sort of thing which I think we agree on. With the lack of moral character exhibited by a significant part of this society, not just criminals, entrusting such power to others is a dangerous thing and executing such action has been taken too lightly in my opinion.


I believe we are in at least rough agreement. Most, not all, of the posters on this thread would seem to agree SWAT is overused.


----------



## whoppo (Nov 9, 2012)

Denton said:


> I don't anyone who is filled with hate.


or with pudding...


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm not a fan of blanket warrants or legislation either. A search warrant has to be specific. Just saying "We request a no knock warrant because drug dealers are often armed and, ergo are also dangerous" is not enough in my book. I like statements like: "Your Affiant requests a no knock warrant based on the fact that Mr. Jones is known to carry firearms in spite of being a convicted felon and has been charged numerous times with assault on Officers and resisting arrest."


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> I'm not a fan of blanket warrants or legislation either. A search warrant has to be specific. Just saying "We request a no knock warrant because drug dealers are often armed and, ergo are also dangerous" is not enough in my book.


agree with above...

*Post hoc ergo propter hoc*

The following is a simple example:

The rooster crows immediately before sunrise, therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.

or as mentioned above - drug dealers often have guns, this is a drug dealer, he has a gun


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

I would also propose that if the raid does not find anything, must compensate the victims of that raid, or any innocents harmed in the raid.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

I really have the sense that Officers up north are far more liberal and therefore, violate the constitution with greater frequency than we do."

BWAHAHAHA!


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

mhans827 said:


> Apparently a no knock warrant was warranted for this raid. the reason a no knock warrant is allowed is because the cops want the tactical advantage during raids. Drug raids are dangerous, drug dealers are more than likely to be armed than not, in this case the marijuana grower was armed.
> Someone has posted that because of the growing number of swat units in the USA our 4A is being diminished. that is not true and that is BS. SWAT or no SWAT you need a search warrant to raid a house. to get a warrant signed, the affiant needs to convince a judge that he has probable cause and his reasons to raid the house and to conduct the search are lawfull and reasonable, otherwise the judge would decline to grant the warrant. Therefore, if you have a search warrant you can enter the home and search for specific evidence and you wont be violating anyones 4A.
> The reasons why SWAT is always used in raids is because they are trained in raiding houses. The patrolmen are trained also, but not like SWAT. They are not only used for hostage and barricade incidents, they are used now for all high risk operations. and drug raids qualify as high risk, specially in big cities where drug dealers have a lot to lose.


Seems like "apparently" shooting an out of control psycho criminal raiding for "fundraiser" flat dead was warranted and everybody thought so. Hopefully the fad of "black excuses" among what is supposed to be better are closing down. Open season happy days losing air.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Arklatex said:


> All of this over a few plants. Sad.


Agreed. This is the saddest part. The "war on drugs" is an exercise in insanity. An officer lost his life and a citizen's rights were totally violated over a few plants. What an incredible waste.

I'm as opposed the use of dangerous and illicit drugs as anybody on this board, but, how can any sane person continue to rationalize or support these police state tactics over a little weed?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

Usually these raids go against the homeowner, even if the search warrant is for the wrong address. There was just a case in the NRA magazine where Wayne & the boys are fighting for a guy who was convicted of murder for shooting a cop during a misplaced raid. 

The Police were at the wrong address, but videotaped their entry and call-outs of "Police", and all were appropriately marked as LEOs.
But the homeowner heard none of it behind his closed bedroom door. He got up at the sound of a thud and fired on the guys trying to come thru his door.
Poor and black, he went directly to jail, did not pass go, did not collect $200. 

So the question is did these guys (fro the originl thread) properly introduce themselves so A REASONABLE MAN would know that they were legitimate law enforcement? Here in town we have had a few guys in body armor pretending to be LEOs out doing home invasions. Their aggressive nature is such that you do not have a lotta time to decide if you are going to open fire or not.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Their aggressive nature is such that you do not have a lot of time to decide if you are going to open fire or not.


exactly....


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

mhans827 said:


> Therefore, if you have a search warrant you can enter the home and search for specific evidence and you wont be violating anyones 4A.


I guess a lot depends on your view of "unreasonable"


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

I would suggest that the mere ownership of weapons is insufficient to justify a SWAT raid. That logic says if you exercise your 2nd amendment rights you lose your 4th amendment rights.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Well at least we'll be spared police laying in front of traffic and burning, looting and generally stinking it up worse. 
There is that


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Diver said:


> I would suggest that the mere ownership of weapons is insufficient to justify a SWAT raid. That logic says if you exercise your 2nd amendment rights you lose your 4th amendment rights.


I liked this post, but my hand was shaking as i clicked like on DIVER's post


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Diver said:


> So how many SWAT raids a year are justified in your opinion? I'm asking for an opinion not a number you can back up. Right now we have 60,000 a year. I think maybe 10 are justified.


Like I have said before, SWAT is normally reserved for things like barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active shooter response etc. As far as hazardous warrant service I think it should be one bad motor scooter if you deploy a team. Clear and articulable facts that when taken with the totality of the circumstances that indicate a clear and eminent threat to life or limb. I honestly believe that you can observe your suspect and catch him away from home and out of his milieu to arrest him and serve a search warrant while he is gone. *Sometimes*, you may need SWAT for a hazardous entry. I have called them out twice in my career and for good reason.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> Like I have said before, SWAT is normally reserved for things like barricaded suspects, hostage situations, active shooter response etc. As far as hazardous warrant service I think it should be one bad motor scooter if you deploy a team. Clear and articulable facts that when taken with the totality of the circumstances that indicate a clear and eminent threat to life or limb. I honestly believe that you can observe your suspect and catch him away from home and out of his milieu to arrest him and serve a search warrant while he is gone. *Sometimes*, you may need SWAT for a hazardous entry. I have called them out twice in my career and for good reason.


I don't have a disagreement with what you are saying should be the case, but I don't think that is what we are experiencing with 60,000 raids nationwide per year.

Any sense on your part of what might bring the numbers in line with what you describe? Guesses welcome.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> SWAT and no knock warrants are used because drug dealers are frequently armed?
> Where we live 90% (or more) of law abiding households are armed too, even if it's just a deer rifle. Also out here in fly-over country is where the two-bit meth labs are found, including one on the road we live on.
> Suppose the law serves their warrant at the wrong address? It happens often. If it was my house, the first people in the door would be shot, too. How do I know it is not some kind of criminal gang posing as police to gain entry?
> I guess I'm lucky my county sheriff and the county commissioners see no need to spend money we don't have on a SWAT team we don't really need.


that's great if you guys don't need swat in your area. where I work we need them and we use them all the time. we have gang bangers who don't mind shooting cops and most of them are in drug trade. we use no knock warrants all the time so that we could gain tactical advantage (element of surprise). the area I work in is comparable to Detroit. we average about 20 burglaries daily, about 30 robberies (armed and unarmed), carjacking is a problem too. we get at least 1 homicide/shootings daily. I guess this is what happens when the prison system is being used as a criminal convention centers.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Diver said:


> I would also propose that if the raid does not find anything, must compensate the victims of that raid, or any innocents harmed in the raid.


if the cops raid the wrong house, yes the people should be compensated and the raiding party have to be reprimanded. if they commit a crime they should be charged. but because you don't find anything in a search and seizure raid does not mean you will be compensated. it only means nothing was found and the contraband could have been moved.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Its a shame you have to work in such a place. May God bless and watch over you. The midnight raid is just being over used and with deadly consequences. I will not repeat my prior posts. Thankfully there are those willing to protect and serve.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

csi-tech said:


> I'm not a fan of blanket warrants or legislation either. A search warrant has to be specific. Just saying "We request a no knock warrant because drug dealers are often armed and, ergo are also dangerous" is not enough in my book. I like statements like: "Your Affiant requests a no knock warrant based on the fact that Mr. Jones is known to carry firearms in spite of being a convicted felon and has been charged numerous times with assault on Officers and resisting arrest."


I never heard of a "blanket warrant". when I wrote that a no knock warrant was needed, it is because drug dealers are often armed and dangerous, I was explaining the need for it, not how to write a warrant. to get a warrant signed by a judge, it has to be very specific. what crime are you investigating, who are the players and what do they do and what have they done, and you have to be specific in what are you looking for. the probable cause has to be written in a detailed manner.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Diver said:


> So how many SWAT raids a year are justified in your opinion? I'm asking for an opinion not a number you can back up. Right now we have 60,000 a year. I think maybe 10 are justified.


if 60,000 have a signed search warrant, they are all justified.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Maine-Marine said:


> Are you suggestion that a no knock warrant should be issued if the person has a gun. I can show you a couple times where they busted down the door to the wrong house and KILLED an innocent person - that was armed...


Unfortunately raiding party do get the wrong house sometimes. that is an intel issue, if not a flawed investigation from the start. when that happens, cops get busted for it. as far as no knock warrant, it has to be justified and the need for it is clear. in my specialty, I usually look for child porn and other contraband when I do raids, and I don't usually need a no knock warrant. I have several warrants that required no knock warrant and swat was used for the raid. have you heard a flash bang go off, those things are so loud, the pit bull in the house pooped himself when that thing went off. I was raiding a known gangbangers house who is known to have illegal guns, assaulted police and made threats that he was going to kill police. no knock was authorized by the judge on that particular warrant, we went in and got everyone contained with no problem.

also, search warrants being served by SWAT in the inner city are more frequent than the rural areas. Crime in the inner cities are significantly greater than that of rural areas or the counties outside the big city. we arrest more people because we have more criminals, the counties don't because they have less.

I also understand 2A and I know that more people have legal guns that not have it. a person simply owning a gun is not a reason for no knock warrant. in fact, if the person posses legal firearms, you need to revisit your intel and investigation. law abiding gun owners don't usually commit crimes. the ones that require S&S warrants are usually repeat offenders and they don't own legal guns.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Camel923 said:


> Its a shame you have to work in such a place. May God bless and watch over you. The midnight raid is just being over used and with deadly consequences. I will not repeat my prior posts. Thankfully there are those willing to protect and serve.


I understand your concern with the midnight raids and I understand how that could be dangerous all around (police and home owner). but the ones the we do, it is because that time is the best time to serve the S&S (midnight or wee hours of the morning). believe me, drugs are a 24/7 operation and those criminals don't sleep. we do it midnight because that is when the contraband is present in the house, plus there are less children roaming around. if a shoot out breaks out, less people to get hit with cross fire or stray bullets. just to be clear on the issue of a cross fire, that is not something the cops do, but criminals will fire at the police regardless if there is a kid in the way.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

The mere fact it is drug related should not be enough to allow a SWAT raid. That is how we get people being "SWATed".


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

I understand that the information leading to these raids probably comes from a lot of different intel gathering techniques. Does anyone have some ballpark idea of how many of these search warrants are based solely on information from street level snitches? 

I'll admit I have no idea how the system works, for all I know they NEVER rely on this kind of information exclusively. Then again, they can't look in your house before they get the warrant, so it has to be some kind of informant, right? Maybe they can have other sources, like a through the roof light bill for a grow operation, but wouldn't they need probable cause to get this kind of data from the electric company?

If the whole thing gets set in motion by a CI who has a quota of busts to make each month, I see that as a basic flaw in the process, and one very likely to be abused.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Diver said:


> The mere fact it is drug related should not be enough to allow a SWAT raid. That is how we get people being "SWATed".


apparently you know nothing about policing. are you suggesting that patrolmen do the raids themselves? you are asking for a disaster. if my house was going to be raided and I can choose between patrolmen or swat, I choose swat. I know my chances of getting shot accidentally would be less than those raids executed by patrolmen.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Prepadoodle said:


> I understand that the information leading to these raids probably comes from a lot of different intel gathering techniques. Does anyone have some ballpark idea of how many of these search warrants are based solely on information from street level snitches?
> 
> I'll admit I have no idea how the system works, for all I know they NEVER rely on this kind of information exclusively. Then again, they can't look in your house before they get the warrant, so it has to be some kind of informant, right? Maybe they can have other sources, like a through the roof light bill for a grow operation, but wouldn't they need probable cause to get this kind of data from the electric company?
> 
> If the whole thing gets set in motion by a CI who has a quota of busts to make each month, I see that as a basic flaw in the process, and one very likely to be abused.


our CI's don't have quota's. drug raid usually employs the help of CI's for information and some intel. but a good drug cop would rely on the out come of his investigation and info from the intelligence unit. again all of the info is laid out and articulated in the S&S warrant to get it signed.

now for drug raids that are investigated and done by patrolmen, they mostly rely on info from snitches who are trying to get their pending court cases considered for light sentences. even with those S&S, the judge will still carefully review the warrant and make sure that the probable case is there and it is reasonable.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Prepadoodle said:


> I understand that the information leading to these raids probably comes from a lot of different intel gathering techniques. Does anyone have some ballpark idea of how many of these search warrants are based solely on information from street level snitches?
> 
> I'll admit I have no idea how the system works, for all I know they NEVER rely on this kind of information exclusively. Then again, they can't look in your house before they get the warrant, so it has to be some kind of informant, right? Maybe they can have other sources, like a through the roof light bill for a grow operation, but wouldn't they need probable cause to get this kind of data from the electric company?
> 
> If the whole thing gets set in motion by a CI who has a quota of busts to make each month, I see that as a basic flaw in the process, and one very likely to be abused.


The Phonesavah case in Georgia (18 month old child set on fire by SWAT officers) was set off with nothing more than a single report from a CI. No effort was made to even be sure the person they were after was present. The town responsible is refusing to pay the toddler's medical bills, which are over $500,000. The fellow they were after was picked up at another address with no violence or resistance.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

The town likely has liability caps and immunity.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Diver said:


> The Phonesavah case in Georgia (18 month old child set on fire by SWAT officers) was set off with nothing more than a single report from a CI. No effort was made to even be sure the person they were after was present. The town responsible is refusing to pay the toddler's medical bills, which are over $500,000. The fellow they were after was picked up at another address with no violence or resistance.


This is an agregous example of how bad these no knock warrants can be. If this doesn't make everyone rethink thier positions on how and when such raids are conducted nothing will. This is an instance where everyone involved looses. The baby, the family, the officers.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> The town likely has liability caps and immunity.


Not a good combination with stupidity. :-( So far they have paid zero, so the case will continue to make headlines, stirring up more ill will towards law enforcement as the near certain civil case proceeds, possibly for years.


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

now for drug raids that are investigated and done by patrolmen, they mostly rely on info from snitches who are trying to get their pending court cases considered for light sentences. even with those S&S, the judge will still carefully review the warrant and make sure that the probable case is there and it is reasonable."

Wow, that sounds like "wonderland". In the south we know that social services uses the police to frame and imprison people so the social worker can sell their baby to her friends and they don't even bother to hide behind "great blowhard sayings" to be the financially strapped people eating gang they factually are.
That's the reputation the south doesn't mind. It must be like some "paradise" you're talking about....
(Sorry couldn't help it....)


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)




----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

oddapple said:


> now for drug raids that are investigated and done by patrolmen, they mostly rely on info from snitches who are trying to get their pending court cases considered for light sentences. even with those S&S, the judge will still carefully review the warrant and make sure that the probable case is there and it is reasonable."
> 
> Wow, that sounds like "wonderland". In the south we know that social services uses the police to frame and imprison people so the social worker can sell their baby to her friends and they don't even bother to hide behind "great blowhard sayings" to be the financially strapped people eating gang they factually are.
> That's the reputation the south doesn't mind. It must be like some "paradise" you're talking about....
> (Sorry couldn't help it....)


This is a new one for me. Do you have somereferences?


----------



## oddapple (Dec 9, 2013)

Diver said:


> This is a new one for me. Do you have somereferences?


What's new for you? Social worker/cop framing and baby selling business?
What references? Call little rock child abuse center and ask them how many cases come from north central arkansas that end up actually legit? Compared to the number of kids they process to cover up or "architect" social worker scams. It's gotten so bad they're not wearing the rap and usually candid about the problem. Now do the same in tenn. 
I only point it out because cops are not like muslims - they aren't all in it together like people sometimes think


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

oddapple said:


> What's new for you? Social worker/cop framing and baby selling business?


Exactly. This is new to me.


----------

