Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man

[nonobaddog]

We've seen enough no-knock raids ending up with dead people that didn't need to be dead because valid warrant in hand, they served the wrong address. There's not a ban on those. It's human error.

The obvious next step is to ban human error.
House bill 67,3478 - "Do It Right Dumass" - Bans all mistakes, retroactive to Jan 1, 1987.

 

[T.Lex]

We've seen enough no-knock raids ending up with dead people that didn't need to be dead because valid warrant in hand, they served the wrong address. There's not a ban on those. It's human error.

Of course - the successful no-knock warrants aren't exactly newsworthy. Kinda like plane landings, we only hear about the ones that go wrong.

And the 4A says people should be secure in their house and all warrants must be supported by probable cause. Serving a warrant at a place that doesn't have probable cause for criminal wrongdoing violates that. There is literally a constitutional ban on serving warrants on places that don't deserve it.

 

[HoughMade]

Oh, they shopped at Big R in Missippi.


ETA: Wait. You wear Big R jeans with a Burlington shirt and tie?

I was referring to all the jeans I own...not wearing them today.

I am operating off of the Big Rs in Michigan City and Elkhart.

 

[jamil]

Of course - the successful no-knock warrants aren't exactly newsworthy. Kinda like plane landings, we only hear about the ones that go wrong.

And the 4A says people should be secure in their house and all warrants must be supported by probable cause. Serving a warrant at a place that doesn't have probable cause for criminal wrongdoing violates that. There is literally a constitutional ban on serving warrants on places that don't deserve it.

Now c'mon man. You're better than that.

And forget it. If I'm elected grand poohbah, I'm taking that toy away. No more no-knock raids. I might let you keep the MRAD if I can borrow it on weekends.

 

[T.Lex]

Now c'mon man. You're better than that.

I have no idea what that means right now.

And forget it. If I'm elected grand poohbah, I'm taking that toy away. No more no-knock raids. I might let you keep the MRAD if I can borrow it on weekends.

Well, ok.

The pendulum may swing that way for awhile until a few cycles of cops knock and announce, then got shot. Then there'll be a clamor for it to come back.

 

[JettaKnight]

I know my jeans are racist because I got them at Big R...and when's the last time you saw a black person at Big R?

...but the shirt and tie I am wearing today are from Burlington....

Well, now I'm confused.

Did that tie come with a matching pocket square?

 

[Hookeye]

We're still commenting on the Rodney King riots nearly 30 years later.

Read Coulters recent article about that
Media lied its ass off and look what happened.

 

[Hookeye]

Thankfully it was just that one time.....

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;5U8ieQg4pCQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U8ieQg4pCQ[/video]

 

[nonobaddog]

...because anecdote is not data. I do not dispute that there are examples of things occurring. That said, the existence of examples says nothing whatsoever about the prevalence of occurrence of similar/related instances.

Don't you see the Catch 22 there?

 

[jamil]

I have no idea what that means right now.

We'll c'mon. You said no-knocks on a wrong address are already banned. That's kinda not so intellectually honest. The wrong address isn't specifically banned. Accidents happen. I'm just saying let's take away that opportunity for accidents to happen. For that and other opportunities to kill people that don't need to be dead, you lose your toy. Sorry. If I'm grand poohbah. It's gone. You'll just have to find another way to do asset forfeiture. Oh. And that's gone too btw if I'm the boss of everything.

 

[nonobaddog]

This is excellent - Thank you for posting it.

[video=youtube;5U8ieQg4pCQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U8ieQg4pCQ[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

We'll c'mon. You said no-knocks on a wrong address are already banned. That's kinda not so intellectually honest. The wrong address isn't specifically banned.

That makes no sense. The intellectual dishonesty would lie in ignoring the thing that accomplishes what you want to accomplish.

Yes, accidents happen, but there's already a remedy for that. A law banning accidents doesn't make accidents any less likely.

Accidents happen. I'm just saying let's take away that opportunity for accidents to happen. For that and other opportunities to kill people that don't need to be dead, you lose your toy. Sorry. If I'm grand poohbah. It's gone. You'll just have to find another way to do asset forfeiture. Oh. And that's gone too btw if I'm the boss of everything.

Accidents happen with regular warrants, too. So do you want to take those away? Or create a situation where well-armed and dangerous criminals can avoid warrant service by being better-armed and more dangerous than police? That's where no-knocks are most used.

But, if we're negotiating, if we all get MRAPs, I might be willing to subscribe to your newsletter. Gas is cheap these days.

 

[chipbennett]

Don't you see the Catch 22 there?

I don't see it as a Catch-22; rather, it is a function of lack of data collection. Anecdote is not a proxy for conclusions drawn from sufficient data.

If there are some 15,000 police killings in a 10-year period, why do we always only hear about the same dozen or so examples? They represent about 0.1% of all such occurrences. If they are representative of what happens in the remainder of those 15,000 occurrences, why don't we hear about more of them?

 

[chipbennett]

We'll c'mon. You said no-knocks on a wrong address are already banned. That's kinda not so intellectually honest. The wrong address isn't specifically banned. Accidents happen. I'm just saying let's take away that opportunity for accidents to happen. For that and other opportunities to kill people that don't need to be dead, you lose your toy. Sorry. If I'm grand poohbah. It's gone. You'll just have to find another way to do asset forfeiture. Oh. And that's gone too btw if I'm the boss of everything.

I'm not sure I understand the disagreement here? If a warrant is served on the wrong house - no-knock or otherwise - then nothing found at the wrong address is admissible.

 

[T.Lex]

Perhaps a bit of history on the reason no-knocks developed might help.

Some agencies would unobtrusively "knock" and "announce" in ways that were both brief and quiet. That ushered in arguments about whether the "knock" and/or "announce" were sufficient. To avoid those arguments, jurisdictions adopted variations of a "reasonable" test for whether there were adequate reasons to not do the knock-and-announce routine. Thus was born the "no knock" warrant.

That is completely separate from whether wrong addresses can be a problem.

 

[nonobaddog]

I'm not sure I understand the disagreement here? If a warrant is served on the wrong house - no-knock or otherwise - then nothing found at the wrong address is admissible.

But the dead people are still dead, admissible or not.

 

[chipbennett]

But the dead people are still dead, admissible or not.

No argument from me, there. And that's the primary reason for what I believe is my fairly well-known stance opposing no-knock raids.

 

[nonobaddog]

I don't see it as a Catch-22; rather, it is a function of lack of data collection. Anecdote is not a proxy for conclusions drawn from sufficient data.

If there are some 15,000 police killings in a 10-year period, why do we always only hear about the same dozen or so examples? They represent about 0.1% of all such occurrences. If they are representative of what happens in the remainder of those 15,000 occurrences, why don't we hear about more of them?

The catch is that of those 15,000 police killings, many of them are determined to be justified. The data says so. The only data there is says so. There is no other data. There can be no other data. To ask for data is false.
Now what if some of them that are determined to be justified really were not justified. Fox and hen-house. You say you want data about that but that is ridiculous - the data says they were all justified.
This is one of the main reasons for the very existence of BLM.
The noise you hear and the riots you see are about the most egregious cases - the ones chosen to make noise about.


Also, of course these questionable cases are NOT representative of what happens in the remainder of the 15,000 cases. Nobody has ever said that.

 

[Alpo]

Entering a person's dwelling in response to a call for help or serving a warrant is inherently dangerous. I think many of us believe that the use of SWAT and forcible entry are overused tactics. There has to be a better way. I'm not one to offer a solution as I don't have adequate knowledge.

But let us not forget the abuses inherent in asset confiscation. THAT is something that requires little study. Enact or repeal laws that allow the pratice.