The problem lies with the no-knock warrant.

[Conager]

I think it's debatable whether they should be issued under any circumstances, but in this case? This was not a felony arrest warrant; this was a search warrant. There's no reason to knock down anyone's door in the middle of the night in order to serve a search warrant.

Then there's the fact that our civil liberties should include the right to abuse ourselves as we see fit. How do we go from my body my choice to the war on drugs? How are those even slightly compatible from a privacy standpoint?

Another issue here you will notice that the boyfriend has not been charged for taking shots at the police officer. Nor should he. As far as I'm concerned, unless we see evidence to the contrary he had every reason to believe he was defending himself from a home invasion. Had he shot iand killed one of the cops in this unfortunate incident he should not be prosecuted either.

Once the cops were fired upon, they have every right to return fire. Not simply because they're cops, but because that is an essential right- to defend your own life.

Likely, Breonna's family will prevail at a civil tort because at issue will be the chain of events set in motion by the issuance of a no-knock warrant be abuse she was *suspected* not of dealing drugs but of allowing her place to be used to stash them. That's a pretty big leap, even if evidence shows that to be likely.

The motivation for the police department would not have been the drug bust. The motivation was finding cash, which the PD gets to keep and you have to prove is not drug money to get it back.

Civil asset seizures of suspected criminal proceeds is the problem, here. That needs to be abolished and suddenly police departments are a lit less interested in who might have a pile of cash, where.

 

[Ziggins]

Or the planned gentrification of the neighborhood. Allegedly.

 

[JillA1960]

The cops knocked

SCOTUS already ruled on the legality of no knock warrants and its legal.

 

[YDB95]

The cops knocked

That's what they say. Most of the witnesses disagree.

 

[JillA1960]

That's what they say. Most of the witnesses disagree.

Then the DA and the Grand Jury lied!

 

[Conager]

Or the planned gentrification of the neighborhood. Allegedly.

I can totally buy that there may have been a specific push in a particular area to lower crime for the specific benefit of well-connected developers.

Still comes back to the environment of "crime" that prohibition fosters.

 

[Conager]

The cops knocked

SCOTUS already ruled on the legality of no knock warrants and its legal.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea, appropriate in a particular situation, or necessarily needs to remain legal.

 

[RobDownSouth]

if government can mandate sundown curfews for free-speech protests, then they can mandate that police warrants be served while the sun is up. This is especially so given the "warrior cop" mindset of today ("I wuz scared so I had to shoot..but hai, "qualified immunity" tee hee")

Also no-knock warrants are for wusses. Cops nowadays have their fancy-ass body armor and soooperior weaponry. If they can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys with their military cosplay stuff, perhaps they should be pursuing a career as a mall cop.

 

[coati]

Any plain clothes gang can shout "Police!" before attacking your home in the middle of the night.

Law enforcement reform is desperately needed, especially with the rise of authoritarian leaders at the Federal level.

 

[Rightguide]

if government can mandate sundown curfews for free-speech protests, then they can mandate that police warrants be served while the sun is up. This is especially so given the "warrior cop" mindset of today ("I wuz scared so I had to shoot..but hai, "qualified immunity" tee hee")

Also no-knock warrants are for wusses. Cops nowadays have their fancy-ass body armor and soooperior weaponry. If they can't go toe-to-toe with the bad guys with their military cosplay stuff, perhaps they should be pursuing a career as a mall cop.

Yes, criminals have a right to dig in, arm themselves, booby trap their perimeter, and fort up, before cops are allowed to enter. I'm sure Democrats will push for a three day written warning before cops are given the okay to to show up and make an arrest, as well.

 

[coati]

Yes, criminals have a right to dig in, arm themselves, booby trap their perimeter, and fort up, before cops are allowed to enter. I'm sure Democrats will push for a three day written warning before cops are given the okay to to show up and make an arrest, as well.

Yeah, cuz suspected drug dealing by black people in a private residence requires overwhelming military style invasion in the middle of the night. Damned Democrats don't understand the first thing about appropriate law enforcement!

You tell 'em, WhiteGuide!

 

[Phenorke]

The problem with no knock warrants is this could happen to anyone, I don’t care your race, religion ethnicity etc.

Mistakes happen, wrong door, bad information.

What’s going to be your reaction if someone dressed in black kicks down your door in the middle of night. I know mine and I can see someone being shot. Them or me, doesn’t matter which, either way it’s a pointless death that can be solved in other ways.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes, criminals have a right to dig in, arm themselves, booby trap their perimeter, and fort up, before cops are allowed to enter. I'm sure Democrats will push for a three day written warning before cops are given the okay to to show up and make an arrest, as well.

Cut off the bad guy's electricity, water and internet and wait 'em out. Hell, use cell phone blockers. Sure, your generation is the "immediate gratification" boomers, but surely the bad guys won't last long without air conditioning.

 

[Rightguide]

Cut off the bad guy's electricity, water and internet and wait 'em out. Hell, use cell phone blockers. Sure, your generation is the "immediate gratification" boomers, but surely the bad guys won't last long without air conditioning.

Yes and take a week to make one arrest out of hundreds pending. The cost effectiveness of throwing a cordon of spare police officers around the house to wait them out is amazingly wise, right? Meanwhile the ACLU is filing suit in federal court for human rights violations against the arrestee. CNN couldn't have thought up a better idea.

 

[coati]

Yes and take a week to make one arrest out of hundreds pending. The cost effectiveness of throwing a cordon of spare police officers around the house to wait them out is amazingly wise, right? Meanwhile the ACLU is filing suit in federal court for human rights violations against the arrestee. CNN couldn't have thought up a better idea.

You tell 'em, ReichGuide! Don't waste time on suspected working class criminals. Save that time and deliberation for suspected white-collar criminals.

Just blast into their homes of the undesirable populations in the middle of the night with overwhelming military tactics. Efficiency is what keeps the trains running on time in your Reich.

 

[Rightguide]

You tell 'em, ReichGuide! Don't waste time on suspected working class criminals. Save that time and deliberation for suspected white-collar criminals.

Just blast into their homes of the undesirable populations in the middle of the night with overwhelming military tactics. Efficiency is what keeps the trains running on time in your Reich.

You are a stupid son of a bitch. These kinds of warrants are only executed for the most dangerous people known to be violent and armed, and or who have demonstrated a willingness to initiate violence and where evidence will likely be destroyed.

Permissible No-Knock Situations

See Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) where the court held:

1. The Fourth Amendment does not permit a blanket exception to the knock-and-announce requirement for felony drug investigations. While the requirement can give way under circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence or where officers believe that evidence would be destroyed if advance notice were given, 514 U. S., at 936, the fact that felony drug investigations may frequently present such circumstances cannot remove from the neutral scrutiny of a reviewing court the reasonableness of the police decision not to knock and announce in a particular case. Creating exceptions to the requirement based on the culture surrounding a general category of criminal behavior presents at least two serious concerns. First, the exception contains considerable overgeneralization that would impermissibly insulate from judicial review cases in which a drug investigation does not pose special risks. Second, creating an exception in one category can, relatively easily, be applied to others. If a per se exception were allowed for each criminal activity category that included a considerable risk of danger to officers or destruction of evidence, the knock-and-announce requirement would be meaningless. The court confronted with the question in each case has a duty to determine whether the facts and circumstances of the particular entry justified dispensing with the requirement. A "noknock" entry is justified when the police have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime. This standard strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual privacy interests affected by no-knock entries. Cf. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U. S. 325, 337. Pp.391-395.

2. Because the evidence in this case establishes that the decision not to knock and announce was a reasonable one under the circumstances, the officers' entry into the motel room did not violate the Fourth Amendment. That the Magistrate had originally refused to issue a noknock warrant means only that at the time the warrant was requested there was insufficient evidence for a no-knock entry. However, the officers' decision to enter the room must be evaluated as of the time of entry. Pp. 395-396.

This was a unanimous 1997 decision of the SCOTUS written by Justice Stevens, one of the most liberal justices on the court.

 

[coati]

You are a stupid son of a bitch.

You sound mad. Was it something I said?

And indeed, 26-year-old medical worker Ms. Taylor was extremely dangerous.

 

[Rightguide]

You sound mad. Was it something I said?

And indeed, 26-year-old medical worker Ms. Taylor was extremely dangerous.

Her boyfriend started shooting first, hitting a cop. They fired back and she was accidentally hit. It's unfortunate, but she should have picked her friends more carefully. She decided to associate herself with a criminal and his activity, so she isn't entirely without fault. The city settled her accidental death for $12,000,000 which is a lot more value than she and her felon boyfriend and their activities would have ever contributed to society. What's the lesson here? Obey the law, live a good life, and stay away from criminals and their activity.

 

[LLCox]

I'm the cops ! OPEN UP !... 2 sec. later... RAM IT !!


Fuck that shit.

Whoever gave them the address/information should go to prison too.

 

[Rightguide]

It appears the media has been lying to us. This was not a no knock warrant:

"Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced today that "evidence shows that officers both knocked and announced their presence at the apartment... The warrant was not served as a 'no-knock' warrant."

https://thepostmillennial.com/kentucky-attorney-general-on-breonna-taylor-case-police-knocked-first

 

[RobDownSouth]

It appears the media has been lying to us. This was not a no knock warrant:

"Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron announced today that "evidence shows that officers both knocked and announced their presence at the apartment... The warrant was not served as a 'no-knock' warrant."

https://thepostmillennial.com/kentucky-attorney-general-on-breonna-taylor-case-police-knocked-first

The judge issued a no-knock warrant.

The immediate supervisor of the killer kops told them to knock anyway.

Doesn't matter in any event.

 

[WillJ8787]

I think it's debatable whether they should be issued under any circumstances, but in this case? This was not a felony arrest warrant; this was a search warrant. There's no reason to knock down anyone's door in the middle of the night in order to serve a search warrant.

Then there's the fact that our civil liberties should include the right to abuse ourselves as we see fit. How do we go from my body my choice to the war on drugs? How are those even slightly compatible from a privacy standpoint?

Another issue here you will notice that the boyfriend has not been charged for taking shots at the police officer. Nor should he. As far as I'm concerned, unless we see evidence to the contrary he had every reason to believe he was defending himself from a home invasion. Had he shot iand killed one of the cops in this unfortunate incident he should not be prosecuted either.

Once the cops were fired upon, they have every right to return fire. Not simply because they're cops, but because that is an essential right- to defend your own life.

Likely, Breonna's family will prevail at a civil tort because at issue will be the chain of events set in motion by the issuance of a no-knock warrant be abuse she was *suspected* not of dealing drugs but of allowing her place to be used to stash them. That's a pretty big leap, even if evidence shows that to be likely.

The motivation for the police department would not have been the drug bust. The motivation was finding cash, which the PD gets to keep and you have to prove is not drug money to get it back.

Civil asset seizures of suspected criminal proceeds is the problem, here. That needs to be abolished and suddenly police departments are a lit less interested in who might have a pile of cash, where.

I appreciate.your point of view. Mine is similar. It is tragic all around and the area of change to correct the tragic situation lies mostly with the police.

This was a huge mistake and one of my favorite quotes seems applicable.

Harvey Keitel...."somebody has got to go to jail."

 

[schism666]

Yes, criminals have a right to dig in, arm themselves, booby trap their perimeter, and fort up, before cops are allowed to enter. I'm sure Democrats will push for a three day written warning before cops are given the okay to to show up and make an arrest, as well.

do you get frequent nutter miles with each purchase of reynolds wrap?

 

[WillJ8787]

Her boyfriend started shooting first, hitting a cop. They fired back and she was accidentally hit. It's unfortunate, but she should have picked her friends more carefully. She decided to associate herself with a criminal and his activity, so she isn't entirely without fault. The city settled her accidental death for $12,000,000 which is a lot more value than she and her felon boyfriend and their activities would have ever contributed to society. What's the lesson here? Obey the law, live a good life, and stay away from criminals and their activity.

Idiotic statement...both from a legal and Constitution perspective. Lawyers have to associate with criminals and do it in a variety of settings. Does the association make them complicit and if they die in a shoot out with police are they partly to blame.

Family often associates with other family who are charged or convicted of crimes...are they complicit and deserving of death by cop.

What a ignorant racist person. I'm sure the story would be different for you if the victim was white.

 

[Liar]

Then the DA and the Grand Jury lied!

Nah. Either the cops or the witnesses lied. The DA and the GJ merely chose to believe one over the other.