Alphabet no knock warrant shootout, agent and homeowner injured

[nwslopoke]

It's getting worse with bureaucrats. Until there is a proper adjustment and the cost of lives or penalties are too high, we've seen a constant elevation of these tactics. I think it started when the state granted itself permission to confiscate drug properties.

Now, when some agency screws it up, the tax base pays and the agent gets a medal so their superior doesn't look bad.

It would be great if we could elect a local DA that would say, not in my town. Get the wrong house or shoot the chihuahua, the agent or whoever is in charge will pay.

 

[lucusloc]

You may not do that but there are plenty of folks out there that don't want to but they will stand their ground and fight back, mostly the older crowd.

In my line of work, I've worked with retired LE and a high percentage would fight back…….. ya these are retired cops and they would take care of business because they have seen a lot and are aware how the government wheels turn.

Just sayin, and just to be clear, I am not saying I would fight back or go full Rambo mode on LE. I am a peaceful human but I will fight if cornered

Lets not forget the Branch Davidians won the first engagement. Their subsequent treatment and extermination for that embarrassment have lead many to advocate for the "Waco rules of engagement" which basically boil down to "show no mercy, for you will be shown none." This could account for how the feds are much more wary of starting a large scale standoff again (e.g. Bundy Ranch).

Federal law enforcement has an "image problem," and I think they know it. This means there are quite a lot of people out there willing to fight under the right circumstances. I think the feds know they cannot afford another drawn out standoff, as that give them time to become besieged themselves, as those people who are willing to fight start showing up for that fight. This means a lot more quick, direct actions that are over fast, and damn the cost. Which of course does not help with their continued image problem.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I was just reading this and thought same thing, stinks bad. Brother said he was a gun person and had lot of them. If Feds felt he had something he should not why they needed to kick the door is beyond me. Walk up to him at work, say we have warrant, are going to search. STRONGLY suspect they wanted to play cowboy, kicked in the door, he woke up and thought it was home invasion. If this is as I suspect, they stepped on their johnson playing cowboy they will no go into full cover up mode and start lying.

It's a fine line, indeed. No-knocks are dangerous to both parties. But "knock knock, open up FBI we have a warrant" gives a potential suspect time to dispose of any contraband.

 

[The Heretic]

It's a fine line, indeed. No-knocks are dangerous to both parties. But "knock knock, open up FBI we have a warrant" gives a potential suspect time to dispose of any contraband.

The issue is, with very few exceptions - there should be no such thing as contraband.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

The issue is, with very few exceptions - there should be no such thing as contraband.

Agree. Just a convenient way of saying "things the government nanny doesn't think we should have."

 

[Yarome]

.... gives a potential suspect time to dispose of any contraband.

Well. An alphabet raid, I think it's highly unlikely any risk exists that someone will attempt to flush their firearms, mags and ammo down the toilet. Right(?)

I do think no-knocks are sometimes appropriate. IE., multiple perps with a violent history, known to be armed, have quick trigger fingers and likelihood to violently resist arrest.

Stacking officers/agents in full riot gear on no-knock raids into the long established homes of otherwise law abiding citizens with no criminal history? That's just mass over escalation without merit. As we've seen. People can die when there was absolutely no reasonable cause for it.

 

[lucusloc]

Agree. Just a convenient way of saying "things the government nanny doesn't think we should have."

Agreed, the government should be in the business of regulating behavior not objects. Murder is a behavior, not a thing. We should not be using things as a proxy for behavior.

If we think that storing a ton of ANFO in the basement of an apartment complex is a Bad Idea I am all for a law or regulation banning such behavior. I am not for a law or regulation banning owning a ton of ANFO, as that presupposes I will not be storing or using that stuff in a safe and responsible manner. Furthermore I think that even if we thought a ton of ANFO was a dangerous enough object to warrant keeping track of, the burden for that should fall on the society that thinks it is worth tracking, not the individual who may have a use for the stuff. I would tolerate a regulation that said I needed to send a letter to some regulatory body if I wanted to store a ton of ANFO on my land, but any cost or burden past that (inspections, licensing approvals community notices etc.) should be born at taxpayer expense, and if there were objection to my storage of said ANFO that would have to be adjudicated buy a court. The regulatory agency could advise me that my storage of said substance was a clear violation of established and legally binding safety regulations and that I will lose upon examination of the case by a judge, but that regulatory enforcement must still go trough the proper judicial review, including a presumption of innocence for the accused and the presentation of argument and counterarguments by both sides. The only exceptions I would tolerate to properly adjudicated enforcement are case of clear and present danger to third parties (of which trying to move a ton of ANFO into the basement of an occupied multi-residency structure would probably apply).

There are way to enforce sane laws and mitigate risky behavior without trampling basic rights to self determination. We started the shift to that paradigm over 200 years ago, and have been backtracking ever since. It may be time to see if we can move the gold standard once again.

 

[Alexx1401]

It's a fine line, indeed. No-knocks are dangerous to both parties. But "knock knock, open up FBI we have a warrant" gives a potential suspect time to dispose of any contraband.

How are they going to get rid of guns? I could understand the "fear" when the "war on drugs" started. People would flush drugs down the crapper. This guy was "supposedly" selling guns illegally. They had guns he bought, then sold, showing up at crimes. So what exactly is he going to "get rid of"?
They also knew where he worked. Was some kind of important person. So again why was it they could not walk up at work and say "we have warrant, come with us". This entire tale they are telling smells worse than fish sitting in the sun for days to me. This kick in the door while people are sleeping only has two possible reasons. They desperately wanted to play cowboy, or they were hoping to kill him. I have to "hope" it was just that they were kids who never grew up and wanted to play cowboy.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Epstein strikes from the world beyond:

Radiologist who drove wife and kids off cliff was having psychotic break and thought children 'could be trafficked', doctors say

Radiologist who drove family off a cliff was having a psychotic break, doctors say

Dharmesh Patel had delusions about Jeffrey Epstein and the war in Ukraine, doctors testified at his trial this week

www.independent.co.uk

Before I clicked, I knew it was a Tesla.

Only reason I clicked was to confirm that.