What does, a dog, no knock, WAC, and ATF, have in common?

Aaron1124 said:

That's why a professional organization like a police force NEEDS to be absolutely 100% sure of their target house, There should be no ifs, ands or butts on the certainty of it. If a police force is getting the wrong house on a warrant, then maybe they need to re-evaluate theirs career choice.

I look at it like this: In a case of apprehending a heavily armed and violent group of suspects, knocking prior to a warrant could be a death wish. It's basically alerting them to go grab their weapons to engage in a fire fight. I do not see how this in unconstitutional in any way if it comes by way of a court issued warrant and sufficient evidence shows that a no knock warrant is encouraged to help protect the lives of the officers.

The U.S. Constitution is designed to be interpreted. If the Supreme Court feels that no knock warrants are still within the realms of the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as sufficient evidence is presented to suggest it's the only reasonable option.

The power should be given to the State's, and organizations like the DEA should be abolished, leaving full Federal Authority to the FBI.

I honestly see no constitutional problem for no knock warrants under the general circumstances of:

# Circumstances that present a threat of physical violence
# There is "reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given"
# Knocking and announcing would be dangerous or "futile"
# However, the Court expressly stated that whether or not reasonable suspicion exists depends in no way on whether police must destroy property in order to enter

As long as absolute, credible evidence is provided to determine certainty on their target house.

Click to expand...

However, we should also consider that a "no knock" situation may actually put LEO at more risk of harm.
If some cops kick a door down, the people inside might grab their weapons thinking that they are being attacked by other criminals. Most criminals are probably not going to wait for a target, but will just open fire through the walls.

Announcing your presence before hand, gives them a chance to give up. This may save the cops from having to get into a firefight and being shot, or accidentally shooting others in the house that aren't involved, or are trying to surrender.
This can be done safely, even in the situations you described where there is significant risk of the suspects intending to get into a battle with police.
I would say the biggest danger is to the LEO actually standing at the door knocking. To help this, they could first surround the house and then make announcements on a bull horn from a safe(er) distance. They could phone the house, they could put some sort of device at the door that will knock on it. This could be done with entry teams standing by.
There are ways to announce your presence and intentions without actually standing at the door knocking.

commander1911 said:

redcoats, gestapo, batf.

Click to expand...

tsa, dea, irs.....................

TSA = Nazi SS

. . . . Yawn . . . .

A friend of mine a good 15 years ago had this happen to him. Cops were looking for a shooter. They kicked in his door while he was half asleep on the couch. They threw him to the ground and in true police fashion they're all screaming different orders so he can't comply with all of them giving them a reason to beat his ass. Needless to say, it was the wrong apartment. There was also a COPS film crew there. When his lawyer tried to requisition the video for his lawsuit it magically disappeared.

They tried the 'fit the description excuse' but they found out later the suspect was a 5' 6" black guy around 150-170lbs. My friend is 6' and 225.

The very fact that police dept. will cover their ass so fast as to overlook apologizing or changing their tactics leads to me not trusting them as much as I should.


What about the big bad pot dealer in Tacoma who killed a cop because they no knocked his house at 4 am while he was asleep. They could've easily grabbed him at work because they were already surveying him. Nope, because they wanted to GI Joe up and act bad ass in the middle of the night. As a result an officer needlessly died.

devildoc5 said:

EXCELLENT POINT... the other thing that bears in mind is the fact that WA state law CLEARLY and WITHOUT any sort of compunctions states that I am entitled to defend myself in ANY place I have the legal right to be at.... If "ZOG/someone" just busts down my door without any sort of warning or WARRANT how I am to know they are the FATPO (Federal Anti Terrorism POlice)? If they dont have they COMMON DECENCY to respect me and my property than what gives them the right to say that I CAN'T shoot them as I dont know who the F!#@$ they are???!!!???!!!????!!!!!

Ammurica needs to change and change SOON.

I for one WILL NOT stand for this kind of BS high and mighty Gubmet knows all and is only looking out for you BS!

The time to change the status quo is quickly approaching...what side will you be on???

Click to expand...

"ZOG"? The 'Zionist Occupation Government'?

blackmarine said:

There was no knock, no forewarning, just all of a sudden you go from making time with the lady to face buried in the carpet with no idea of what's going on.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good time to me. xD



But seriously. A no knock entry would probably get most people on this forum killed. I am pretty sure that most everyone has their firearm on them when they're relaxing at home. If the door comes crashing open, the gun comes out. If an entry team with submachine guns sees an armed "suspect" they open fire. I can see in very rare circumstances where a no knock is needed, but in most cases it just causes a very big danger.

Aaron1124 said:

That's why a professional organization like a police force NEEDS to be absolutely 100% sure of their target house, There should be no ifs, ands or butts on the certainty of it. If a police force is getting the wrong house on a warrant, then maybe they need to re-evaluate theirs career choice.

I look at it like this: In a case of apprehending a heavily armed and violent group of suspects, knocking prior to a warrant could be a death wish. It's basically alerting them to go grab their weapons to engage in a fire fight. I do not see how this in unconstitutional in any way if it comes by way of a court issued warrant and sufficient evidence shows that a no knock warrant is encouraged to help protect the lives of the officers.

The U.S. Constitution is designed to be interpreted. If the Supreme Court feels that no knock warrants are still within the realms of the Constitution and the 4th Amendment, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as sufficient evidence is presented to suggest it's the only reasonable option.

The power should be given to the State's, and organizations like the DEA should be abolished, leaving full Federal Authority to the FBI.

I honestly see no constitutional problem for no knock warrants under the general circumstances of:

# Circumstances that present a threat of physical violence
# There is "reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given"
# Knocking and announcing would be dangerous or "futile"
# However, the Court expressly stated that whether or not reasonable suspicion exists depends in no way on whether police must destroy property in order to enter

As long as absolute, credible evidence is provided to determine certainty on their target house.

Click to expand...

You don't allow for out and out lies on the request for the warrant. Or specious "suspicion." Reasonable suspicion is not enough to get any warrant. You need probable cause. If someone kicks in my front door I hope I have time to put the 5.56 M-855 mag in the M-4. Otherwise, I'll have to rely on head shots. The Gestapo and KGB saw no "constitutional problems" with kicking in doors at 3 AM either. The axiom 'better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent man be falsely convicted' still applies. The Nazis started with true enemies of the state, viz., communists. Then they went a bit further, and further and further. The NKVD did the same. Freedom slips away slowly.

my two pennies....

The issues is not no-knock warrants themselves.

It's the failed court system that's supposed to ensure that such warrants are ONLY issued in extenuating circumstances with a preponderance of evidence giving probable cause.

It's the failed policing system that covers up and denies compensation when when they DO knock down the wrong door.

And since I'll be most such warrants today are issued on drug or firearm related infractions, it's also the failed legal system that seeks to regulate things (drugs & firearms) that the gov't has no business regulating.

If THOSE items were fixed, the few remaining no-knock situations would be no issue.

Metalhead47 said:

my two pennies....

The issues is not no-knock warrants themselves.

It's the failed court system that's supposed to ensure that such warrants are ONLY issued in extenuating circumstances with a preponderance of evidence giving probable cause.

It's the failed policing system that covers up and denies compensation when when they DO knock down the wrong door.

And since I'll be most such warrants today are issued on drug or firearm related infractions, it's also the failed legal system that seeks to regulate things (drugs & firearms) that the gov't has no business regulating.

If THOSE items were fixed, the few remaining no-knock situations would be no issue.

Click to expand...

+100

xxx.jakk.xxx said:

Sounds like a good time to me. xD



But seriously. A no knock entry would probably get most people on this forum killed. I am pretty sure that most everyone has their firearm on them when they're relaxing at home. If the door comes crashing open, the gun comes out. If an entry team with submachine guns sees an armed "suspect" they open fire. I can see in very rare circumstances where a no knock is needed, but in most cases it just causes a very big danger.

Click to expand...

+1, regretfully.

Metalhead47 said:

my two pennies....

The issues is not no-knock warrants themselves.

It's the failed court system that's supposed to ensure that such warrants are ONLY issued in extenuating circumstances with a preponderance of evidence giving probable cause.

It's the failed policing system that covers up and denies compensation when when they DO knock down the wrong door.

And since I'll be most such warrants today are issued on drug or firearm related infractions, it's also the failed legal system that seeks to regulate things (drugs & firearms) that the gov't has no business regulating.

If THOSE items were fixed, the few remaining no-knock situations would be no issue.

Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. This is the best way to put it. For those COMPLETELY against no knock warrants, I ask you - Do you expect police officers to endanger their lives by announcing their presence at the door of a crazed lunatic who will not hesitate to send rounds through their doors and walls?

Aaron1124 said:

Yes. I agree. This is the best way to put it. For those COMPLETELY against no knock warrants, I ask you - Do you expect police officers to endanger their lives by announcing their presence at the door of a crazed lunatic who will not hesitate to send rounds through their doors and walls?

Click to expand...

No, I expect them to wait until he comes out, and arrest him then.

The only reason we have no knock warrants is because drugs can be easily flushed down the toilet. There's not much other evidence that can be so easily destroyed. When it comes to the War on Drugs, the Fourth Amendment doesn't really apply.

olypendrew said:

No, I expect them to wait until he comes out, and arrest him then.

The only reason we have no knock warrants is because drugs can be easily flushed down the toilet. There's not much other evidence that can be so easily destroyed. When it comes to the War on Drugs, the Fourth Amendment doesn't really apply.

Click to expand...

I more so support the no knock warrants in cases where the suspect is likely to be heavily armed and dangerous.

Aaron1124 said:

Yes. I agree. This is the best way to put it. For those COMPLETELY against no knock warrants, I ask you - Do you expect police officers to endanger their lives by announcing their presence at the door of a crazed lunatic who will not hesitate to send rounds through their doors and walls?

Click to expand...

olypendrew said:

No, I expect them to wait until he comes out, and arrest him then.

The only reason we have no knock warrants is because drugs can be easily flushed down the toilet. There's not much other evidence that can be so easily destroyed. When it comes to the War on Drugs, the Fourth Amendment doesn't really apply.

Click to expand...

The Sheriff in N. Idaho showed that you don't have to go in with a small army to get someone to give up. As I recall, he got Randy Weaver to show up for questioning without any violence at all.

Then came the feds leaving a trail of death behind them because they just couldn't sit and wait.

same guy??

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Onl...o-suspected-Seattle-cop-killer-109243184.html

Aaron1124 said:

Yes. I agree. This is the best way to put it. For those COMPLETELY against no knock warrants, I ask you - Do you expect police officers to endanger their lives by announcing their presence at the door of a crazed lunatic who will not hesitate to send rounds through their doors and walls?

Click to expand...

Aaron1124 said:

I more so support the no knock warrants in cases where the suspect is likely to be heavily armed and dangerous.

Click to expand...

Wait. When they go to the grocery store, to work, to get gas then pick them up.

Is this your friend?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013474923_gundealer20m.html

A 68-year-old Olympia gun dealer, who is believed to have sold the rifle that was used to kill Seattle police Officer Timothy Brenton last year, was arrested Friday for selling firearms to people prohibited from owning them, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Federal prosecutors said David Devenny knew that both purchasers — a felon and a person with a domestic-violence conviction — were prohibited from owning weapons when he made the sales. Both purchasers were working with law enforcement officials at the time of the sales in February and November, the U.S. Attorney's Office said.
At the time of the Devenny's arrest, federal agents recovered 42 guns and $32,000 in cash.
Devenny will make his initial appearance Friday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Tacoma. Prosecutors will ask that he remain in custody pending a detention hearing next week, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
According to the criminal complaint, Seattle police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives notified Devenny that a rifle previously owned by him was used to kill Brenton and wound his partner, Officer Britt Sweeney, on Oct. 31, 2009. Devenny allegedly sold the customized Kel-Tec .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle at a gun show in Puyallup one week before Brenton was killed in his patrol car.
Christopher Monfort was arrested in Tukwila six days after the shooting and charged with Brenton's slaying. King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg plans to seek the death penalty against him.
Monfort was not named in Devenny's criminal complaint. Monfort was not prohibited from buying or owning firearms.
"This is about public safety. Illegal gun sales are a threat to our police and our communities," U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan said in a news release. "We will continue to prosecute felons who possess guns illegally. And we will prosecute the people who put those guns in their hands."
According to the criminal complaint, Devenny came to the attention of law enforcement while officers reviewed gun sales activity at gun shows throughout Western Washington.

This story is why, for the few times I have sold firearms, I choose to do so only by placing them on consignment with an FFL that does business from a storefront. This puts someone in the loop that can check the legal status of the purchaser and in turn there is no way that the transaction can come back and bite me in the rear.

It costs me a few bucks but it's insurance that I choose to have and pay for.

Don't expect total agreement from others but that's just the way I choose to do it. I also tend to keep firearms for myself, once I buy them. Have sold a total of 4 over the last 20 years and even with the "Consignment Fee" have made a profit on all of them.

BTW, ever notice how some of those "anonymous, no record, non-FFL, Deals" still seem to get traced?

BigDave said:

And I am selling the Golden Gate Bridge Cheap, interested?

Click to expand...

Trying to recoupe your funds from when you bought it?