More on the raid on the mayor in MD

Good analogy from the The Wild Bunch.

The description of this raid also reminds me of scenes from WWII movies like when the Japanese crashed into the school house in Back to Bataan, or when the Gestapo came for the Jews.

Sadly, this be just what it will take to bring to light how some, not all, swat teams and even whole departments are way out of control on the no-knock-warrent issue.

Good thing that Mayor Cheye Calvo didn't meet the raiders with gun-in-hand trying to protect his family. He would be dead like his dogs.

While the county force[s] had obtained a warrant, it was a normal search warrant, NOT a "no-knock" warrant. So even if they had found evidence of something illegal I suspect a first-year law student could get it suppressed.

Eedjuts. Dangerous eedjuts.

While the county force[s] had obtained a warrant, it was a normal search warrant, NOT a "no-knock" warrant. So even if they had found evidence of something illegal I suspect a first-year law student could get it suppressed.

That's not so clear at all.

“Whether the police complied with the rule in this case is in dispute, but the dispute need not be resolved because we hold that violation of the rule does not authorize exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to the ensuing search. As we said in United States v. Jones, (citation omitted), and now elevate to a holding, "it is hard to understand how the discovery of evidence inside a house could be anything but 'inevitable' once the police arrive with a warrant."
U.S. v. Langford, 314 F.3d 892, 894 (7th Cir. 2002), cert. denied __ U.S. __, WL21696159 (2003).

A Judge Posner decision.

So it's not entirely clear that a violation of knock and announce would result in suppression. The SCOTUS, in deciding Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927(1995), specifically refused to answer the question of remedy. See fn. 4.

There has to be a way to remedy bad actors such as these. I don't think all police or PDs operate this way, but when they do the system must correct it or the system must be corrected.

So far we have a demonstration that bad police actors have learned how to game the system. They know the right answers to all the questions. The system is based on the assumption that the police will be good actors and not lie about circumstances. Right now things are set up to let them off the hook with only some embarrassing press for the Sheriff and possibly civil fines for the county.

I've been thinking about this all day today, since reading the article earlier this morning.

I'm wondering if there is any scenario in which, assuming you did not get shot and killed, you would be found to have acted in reasonable self-defense if you fired at the invading - yes, invading - police officers.

I mean, my first thought was that if I had just come home from work and were changing my clothes upstairs, and I heard doors smashing open, my wife screaming downstairs and shots fired, I would grab my shotgun and head downstairs to defend my family against what is, for all I know, a home invasion in progress. Let's assume the police did not shout "Police! Search warrant!" like they're supposed to. Alternatively, even if they did, we know that some criminals have taken to doing that to do home invasions. So even if they did say "police - search warrant," from my perspective, I know that the "real" police have NO bona fide reason to be crashing into my house, search warrant or no, because I am not engaging in any illegal activity whatsoever.

So again, from my perspective - or, perhaps more importantly, from the "reasonable person's" perspective, all I know is that someone has violently and forcefully entered my home and started shooting. If that person were just some scumbag and I confronted and shot him, here in Virginia, and likely in most states, it would be totally justified self-defense, end of story.

But what if it turned out to be police who just screwed up? What if they meant to hit the house next door to me and accidentally came up the wrong driveway? Would it be possible to be found to have acted in reasonable and justifiable self-defense in shooting at a police officer who, under color of law, wrongfully and illegally entered my house, guns blazing? And what if you end up killing him? Again, if it were anyone other than an LEO, it would be a non-issue. But in this case, under these narrow facts that I have proposed, he is acting outside of his legal authority. How far does the "good faith" exception go? At what point are their actions so unreasonable as to be indefensible? Unfortunately, I think the police would get an extremely wide degree of latitude in a case like this - wider than I think they should have.

My gut tells me the answer SHOULD be yes, you could be found to have acted reasonably under the specific circumstances, but my instinct tells me that you'd be hosed - assuming, again, that they did not return adequate fire to kill you. And if they are found guilty of violating your civil rights after you're dead, that doesn't do too much for you.

And just to be completely clear - my brother has been a NJ State Trooper for 20 years now, and is on their elite "TEAMS" unit - he does no-knock warrants and high-energy entries into drug houses all the time. He's one of those guys with the black body armor and an MP-5, battering in doors, tossing in flashbangs, tossing criminals on the floor and putting the zip-tie cuffs on them. I sure hope he never screws up this badly.

This is why you don't screw around with cap and ball handguns. If you're going to use deadly force, at least use an AK or something comparable. In 68 I admit this wasn't an option, but he could have had an M14, which is easily as much gun.

"The police, as duly sworn officers of the authoritarian State, are the supreme law of the land and entitled to perform their duties without regard for consequence or liability. Recourse is only available by beseeching a grant of human rights from the State."

How is this different from what is in effect now? Discuss.

They're probably going to be awarded medals for bravery.

I have an idea, how about stop training LEO's like they're the military. I mean the whole mindset. When you start in the academy, you shave your head, wear uniforms, line up in formation, scream at the top of your lungs when addressing instructors (like they're military D.I.s). etc. Why is this necessary in training people that deal with civilians? Can't you be trained in knowing the law, applying it in real situations, physical fitness, firearms proficiency, psychology etc without the military mindset? I suspect part of it is that many current LEOs are former military and train future LEOs with what they know best. Unfortunately this type of training is leading to JBT actions and subsequent resentment. In my opinion, if LEOs in America want civilian support, they better stop pretending they are in the Army.

This is bad for the Country.

"There has to be a way to remedy bad actors such as these. I don't think all police or PDs operate this way, but when they do the system must correct it or the system must be corrected."

Criminal and LEO home invasions, Ballew, et al, have spawned an entirely new construction sub-contractor industry. Along with alarm systems, high-end custom built homes can have man-trap entry ways and master bedrooms reinforced as a safe-room.

Bob Lee Swagger: "You don't understand how serious this is. They killed my dog."

Y'all ought to read _The_Cult_of_the_Presidency_ by Gene Healy. You may be surprised (or maybe not) how far all this is going to THE plan. Another read is _The_Road_to_Serfdom by FA Hayek.

Preparation.

Well, Bill, all you have to do to get the answer to your question is google Corey Maye.

Chuck I've seen agencies where they also do marching drill, have to stand at attention while getting their meal and sit at attention to eat it, a whole line of bullcrap that has nothing to do with learning to be a cop.

Under Reasons to Love Texas.

It is stated straight up and very clear that you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if the police use excessive force against you.

Since a Daynamic Entry IS the definition of excessive force. If you do it to the wrong house and get shot the fault is yours. The home owner would get a walk.

It is only a matter of time before SWAT teams start getting shot. They are used far to often. I am sorry. I will not weep for them when it happens. They have killed enough innocent people with their mistakes and never paid. That bill will come due.

But in Texas they are a little more carefull. The Law says that they can be shot.

Anyone seriously considering shooting at the cops is an idiot who will get killed himself and his family killed.

You are not Bob Lee Swagger. You are not Batman. You are a guy with a shotgun and they are a dozen men trained in martial combat coming in with body armor, flash grenades, tear gas, and fully automatic weapons.

Yes, you should be ready to defend yourself against attack. BUT you should ALSO be ready to recognize the level of the threat against you and react in a manner calculated to save your life and the lives of your family.

If you find yourself in the situation of this Mayor, get your face on the floor and comply - cops or not. If you fight this fight, you WILL lose.

If they are cops and they screw up, you can win in court. It won't bring back your dogs, but a good civil suit with a good attorney can cost the police millions. You can't very well see justice done when you are DEAD. And if you shoot, justice will NEVER be done, because as far as the press and the people will be concerned, the police must have been right to kill you if you were shooting at them.

If they are NOT cops, you are better off surrendering. Yes, I said that. We aren't talking about one or two armed robbers here. We are talking about a dozen commandos. You might kill one of them before they mow you down with full auto fire. Odds are you won't even kill one, as they have body armor and you aren't trained to handle your weapon accurately under this sort of actual combat stress. You can die a hero if you want to, but your family needs you to stay alive and rational. If they are criminals, in this sort of display of sophistication, they aren't random crooks. They are there with a purpose, reporting to a higher power, and are more likely going to take you and your family alive - you are worth more living than dead, and your best bet at survival is complying long enough for the FBI to rescue you.

Besides, do you REALLY think the dozen men in body armor with machine guns are crooks? Unless you are a large-scale drug dealer or something like that, crooks like this probably are NOT kicking in your doors. Maybe, just maybe, if you are filthy rich, a celebrity, a high-level politician, etc., some big crime syndicate will want to kidnap you for ransom or a political statement - but even the Mayor of a suburb won't fit that bill. If you are such a likely target, you probably already know it and have private security.

So seriously, don't even think about trying to shoot the cops. They won't hesistate to kill you in self-defense, and once you can be labelled as the shooter, you will always be remembered as the criminal, not the victim.

Do away with no knock warrants. How many lives are lost each year? How many lives were lost defending the rights that are being violated here? How many times would it have been better to send Barny Fife up to knock on the door?

This case is particularly egregious.
a) Its the Mayor. He should be presumed to know what kind of force could be brought against him.
b) It is 30 POUNDS of pot. I'm pretty good under pressure but I'm SURE that I couldn't dispose of that kind of evidence in anything like a short period of time.
I am all for officer safety, but I have worked more dangerous jobs.