A Residence With Locking Doors And A Working Toilet Is All That's Needed To Justify A No-Knock Warrant
from the In-Every-Dream-Home,-a-SWAT-raid dept
No-knock warrants have become the strategy of first choice for many police departments. Most of these target those suspected of drug possession or sales, rather than the truly dangerous situations they should be reserved for. The rise in no-knock warrants has resulted in an increased number of deadly altercations. Cops have been shot in self-defense by residents who thought their homes were being invaded by criminals. Innocent parties have been wounded or killed because the element of surprise police feel is so essential in preventing the destruction of evidence puts cops -- often duded up in military gear -- into a mindset that demands violent reaction to any perceived threat. In these situations, the noise and confusion turns everything into a possible threat, even the motions of frightened people who don't have time to grasp the reality -- and severity -- of the situation.
No-knock warrants are basically SWATting, with cops -- rather than 13-year-old gamers -- instigating the response. Judges should be holding any no-knock warrant request to a higher standard and demand more evidentiary justification for the extreme measure -- especially considering the heightened probability of a violent outcome. But they don't.
A Massachusetts court decision posted by the extremely essential FourthAmendment.com shows just how little it takes to obtain a no-knock warrant. The probable cause provided to obtain the no-knock warrant was ridiculous, but it wasn't challenged by the magistrate who signed off on the request. What's detailed here should raise concerns in every citizen.
The affidavit supporting the warrant contained the following representations: 1) the extensive training and experience in drug investigations, controlled purchases and arrests of the officer who made the affidavit, 2) the confidential informant's report that the apartment for which a warrant was sought was "small, confined and private," 3) the confidential informant's report that the defendant "keeps his door locked and admits only people whom he knows," 4) the fact that the defendant sold drugs to the informant only after arrangements were made by telephone, and 5) the officer's assessment that, given the retail nature of the defendant's operation and the fragile nature of the illegal drugs involved, "it would not be difficult for [the defendant] to destroy the narcotics if given the forewarning."In other words, if you have a "private" home with working toilets and locks and you don't routinely allow complete strangers to wander around your home, you, too, could be subjected to a no-knock warrant. This description fits pretty much every person who lives in a residence anywhere. All it takes is an officer's "upon information and belief" statement and a few assertions from a confidential informant, whose otherwise unreliable narration (if, say, he/she was facing charges in court) is routinely treated as infallible by cops and courts alike.
The appeals court may have pointed out how ridiculous this warrant application is, but its statements are far removed from the time and place the application was submitted, approved and served. So, the courts still provide an avenue of recourse, but this decision does nothing to prevent cops from using the same specious assertions to obtain no-knock warrants in the future.
In fact, this decision possibly makes the situation worse. The court notes that many of the assertions made by the police in support of the no-knock application aren't solely applicable to the presumed destruction of evidence. The apartment's "small size" would supposedly make it "easier" for the suspect to destroy evidence during the serving of a normal warrant. The court points out that the limited confines would also make it easier for officers to find and apprehend the suspect before such destruction could take place. It also points out that a locked door isn't just a thing people use to keep cops out. They also use it to keep other criminals out, like burglars.
But in the end, the evidence obtained by the no-knock search remained unsuppressed. Even though the warrant application made a bunch of broad assertions that could conceivably cover every private residence, the defects in the paperwork couldn't overcome the court's willingness to cut the PD some slack.
Applying these principles to the present circumstances, we conclude that suppression is not warranted. The police did not act unilaterally; they properly applied for a warrant, requested a no-knock provision and submitted an affidavit setting forth all the available and relevant facts known to them. While we conclude as a matter of law that they did not ultimately provide sufficient basis for the issuance of the warrant in that form, the police did not act in bad faith, and the defendant makes no such claim. Having obtained the warrant, they observed its strictures.The "good faith exception" triumphs again. Police officers don't need to know if the law they're trying to enforce is even on the books, nor do they have to provide actual probable cause to obtain a warrant. They just have to "reasonably" believe they're in the right, and wait for a court to back up their beliefs. Faith-based policing means every citizen needs to follow the letter and spirit of wholly imaginary laws, and subject themselves to whatever powers law enforcement officers "reasonably believe" they have.
This decision changes nothing. In fact, it makes things worse for Massachusetts residents. Cops can still obtain warrants using almost nothing in the way of probable cause, and when challenged in court, rely on judges to uphold the belief that officers always "try their best" --- even when it appears they barely tried at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, no knock warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Jesus loves you, BTW... ;) )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's play Cops and Lawyers
- "Yes. He had a toilet"
- "uhh okaay... Then you proceeded to shoot the suspect 427 times. Why?"
- "He went for my gun"
- "But he was 30 paces away at the time... how could he go for your gun?"
- "He looked at it. My considerable experience told me he was going to run over to me, take it and shoot me and my 28 colleagues present"
- "Okay. Fair enough. Case dismissed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's play Cops and Lawyers
"the defendant keeps his door locked and admits only people whom he knows"
The horror!!!1111
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good faith?
He can in good faith expect that his ass will be covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good faith?
Grand Juries as they are being used as government tools are not the Lawful and REQUIRED Grand Juries here in America. It IS part of the dumbing down of the people.
Grand Juries are OUR, "We the People's", tools, not a part of any branch - state or federal - including the judicial branch. But because the people themselves (who make u the Grand Juries) do not know this, they are told by those who serve within our government how they must judge, what they are ALLOWED to consider, etc.
That makes EVERY Grand Jury indictment false and unlawful.
Read and learn PLEASE, America needs you (generic "you") to be educated enough to know what is allowed and not allowed.
Grand Juries are OUR tool to be used to investigate, and to prosecute.
US Constitution, Article 1, Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,..."
“The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.
“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)
“The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”
“Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”
“The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”
“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”
“Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)
The Preamble to the US Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
This means that the people themselves are the last word on all of those who serve within the branches of our governments, though that “last word” must also be “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution.
It is important to understand that judges do NOT hold their office for life. They hold it for "life" as long as they use "Good Behaviour" in the courtrooms.
US Constitution, Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,..."
All that is going on within our nation is OUR fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good faith?
Serving as a Juror is your 3rd, but MOST important vote.
With it you have a chance to stick it to the man! That is where you put a stop to stupid laws and tyranny!
As a Juror you not only have the responsibility of determining if the defendant is guilty of having broken a law, you also have the ability to determine if the Law, and the persons enforcing it are justified in their interpretations and actions to begin with.
The Judge and Lawyers will FLAT OUT LIE, LIE, LIE & LIE to you and say this is not the case, but the Founding Fathers of the USA makes this damn clear!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well that's reassuring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well that's reassuring
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well that's reassuring
Different rules apply to cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, almost, if not worse than the fact that no-knock raids are now pretty much as simple to acquire as soda at a store, I'd really love to see that 'good fair exception' idea die a horrible death. The idea that as long as they thought they were operating within the law, they can pretty much do whatever they want, and it's not only excused, but their actions are retroactively legalized, pretty much negates the point of even having set laws.
If cops can just make it up as they go along, then there's absolutely no point in them knowing the laws in the first place, and in fact they are better of remaining ignorant of the law, given that as long as they don't know for sure what is and is not legal, they can pretty much always claim after the fact that they thought they were acting within the confines of the law, whereas if they do know what is and is not legal, that excuse becomes a lot harder to pass scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it was pretty close to this without the good pr-staff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
demodder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's plenty of stories you can find to show police behaving badly, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. How about everyone put down their pitchforks and torches for a moment, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
whos is the dickhead now cunt hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While we conclude as a matter of law that they did not ultimately provide sufficient basis for the issuance of the warrant in that form, the police did not act in bad faith
There's also this little tidbit, where the court even seems to agree that the information provided didn't justify a no-knock raid, and yet they passed it, and the evidence gathered from it, as legal regardless.
If the cops don't actually have to follow the law, just have a pretty good idea that they are, then the laws and restrictions they create become meaningless. Why bother knowing the law, if the court will just say 'You tried' and give you a pass after all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, the fact that it was a small-time dealer with small quantities of drugs that could be quickly flushed argued in favor of the no-knock warrant. So small-time low level dealers get the full SWAT treatment, while bigger operations with large quantities of drugs might get a more polite knock on the door. Then again, maybe they'll barge into that place with a tank a la Dragnet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Informant... You mean the lying POS on the payroll?
Feral pigs need to be started to be treated as what they are and not what they pretend to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Supporting this will end up with a lot more dead cops and civilians alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In some cases there will be justification for a no-knock. But that bar needs to be very, very high, and they have to answer difficult questions. But that's not happening, they are getting rubber stamps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Frankly, I think the drug war is terrible policy, but that doesn't make this article any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion about no-knock warrants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But, by all means, let's just act as if everyone who lives in a small apartment and locks the door can be raided at any moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"the evidence that the criminal activity in question involved substances that can easily/quickly be destroyed is relevant to the "no knock" aspect of the warrant."
Yes, that's the legal stance. But again, that's not the point. The point is if that should be the criteria for allowing no-knock. I (along with a lot of other people) maintain not only that it should not be, but that it is dangerously insane that it is.
There is only one circumstance that no-knock should be allowed, in my opinion, and that circumstance doesn't even require a warrant: if the police become aware that someone is in immediate danger of physical harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In no world is this statement true: "In other words, if you have a "private" home with working toilets and locks and you don't routinely allow complete strangers to wander around your home, you, too, could be subjected to a no-knock warrant."
Unless you are just ignoring the other factors that also have to be present. But if you think it's ok to ignore those factors, then it's just as "true" to say "In other words, if you are breathing, you, too, could be subjected to a no-knock warrant." This interpretation, of course, is utterly meaningless.
It's a sensationalist article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It must be a horrible life to be in constant fear, better just shoot or blow up everyone first and sort it out later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. I can think of another circumstance off the top of my head: When violent resistance is reasonably anticipated regardless if any warrant is served. I'm not so far down the cop-hating hole that I expect one to knock on the door if they have cause to suspect they're going to get shot in the face for doing so.
No-knocks certainly have a place. Just like SWAT teams. The problem isn't them existing, or being used, but being used for stupid inconsequential shit where they just make situations worse. Situations that call for these actions are few and far between. Or you're in Detroit >.>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. I don't think that should justify it at all. Before no-knock was a thing (remember that it's fairly recent), cops had plenty of ways of dealing with the situation without getting shot in the face. "Knocking" by the way, doesn't have to be an actual knock on the door. It could be a cop crouched behind a car with a bullhorn.
In fact, the entire rationale for "no-knock" in the first place has nothing to do with officer safety. Which makes sense, because "no-knock" reduces officer safety. It had to do with stopping suspects from flushing drugs down the toilet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Classically, FBI didn't no-knock
The notion was that sure you could shoot Mr. FBI in spite, but that would give the rest of the guys cause to perforate you like Bonnie and Clyde, and they would. With glee.
The implication of a knock was that there was still something left to talk about, that the suspect, still presumed innocent until his day in court, still a citizen of the US, was worthy of the conversation.
No-knock implies there's no conversation left to be had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dangling participles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now you're trying to pretend that there's no difference between a no-knock warrant and any other kind, huh? I suppose in your copsucker mind all warrants should be no-knock. Just for the fun of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, by admitting the evidence anyway, they have set a precedent. The precedent is "being able to destroy evidence is sufficient to get a no knock warrant." Not legally of course, but effectively so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
4) the fact that the defendant sold drugs to the informant only after arrangements were made by telephone, and 5) the officer's assessment that, given the retail nature of the defendant's operation and the fragile nature of the illegal drugs involved, "it would not be difficult for [the defendant] to destroy the narcotics if given the forewarning."
He left out what now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anarchic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't be ridiculous. Depending on the number of police involved, it may take hours to make sure everybody's telling the same story.
Then they pat themselves on the back and call it a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The risk does not justify the reward
There must be better ways to apprehend while still preserving evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The risk does not justify the reward
Surely the guy leaves the house now and then. Couldn't they just wait for him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The voices told the officer to do this and he is good and faithful.
If everyone would just have bead curtains as doors you wouldn't need no-knock warrants.
But even if you have no toilet you could ingest the evidence so event shitting in a bucket won't preclude you from a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Panic room
The cops will of course never announce the fact that it's a cop raid and not some kind of armed assault till after the door is open and perhaps a good 100 rounds are put into it just to be safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Panic room
> thinking of installing a panic room as the
> only legal way to protect myself from this
It's amazing how many millions of people manage to go their whole lives never having the cops execute a raid/search warrant on their home. Unless you're actually a dealer of illicit narcotics, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being raided by the cops, yet you believe the only *logical* way to keep it from happening to you is to install a panic room in your home?
It's apparent that you and logic aren't even passing acquaintances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Panic room
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
50,000 SWAT raids per year.
That's a lot of lightning hitting people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loaded gun beside the bed takes care of feral pig invasions
One nice thing about Florida is the castle doctrine laws, you are allowed to shoot feral animals when they invade you home.
Simply keep a loaded gun within reach and do the world a favor and remove a bunch of parasitic feral scum from the earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Loaded gun beside the bed takes care of feral pig invasions
I'd suggest a Mosin rifle and a few tins of milsurp, steel-core ammo. Cheap and effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would anyone at Techdirt be forwarding an agenda?
I especially an fascinated that a single case of a gamer admitting to a swat can condemn an entire subclass of people; however, a major article about a false rape case can be totally ignored, as it doesn't fit the same narrative.
Keep up the questionably good work. Try to leave your progressive bias at home next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But tell me: what's the incentive for the magistrate judge to issue warrants in a correct manner?
This guy was unquestionably guilty, but he still had his constitutional rights violated by the judge who issued a warrant that shouldn't have been issued and the police who served the warrant. He has no remedy for this whatsoever. (And that's not because he was guilty - if he was innocent he'd still have had his rights violated and would still have no remedy.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Faith
No, actually it didn't, Tim. What triumphed was the part that you *didn't* highlight:
"the police did not act in bad faith,
and THE DEFENDANT MAKES NO SUCH CLAIM."
A court can't grant relief that's not requested. The "good faith" exception might not have triumphed if it had actually been, you know, challenged by the defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Faith
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Faith
IMO there shouldn't even be a good faith exception. There is no such exception for us.
Ordinary person: I didn't mean to kill that guy.
Courts: Then you're going to prison for involuntary manslaughter.
Ordinary person: I didn't know that was illegal.
Courts: Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Cop: I thought I was allowed to break down the door and charge in with my gun drawn.
Courts: You aren't, but that's OK, we'll allow the evidence anyway.
Cop: I thought he was armed and was going to kill me.
Courts: He wasn't, and he wasn't, but that's OK, we won't charge you with a crime*.
* thankfully it doesn't always go this way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citizens are a Liability to a Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As in if your house is on fire, an officer in pursuit witnessed (with his own eyes) a suspect entering your house, or gunshots emanate from within your house.
Life and safety issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rubber Stamping Tyranny
Fruit of the poisonous tree meets the courts rubber stamp and American citizens lose out again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there such a think as a knock raid?
They left. I never saw them again.
Is that what a knock raid looks like?
I've not heard of any situation since the 70s in which the police serve a warrant or conduct business without a SWAT team blasting the front door with C2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there such a think as a knock raid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Knock and talk" describes my experience with Friday and Webb
I know a lot of them are served by SWAT team, and even recall a recent incident when a mayor was explaining that a knock warrant was when they thumped on the side of the wall before blasting your door down and tossing flashbangs into your windows.
That was when I figured we don't serve warrants by knocking anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there such a think as a knock raid?
That sounds like a bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It totally was a bad idea.
I was still naïve about how police operated. To be fair, I was charmed by the Friday and Webb act.
I've learned since how bad an idea it is to talk to the police at all, given they can lie to me (about anything!) in order to secure a conviction, and can decide that inconsistencies due to memory or misinterpretation equate to an admission of guilt.
I'm still outraged that we teach in schools that peace officers are nice people who catch crooks (in masks with striped prison clothes), and rescue cats from trees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing I've bought band candy, and was nice to those polite Mormons that one chilly day.
No no-knocks for this guy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You may only enter my premesis under exigent circumstances or with an announced warrant. I will respond to any other entry as I deem appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confidential informant changes everything
The spoke in the tires of the argument is the report by the confidential informant. No matter how we try to beat the "no justification" argument, the presence of that report, and that, evidently, the defendant sold drugs to the informant (a sale was arranged after all).
It is a validly controversial whether or not the warrant should have been no-knock; but there seems to me to be no disputable issue at all about whether there was probable cause for a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't call it a WAR on drugs for nothing...
Drugs are a medical situation, not a criminal situation.
The very reason that the cops are using asset forfeiture, military gear, no knock warrants and swat team mentality is due entirely to the stupid idea that you can treat drug use as a criminal problem.
End the war on drugs today and you will rob the mob and the cops, lawyers, judges and politicians on the mob's payroll, of billions of dollars a year, and might even return a modicum of honesty and public service to law enforcement.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eeehyah.
I rest my case. It's all about the "War On Drugs." Terrorists trying to kill citizens, paedos trying to abuse kids, ptheh. It's all about the drug war. That's where the money is for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont believe there lies.
I dont care if you believe me or not. That is my statement.
They were like pedo's on underage boys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome back to the Hitler's Third Reich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a silly thing to say. Sweeping generalizations are always wrong! :-)
Police often do have to use force, but they're doing it way too often in the wrong way or wrong situations. When they show up at a domestic dispute or a low-level drug bust with a tank, grenades, and a squad of heavily armed and armored special forces types, that's damned questionable. Doing it because the perp might have time to flush a bit of vegetable matter just shows how nonsensical the drug war's become. This converts what might be a misdemeanour or "small felony" into a very possibly lethal confrontation.
This is called blowback, and pretty much everybody agrees that's never a welcome phenomenon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Father Christmas can't come if we haven't got a chimney.
Sign here, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it would be simple and inexpensive because of the maker movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]