No Knock Searches

[Peaches]

This is being done by the police over many states. Police entered a house, without knocking, grandmother heard noise, got her gun, police shot her dead. Here is the kicker, they entered the wrong house!

This is unacceptable! Why in the world does No Knock Searches exist?

[snickel]

I suppose the reason is to protect the police people. For if they knocked, the armed criminal that they suspect to be hiding in the house would have the time to get ready to shoot them or to take one of his family members as a hostage, for example.

The one thing in your story that gives a real fright to me as a European is of course the idea of a grandmother with a gun...

[Peaches]

And they do have to have ways to protect themselves. It seems that this was a drug bust , but they went to the wrong house, and thats sad.

[snickel]

Yes, the fact that they went to the wrong house is a catastrophe. But I cannot see any way to abolish no knock searches...

[Aria]

I heard about this on the news the other day..and was aghast.

People sometimes make mistakes.....however, you do NOT make a mistake when involving these types of situations....the wrong house??? They seriously had the wrong house ??

I am very curious now to see how the investigation goes...and who, if any, 's heads will roll for this.

At any rate, it is completely unacceptable. And I feel that the 'drug war' is not working, the govt is losing, and 'peripheral casulties' such as these need to come to an end. Enough is enough.

[Denrath]

One good reason for no knock searches is a 2" wood door isnt going to stop a bullet...or a lot of bullets. If you are going on a drug bust, then there is no room for "what ifs." People with weapons in drug busts tend to not want to be caught and will fight back.

Wrong house, it happens. Someone gives you some bad info, be it the original informant, or the passing of information between officers.

I dont want to sound cold, or mean hearted or anything like that...but I would rather not see police killed because they were forced to knock on the door of someone who would rather fight than go to jail...could be because so many in my family are police though.

[Painless]

I don't believe it's as cut and dried as that. Three police officers were also shot. There was speculation that it was the wrong house but I don't believe that has been confirmed. For the grandmother to shoot three people, she either had to catch them coming through the door as a group or aim at multiple targets. The first means that she had to have the gun out and ready to shoot, the second that she took the time to identify the targets. In either case, to do it if you're unprepared and sitting in a chair is usually something that only works in the movies. In real life, the police crashing the door are going to clear the enclosed door area as soon as possible to prevent just this from happening. And in real life, no-one sits around with a gun in their lap always prepared to fire at intruders breaking in. If she saw them coming up and ran to get her gun, why wasn't she able to identify them as police. Police conducting a raid like this always have clear visual identification so they don't get mistaken for the bad guys by their own side. The police also claim that they identified themselves when they came in. There are many questions about this situation that weren't answered by the news reports.

[Sigi]

I know that "guns don't kill people, but people kill people with guns" but really if this whole -I have to protect myself, with a gun from other people who also have guns because they have to protect themselfs - stuff wasn't so common there would be a lot less people shot.
No guns, no shooting. Guns only legaly in the hands of the police would mean a lot less gun use, the police wouldn't be so scared etc etc. there's a lot to gain in banning guns for so called protective use.

[Aria]

Absolutely not, I could not disagree with this more.

1. Such a ban would take fire arms away from law abiding people, however weapons would be available on the black market, ensuring that non law abiding people would still have access to them. There is no way whatsoever any federal agency can/will stop the illegal gun trafficking in this country.

2. It is our right under the constitution...and remember that amendment, the right for citizens to bear arms. was drafted with one singular purpose in mind : for the individual to be able to afford themselves some form of protection in the face of tyrannical workings of a government. Not for protection against criminals, or to be able to go hit the country in deer season. Taking away a law abiding's citizens arms, and only allowing the police to carry guns, is in direct violation of our constitution....not to mention incredibly frightening.

[Peaches]

It was reported that the informant gave bad info to them.

[Jayne]

Yea guns are gonna be available to those whom want them no matter what. Banning guns just removes them from the honest people. Its like needing car insurance. All us honest people have it, its the dishonest who dont. LOL, in California they make us show proof of insurance to register our vehilcles. What the DMV doesn't realize is the folks that don't have insurance don't bother to register either, so whats the point.

I had a lady rearended me once and she showed proof of insurance. Come to find out that was just a piece of paper, she canceled the insurance, but just showed the paper.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Jayne

[Sigi]

Absolutely not, I could not disagree with this more.

Taking away a law abiding's citizens arms, and only allowing the police to carry guns, is in direct violation of our constitution....not to mention incredibly frightening.

It really must be a cultural difference. I'm glad I live in a country where weapons are not available to everybody. I feel much safer knowing most people don't have guns so there's a small chance to be shot by a "law abiding citizen" who just was cleaning the gun, or thought I was about to rob him/her or whatever, or that a child mistakenly got acces to a gun did something he would regret the rest of his life. And I strongly believe that having not much guns around makes the police less scared and trigger happy. About defending yourself against the goverment, hmm, there are times I really would like to shoot the MP - but, not wanting to spent the rest of my life in jail, also in that case I'm glad I can't own a gun.

But if you're happy with it and don't mind the "occasional" innocent victims, fine with me.

[Aria]

It really must be a cultural difference. I'm glad I live in a country where weapons are not available to everybody. I feel much safer knowing most people don't have guns so there's a small chance to be shot by a "law abiding citizen" who just was cleaning the gun, or thought I was about to rob him/her or whatever, or that a child mistakenly got acces to a gun did something he would regret the rest of his life. And I strongly believe that having not much guns around makes the police less scared and trigger happy. About defending yourself against the goverment, hmm, there are times I really would like to shoot the MP - but, not wanting to spent the rest of my life in jail, also in that case I'm glad I can't own a gun.

But if you're happy with it and don't mind the "occasional" innocent victims, fine with me.

Who said I wasn't bothered by 'occasional innocent victims'? Of course I am, any child who dies because of the extreme irresponsible behavior of their parents is a horrible thing..I don't think that is fine or ok. And its not about being able to own a gun so one can assassinate a political figure one has differences with, that is ludicrous. Perhaps I worded it wrongly...if one's government is ruled by tyranny and dictatorship who would wrongly abuse its citizens (thinking the Congo and recently Rwanda for an example) the citizens have a right to arm themselves for protection. That is why such a clause is provided in our constitution.

You are fortunate to live in a country where the illegal availablity of fire arms is rare...we are not so fortunate. You are also fortunate to live in a country where law enforcement officials are always honest, not corrupt, or 'trigger happy'. While I feel confident that most of our police officers are also like this, the uncomfortable fact is there are some who are not, some who abuse their power and degrade the many who wear a badge in courage and honor. And asking law abiding citizens to surrender their protection to 'alleviate' police fears so they will not be so apt to pull a trigger is just not reasonable, fact being that most crimes an officer would be inclined to 'shoot first and ask questions later' probably involves a criminal with an illegally gained weapon...not someone who is licensed and consciouness with their usage.

Banning is not an answer, education and strict govermental regulation, to me, present a more viable resolution.

[walkerglassmire]

Let me add some fuel to this argument. Again, drug raid. Again, no-knock entry. Again false information = raid wrong house. The twist yee ask? The cops, while clearing the appartment found a older man in bed. He sat up, confused at the noise, and was shot by an officer that says he saw a gun. The gun... was a can of soda.

Older man dead because the cops couldn't take the time to handle the situation calmly?!? Give me a bloody break.

[Sigi]

@Aria
My remark about the MP was a bad joke, I'm sorry for that. Still I think it's weird to arm yourself just in case you get in a Congo situation when you're living in a long lasting democracy.

About the police violance, it's a chicken - egg situation and in my view it's a negtive spiral, the more guns the more violance, at purpose or by accident. But picture this, the example given by walkingglassmire, if it was not normal for people to own guns, do you think the policeman got away with this "eh, I thought I saw a gun?" And if you think it wouldn't make a difference and you really don't trust your policemen/goverment and other authority to that extent you think you have to arm yourself for protection - I would certainly think seriously about emigration.

[walkerglassmire]

About the police violance, it's a chicken - egg situation and in my view it's a negtive spiral, the more guns the more violance, at purpose or by accident. But picture this, the example given by walkingglassmire, if it was not normal for people to own guns, do you think the policeman got away with this "eh, I thought I saw a gun?"

Yes, the cop still would be able to field this excuse. Because, anywhere there are criminals, they have weapons. And drug criminals, the ones that warrent SWAT incursions, their weapons are guns. Therefore, the reason SWAT enters with body armor is they expect to get shot at, because dangerous criminals have firearms. No law is going to stop that. Heck, laws here that are SUPOSED to stop it do not.

The long and short of all this isn't if citizens shoud be allowed to own guns. Or if they should be allowed to defend themselves and their homes from intruders. It's "Should police have the right to break down your door without telling you who they are?"

Adding fuel in a different way, the story of a older couple, living up in the mountains. Not THAT far from town, but far enough away that their neighbors wouldn't be able to hear them scream. An unknown assaliant breaks down their door. Older woman grabs her bat and procedes to begin to beat the snot out of bad guy while older man gets their gun. Older man shoots bad guy in leg, takeing the fight out of him while older woman calls the cops.

Things like that happen a LOT, EVERY day. It's worse in the city. So, seeing this on the news every day. Seeing it in the papers, hearing bout it "round the watercooler" etc. Most people, rightly, assume that if someone breaks down their door, they mean that person harm. Therefore, they have the right to defend themselves. Therefore, IF a cop ANNOUNCES themself, NOONE gets hurt (beyond stupid resisting arrest, but that's besides the point). If cops are expecting badguys, that's what SWAT teams are for. That's what body armor is for. That's what ballistic shields are for. Tear Gas, etc, etc. The cops have the tools to keep themselves safe. There is NO need to go breaking down doors without giving the ocupants time to peacefully give themselves up.

[AA0]

Body armour will not protect you against a well placed shot, period. This policy saves far more lives then it ever harms by accidents.

[Dhalin]

No guns, no shooting. Guns only legaly in the hands of the police would mean a lot less gun use, the police wouldn't be so scared etc etc. there's a lot to gain in banning guns for so called protective use.

It really must be a cultural difference. I'm glad I live in a country where weapons are not available to everybody. I feel much safer knowing most people don't have guns so there's a small chance to be shot by a "law abiding citizen" who just was cleaning the gun, or thought I was about to rob him/her or whatever, or that a child mistakenly got acces to a gun did something he would regret the rest of his life. And I strongly believe that having not much guns around makes the police less scared and trigger happy. About defending yourself against the goverment, hmm, there are times I really would like to shoot the MP - but, not wanting to spent the rest of my life in jail, also in that case I'm glad I can't own a gun.

A few questions for you:

What do you do when a robber (or worse, a murderer) breaks in with a knife, or a crowbar, or other some-such implement? What happens when robbers get guns through black markets and you have no guns of your own? The best you could do is a baseball bat or a similar weapon. I hope you're pretty good with it... otherwise you're going to be 6 feet under. Someone breaks into MY house, we've got a 12 gauge shotgun, a 10 gauge shotgun, a 7mm rifle, two .22 rilfes. I pity the poor shmuck that tries to break in Our house.

How do you hunt wildlife? Hunting around here is not only a sport, but it is also a way to relieve the horrible prices of meat in this area. When meat climbs to $3 per pound, that gets Expensive after awhile. Deer Hunting, per year, can give us 200+ lbs per meat per year. Add that up, that's $600+ USD. Use a currency calculator to figure out how much that is in your country.

--Dhalin

[Dhalin]

Meh, Doublepost.

Do these forums freeze up anyone else's Firefox like that, to where Firefox refuses to open this whole site after attempting to post sometimes?

--Dhalin

[snickel]

The idea that to own a gun was a civil right is very much a culturally determined value. For me (living in Europe) it is much more important that my neighbour does not have the right to own a gun. And I myself have actually never had occasion to touch a gun in my entire life.

When burglaries occur in Germany (and there are lots of them, don't doubt that) they are either done in the absence of the people or at least without a weapon. For our law gives much harsher punishment to a burglar if he should have a weapon on his person during a burglary.

Actually, I have faced two burglars myself, and I was very much frightened. But they did not have weapons and fortunately neither did I, who knows what I might have done in my fright...

As for hunting -- yes, we also do hunt (at least some of us). Our law states that the hunting guns must be locked away and stay unloaded on all occasions except during an actual hunt.