• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where do you come down on "NO KNOCK" warrants?

Do the police overuse "no knock" warrants? And should there be a higher bar to apply them?


  • Total voters
    41

nvflash

Changing the law does not change the truth.
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
865
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Police served a no knock warrant in my apartment building on the West side of Louisville KY a few days ago, which left me wondering a few things. Mostly if no knock was even necessary and who is going to pay for the damages?

I mean does the city pay for it, the door? So I'm I going to have to pay more tax because the police can't get a damed key from the owner of the building?

Or I'm I going to have to pay higher rents because of it, now that they had to pay maintenance to board up the door and later to repair it?

As an aside, the maintenance man told me they boarded up the door with a cat inside.

I don't know what went on but I suspect low level drug shit or some other felony warrant was served looking for someone inside.

Are these warrants even necessary and do they really do more harm than good?

Look at the reasons police may need one of these warrants:

1. People flushing drugs down the toilet or otherwise destroying evidence of a crime.
2. People suspected of have guns and the will to use them.
3. Explosives.

My take:

1. The US being a free country, and the whole basis of a free society is that of adult informed consent, drugs are not illegal anyway. How is someone going to have much more time to destroy evidence of the crimes such as child Pornography if they knock first?

2. This is America, everyone has a gun.

3. Explosives are a danger, but serving a no knock doesn't really make them any safer.

I think the justice system has just gone crazy with no knock for anything and everything. I can still see them being of use when they can't get a key in the case of explosives when it maybe linked to some form of terrorism when there maybe a reasonable cause to believe someone inside will blow the explosives rather than being taken alive.

So where do you come down?
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,785
Reaction score
10,811
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The "victim/suspect" of no knock warrants is responsible for paying for any damage done by the police, assuming the warrant is valid for the address that was hit.

I am against them due to the castle doctrine. If it is reasonable for a homeowner to assume that someone breaking down their door is trying to kill them, then whether or not that person turns out to be a police officer who didn't properly identify himself after the fact should be irrelevant.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,711
Reaction score
37,830
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No Knocks should not be banned, but, they are clearly being over-used, with horrific results.

I think changing qualified immunity to a Reasonable Man standard, and clearly outlining (high) minimal requirements for signing off on a no-knock are good initial starts.
 

nvflash

Changing the law does not change the truth.
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
865
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The "victim/suspect" of no knock warrants is responsible for paying for any damage done by the police, assuming the warrant is valid for the address that was hit.
Well it looks like I'll be the victim, as they were way behind on there rents anyway, so I don't see them paying for the door while sitting in the jailhouse for who knows how long for whatever they did.
 

Lycanthrope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
9,254
Reaction score
11,253
Location
Arrakis
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Too easily abused and overused.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
31,079
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Absolutely a vote Yes.

"No knock" warrants are incredibly overused, seemingly easy to obtain and questionably applied, entirely designed to target the most vulnerable, and every so often costing one of them their lives. Usually a minority, which explains why conservatives love the practice.

Pro-life in action.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,353
Reaction score
25,329
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Police served a no knock warrant in my apartment building on the West side of Louisville KY a few days ago, which left me wondering a few things. Mostly if no knock was even necessary and who is going to pay for the damages?

I mean does the city pay for it, the door? So I'm I going to have to pay more tax because the police can't get a damed key from the owner of the building?

Or I'm I going to have to pay higher rents because of it, now that they had to pay maintenance to board up the door and later to repair it?

As an aside, the maintenance man told me they boarded up the door with a cat inside.

I don't know what went on but I suspect low level drug shit or some other felony warrant was served looking for someone inside.

Are these warrants even necessary and do they really do more harm than good?

Look at the reasons police may need one of these warrants:

1. People flushing drugs down the toilet or otherwise destroying evidence of a crime.
2. People suspected of have guns and the will to use them.
3. Explosives.

My take:

1. The US being a free country, and the whole basis of a free society is that of adult informed consent, drugs are not illegal anyway. How is someone going to have much more time to destroy evidence of the crimes such as child Pornography if they knock first?

2. This is America, everyone has a gun.

3. Explosives are a danger, but serving a no knock doesn't really make them any safer.

I think the justice system has just gone crazy with no knock for anything and everything. I can still see them being of use when they can't get a key in the case of explosives when it maybe linked to some form of terrorism when there maybe a reasonable cause to believe someone inside will blow the explosives rather than being taken alive.

So where do you come down?
Personally I think no knock entries should be met with stand your ground kind of response. This happened about twenty miles from where I live a few years back. No knock, wrong house, legal gun owner shoots cop, cop kills legal gun owner who was only protesting his property. It was like one a.m.
 

Lycanthrope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
9,254
Reaction score
11,253
Location
Arrakis
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Personally I think no knock entries should be met with stand your ground kind of response. This happened about twenty miles from where I live a few years back. No knock, wrong house, legal gun owner shoots cop, cop kills legal gun owner who was only protesting his property. It was like one a.m.
It's an interesting question. Could stand your ground apply as a legitimate defense if a homeowner shoots and kills a cop serving a no knock warrant?
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
34,127
Reaction score
17,008
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Voted No.

No knock has its place. Improving procedures and reason for the NK warrant may be needed in some areas.

imo, the police should use the NK warrant especially if there is a question of police safety. They to would like to be able to go home to their families.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,785
Reaction score
10,811
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well it looks like I'll be the victim, as they were way behind on there rents anyway, so I don't see them paying for the door while sitting in the jailhouse for who knows how long for whatever they did.
I'm afraid so. When police damage property in the lawful performance of their duty, it is the criminal they are going after who is responsible for that property damage.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,785
Reaction score
10,811
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's an interesting question. Could stand your ground apply as a legitimate defense if a homeowner shoots and kills a cop serving a no knock warrant?
That would be an interesting case especially if it is the wrong house. Though the homeowner would be unlikely to survive.
 

bomberfox

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
31,239
Reaction score
11,632
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No Knocks should not be banned, but, they are clearly being over-used, with horrific results.

I think changing qualified immunity to a Reasonable Man standard, and clearly outlining (high) minimal requirements for signing off on a no-knock are good initial starts.
Im actually with the CATO institute when it comes to qualified immunity. Their article was quite enlightening.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
83,229
Reaction score
73,146
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How does the resident tell the difference between a home invasion and a no knock search? In a country with this many guns, it just seems like a really bad idea. Maybe it could be a tool for extreme circumstances, but that's about it.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,711
Reaction score
37,830
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How does the resident tell the difference between a home invasion and a no knock search? In a country with this many guns, it just seems like a really bad idea. Maybe it could be a tool for extreme circumstances, but that's about it.
It creates a scenario where both sides can kill each other and be in the right. That's kind of ludicrous.
 

Lycanthrope

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
9,254
Reaction score
11,253
Location
Arrakis
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
How does the resident tell the difference between a home invasion and a no knock search? In a country with this many guns, it just seems like a really bad idea. Maybe it could be a tool for extreme circumstances, but that's about it.
Exactly. A society steeped in pro-gun culture and a media that whips people into hysterics over crime. No knock warrants are a recipe for disaster for all involved - the homeowner who may think they are defending hearth and home against evil, and the officer/s serving the warrant who charges into a situation with no real ability to predict what is about to happen.
 

nvflash

Changing the law does not change the truth.
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
865
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Im actually with the CATO institute when it comes to qualified immunity. Their article was quite enlightening.
This?

End Qualified Immunity​

AT A GLANCE
Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that shields public officials, like police officers, from liability when they break the law. Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice chose to make the elimination of qualified immunity one of its top priorities nearly three years ago for the simple reason that civil society is impossible without a well‐functioning criminal justice system.
The doctrine was invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, with no basis statutory text, legislative intent, or sound public policy. While established civil rights laws direct that any government official who violates someone’s constitutional rights “shall be liable” to the person they injured, the Supreme Court’s muddling of the law with qualified immunity has allowed police officers to avoid responsibility. Law enforcement officials are now routinely excused from bad behavior—even actions that cause harm or death to innocent victims, and even when they knowingly violate a person’s rights.

Either the Supreme Court or Congress could end qualified immunity, and it would be a major victory for accountability.


Sounds reasonable.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,353
Reaction score
25,329
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
It's an interesting question. Could stand your ground apply as a legitimate defense if a homeowner shoots and kills a cop serving a no knock warrant?
Probably not even though flori-duh is big on stand your ground. The cop that killed the homeowner, nothing happened to him.
 

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
25,295
Reaction score
12,563
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No Knocks should not be banned, but, they are clearly being over-used, with horrific results.

I think changing qualified immunity to a Reasonable Man standard, and clearly outlining (high) minimal requirements for signing off on a no-knock are good initial starts.
Imo, the reasonable man standard is still too easy on LEO's. They are trained professionals and have extraordinary powers to intrude on peoples lives. As a result, LEO's should be held to the highest of standards.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,711
Reaction score
37,830
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Imo, the reasonable man standard is still too easy on LEO's. They are trained professionals and have extraordinary powers to intrude on peoples lives. As a result, LEO's should be held to the highest of standards.
backseat quarterbacking split second decisions, and demanding those decisions be made the same way as they would as if you had minutes to consider each one?

I"m all in favor of holding people to standards. I think it's insane that cops have lower ROEs than I did in a warzone dealing with non-citizens.

But I would propose we see if Reasonable Man fits the bill before we risk jumping off the other side of the horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
25,295
Reaction score
12,563
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
backseat quarterbacking split second decisions, and demanding those decisions be made the same way as they would as if you had minutes to consider each one?

I"m all in favor of holding people to standards. I think it's insane that cops have lower ROEs than I did in a warzone dealing with non-citizens.

But I would propose we see if Reasonable Man fits the bill before we risk jumping off the other side of the horse.
But who better to make those split second decisions than someone trained to make them? I'd agree to an easier start program if you included a national database for LEO's that would prevent 'bad cops' from simply moving to new departments.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

Sagalong Catastrophe Ranch
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
60,452
Reaction score
42,279
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The "victim/suspect" of no knock warrants is responsible for paying for any damage done by the police, assuming the warrant is valid for the address that was hit.

I am against them due to the castle doctrine. If it is reasonable for a homeowner to assume that someone breaking down their door is trying to kill them, then whether or not that person turns out to be a police officer who didn't properly identify himself after the fact should be irrelevant.

Exactly. My home IS my castle and I will NEVER "stop to ask --- are you the police, oh okay, come on in".
Anyone who breaks down the door will be shot, guaranteed.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,711
Reaction score
37,830
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But who better to make those split second decisions than someone trained to make them?

I've been trained to make them, and have made them, in places where people were trying to kill me.

A higher standard than reasonable man, is, I think, not warranted, here.

I'd agree to an easier start program if you included a national database for LEO's that would prevent 'bad cops' from simply moving to new departments.

That sounds like a reasonable solution, though I would include mechanisms for appeal to account for cases where someone finds themselves in a Well He May Have Been Drunk, But, It Was The Mayor's 16 Year Old Kid Who Claimed You Literally Killed Him With A Chainsaw, So, We Gotta Fire You, Bob* or similar situation.


*some hyperbole, :) But I think you see where I'm going with that.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
100,991
Reaction score
57,831
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Voted No.

In an extreme instance like terrorists, if used, not at night when most residents are home in bed and the residence must be under observation prior to ensure there are no innocent people inside...only targets, period.

Here, a few yrs ago, an innocent man in his room, in bed, was shot 16 times when LE burst in. He was not the target. He also survived (the LE was all kinds of incompetent, not only did they not verify their target, they couldnt even kill him with 16 shots) and sued the city.
 
Top Bottom