Reckless Drug War Tactics Lead to Senseless Deaths

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rick Mason

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 13, 2019
    397
    47
    Lake County
    I'm going to put this one here because the young man thought he was righteously defending his family against a home invasion by criminals. Have at it...

    The Breonna Taylor Shooting Shows How Reckless Drug War Tactics Lead to Senseless Deaths

    The shooting of Breonna Taylor, which happened on March 13 but is only now getting national attention, highlights once again the deadly recklessness of "dynamic entry" police raids. The very tactics that police use to minimize violence, aimed at discombobulating their targets and catching them off guard in the hope of discouraging resistance, predictably lead to fatal misunderstandings. These tactics are especially inappropriate when police enter homes in service of the war on drugs, as they did in this case.

    And a follow-up...

    Feds To Investigate Death of Breonna Taylor After Botched Kentucky Narcotics Raid
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,822
    113
    Brainardland
    I'm going to put this one here because the young man thought he was righteously defending his family against a home invasion by criminals. Have at it...

    The Breonna Taylor Shooting Shows How Reckless Drug War Tactics Lead to Senseless Deaths

    The shooting of Breonna Taylor, which happened on March 13 but is only now getting national attention, highlights once again the deadly recklessness of "dynamic entry" police raids. The very tactics that police use to minimize violence, aimed at discombobulating their targets and catching them off guard in the hope of discouraging resistance, predictably lead to fatal misunderstandings. These tactics are especially inappropriate when police enter homes in service of the war on drugs, as they did in this case.

    And a follow-up...

    Feds To Investigate Death of Breonna Taylor After Botched Kentucky Narcotics Raid

    I've been saying this for years. SWAT teams are being used, needlessly and unjustifiably, in situations where my generation of cop simply walked up and knocked on the door. And people are dying who WOULDN'T die if it was still done that way.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    I don't really care about dope cases and realize a lot of places are going away from No Knocks over them, but I wonder why the narrative of "botched raid" and "wrong address" narratives remain alive and well despite the female occupant taking deliveries of drugs and the investigation knowing that.

    Maybe I should make a video in uniform and on duty about something I'm not doing anyway and make a half million. I just have to get a ball cap to wear backwards so when I rap the kids can relate, amiright fellow youths?
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,048
    77
    Southside Indy
    I don't really care about dope cases and realize a lot of places are going away from No Knocks over them, but I wonder why the narrative of "botched raid" and "wrong address" narratives remain alive and well despite the female occupant taking deliveries of drugs and the investigation knowing that.

    Maybe I should make a video in uniform and on duty about something I'm not doing anyway and make a half million. I just have to get a ball cap to wear backwards so when I rap the kids can relate, amiright fellow youths?

    Couldn't you just wear your fedora backwards?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,940
    113
    Avon
    I don't really care about dope cases and realize a lot of places are going away from No Knocks over them, but I wonder why the narrative of "botched raid" and "wrong address" narratives remain alive and well despite the female occupant taking deliveries of drugs and the investigation knowing that.

    Maybe I should make a video in uniform and on duty about something I'm not doing anyway and make a half million. I just have to get a ball cap to wear backwards so when I rap the kids can relate, amiright fellow youths?

    I agree that the "wrong house" and "suspect already arrested" narratives are incorrect. The house was the correct house on the warrant, service of which was carried out simultaneously with multiple, other warrants - one of which netted the target suspect.

    But I do take issue with no-knock warrants in general, and their overuse in instances such as this one, in particular. The house in question was on the warrant based on nothing more than the target suspect receiving packages at that location. The warrant for that house was essentially to search for drugs, money, or other evidence. Why does such a search warrant justify a "no-knock" provision, when there arguably wasn't even reasonable suspicion that the target suspect to be apprehended would be at that house at that time?

    The person who fired at police officers apparently has a Kentucky CCDW license, which means, assuming that it is current/valid, he wasn't a criminal. Was the woman wrongfully killed by police involved in any criminal activity? This reminds me a bit of the Pinner case. We don't have to pretend that, at least the woman who was killed was clean as the driven snow. There was clearly evidence that she was, at a minimum, aiding the target suspect in his illicit drug distribution activities. But even so, these people - both her and the man - have constitutionally protected rights.

    The issue is the no-knock warrant service contributing to unnecessary escalation of force and resulting in needless harm, up to and including death. The issue is the ease with which a no-knock warrant can be obtained, when its use should be extremely limited to specific applications and based on more than mere reasonable suspicion.

    Bottom line: I would rather a criminal successfully destroy evidence than see an innocent person killed unnecessarily in a police shootout resulting from unnecessary escalation of force during service of a no-knock warrant.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    The warrant for that house was essentially to search for drugs, money, or other evidence. Why does such a search warrant justify a "no-knock" provision, when there arguably wasn't even reasonable suspicion that the target suspect to be apprehended would be at that house at that time?

    The no-knock in this case is to prevent destruction of evidence. If that's worth the cost to society or not is another question, but it's not about apprehending the suspect in this case. Without going down the rabbit hole of specifics, no-knocks to apprehend suspects are the exception.

    The person who fired at police officers apparently has a Kentucky CCDW license, which means, assuming that it is current/valid, he wasn't a criminal.

    Common gun forum mistake. No, it means he's not a CONVICTED criminal. It doesn't in the slightest mean he's not a criminal. We process a lot of revocations, so unless the assumption is they got caught the very first time they committed a crime... Old dope sellers seldom have a license because they have convictions preventing them from having one. Younger dope sellers have a license more often then you likely suspect.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,940
    113
    Avon
    The no-knock in this case is to prevent destruction of evidence. If that's worth the cost to society or not is another question, but it's not about apprehending the suspect in this case. Without going down the rabbit hole of specifics, no-knocks to apprehend suspects are the exception.

    That's interesting (and thanks for the education). I'll restate my bottom line, though: I would rather a criminal successfully destroy evidence than see an innocent person killed unnecessarily in a police shootout resulting from unnecessary escalation of force during service of a no-knock warrant.

    Common gun forum mistake. No, it means he's not a CONVICTED criminal. It doesn't in the slightest mean he's not a criminal. We process a lot of revocations, so unless the assumption is they got caught the very first time they committed a crime... Old dope sellers seldom have a license because they have convictions preventing them from having one. Younger dope sellers have a license more often then you likely suspect.

    I'm speaking from the perspective of rights and constitutional protection of rights. Until he is adjudicated as a criminal through due process, he enjoys the constitutional protection of presumption of innocence.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    Does anybody keep numbers?

    I don't know if how many are revoked every year is published anywhere.

    As I've mentioned in the past whenever the "no LTCH has ever..." notions pop up, there is no way to suss out the data from police reports, UCR/NIBRS, etc. There's no checkbox or drop down menu for "was issued a LTCH at the time".
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    I'm speaking from the perspective of rights and constitutional protection of rights. Until he is adjudicated as a criminal through due process, he enjoys the constitutional protection of presumption of innocence.

    And I'm talking the perspective of not involved in criminal activity. Criminals are criminals, convicted or not, THEY know they are criminals. There's a mindset difference when the home owner knows they are involved in the drug trade and all the increased violence that comes from that by other criminal elements and the increased risk they will come to police attention and receive a dynamic visit vs just mom n pop sitting in the living room watching Jeopardy without a care in the world. Saying he had a license so he's not a criminal is, consciously or not, pushing the narrative he's 'a good guy' here. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I would honestly think it naive to assume he didn't know 'what time it is', so to speak.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,940
    113
    Avon
    And I'm talking the perspective of not involved in criminal activity. Criminals are criminals, convicted or not, THEY know they are criminals. There's a mindset difference when the home owner knows they are involved in the drug trade and all the increased violence that comes from that by other criminal elements and the increased risk they will come to police attention and receive a dynamic visit vs just mom n pop sitting in the living room watching Jeopardy without a care in the world. Saying he had a license so he's not a criminal is, consciously or not, pushing the narrative he's 'a good guy' here. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I would honestly think it naive to assume he didn't know 'what time it is', so to speak.

    That's a reasonable viewpoint. Again, I refer back to Pinner. Even people who are up to no good, and know that they are up to no good, enjoy constitutional protection of rights.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    That's a reasonable viewpoint. Again, I refer back to Pinner. Even people who are up to no good, and know that they are up to no good, enjoy constitutional protection of rights.

    So do people who don't have a handgun license. So, other than narrative building, what's the point of:

    The person who fired at police officers apparently has a Kentucky CCDW license, which means, assuming that it is current/valid, he wasn't a criminal.

    Again, I'm not accusing you of consciously trying to spin this. Regardless of intent, the effect of the statement does is make him more sympathetic on a gun forum, makes it easier for people who aren't dealing drugs out of their house or otherwise involved in wholesale/retail of recreational pharmaceuticals to say "that could have been me!" and further the "botched raid" narrative.

    If SWAT no-knocks are worth it to prevent destruction of evidence on narcotics cases is certainly a discussion worth having. There's a cost to society regardless of which option is chosen. But it's tougher to have that conversation with a false narrative.
     

    maxipum

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Feb 6, 2012
    771
    93
    Bloomington
    Well one thing that’s not false is that someone is dead because of high speed military like tactics used on civilians to help the odds of a conviction. I think most of us value life more than that even an accomplice to drug dealing.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,940
    113
    Avon
    So do people who don't have a handgun license. So, other than narrative building, what's the point of:



    Again, I'm not accusing you of consciously trying to spin this. Regardless of intent, the effect of the statement does is make him more sympathetic on a gun forum, makes it easier for people who aren't dealing drugs out of their house or otherwise involved in wholesale/retail of recreational pharmaceuticals to say "that could have been me!" and further the "botched raid" narrative.

    If SWAT no-knocks are worth it to prevent destruction of evidence on narcotics cases is certainly a discussion worth having. There's a cost to society regardless of which option is chosen. But it's tougher to have that conversation with a false narrative.

    I think we're saying the same thing wrt the license. When I said "valid", I was referring to it being held by someone who is still eligible to hold the license. So, if he were involved in illicit drug activity, he would no longer be a "proper person" (in Indiana statutory language) and his license would be inherently invalid.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,048
    77
    Southside Indy
    I think we're saying the same thing wrt the license. When I said "valid", I was referring to it being held by someone who is still eligible to hold the license. So, if he were involved in illicit drug activity, he would no longer be a "proper person" (in Indiana statutory language) and his license would be inherently invalid.

    Don't you mean "convicted of"? I suppose in the "spirit" of the law, he would no longer be a proper person, but until he's caught and convicted, he is. Kind of like "Schroedinger's drug dealer". The observation of (and subsequent conviction for) the activity changes the outcome. ;)
     

    Route 45

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    92   0   0
    Dec 5, 2015
    14,884
    113
    Indy
    I think we're saying the same thing wrt the license. When I said "valid", I was referring to it being held by someone who is still eligible to hold the license. So, if he were involved in illicit drug activity, he would no longer be a "proper person" (in Indiana statutory language) and his license would be inherently invalid.

    A license is valid until it's revoked. Period. No need to go twisting the meaning of the word "valid" so that you can be right.
     

    Hoosierkav

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Dec 1, 2012
    1,013
    22
    South of Indianapolis
    I have to wonder about the brain's ability to understand during chaotic moments, such as when your door busts open at 0200 and a pile of people come streaming in, yelling something at you...Can the brain process "Get down. Hands in the air."? (that is, can you hear the words, process them, and respond as directed)

    Can the brain process it during a simulation with willing participants?
    Can the brain process it during a simulation with unwilling participants?

    How much of "the invisible gorilla" blindness is there?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,940
    113
    Avon
    This doesn't have anything to do with being right, but rather with finding common ground with BBI.

    But if you really want to go there:

    A license is valid until it's revoked. Period. No need to go twisting the meaning of the word "valid" so that you can be right.

    Not under Indiana statute, it isn't.
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,940
    113
    Avon
    Yes it is. The "proper person" standard involves a bit more than "Ooh, I think he's involved in drug activity," which was your standard.

    IC 35-47-2-3 (2019)

    Section 3(h): A license to carry a handgun shall not be issued to any person who: (6) is prohibited by federal law from possessing or receiving firearms under 18 U.S.C. 922(g).

    Section 3(j): (j) If a person who holds a valid license to carry a handgun issued under this chapter: (3) experiences a change, including an arrest or a conviction, that may affect the person's status as a proper person (as defined in IC 35-47-1-7) or otherwise disqualify the person from holding a license; the person shall, not later than thirty (30) days after the date of a change described under subdivision (3)...notify the superintendent, in writing, of the event described under subdivision (3)...

    Anyone who is an illicit drug user is, under federal statute, not a "proper person" under Indiana statute. Therefore, any license issued to an illicit drug user is invalidated by the illicit drug use.

    So, if you want to argue that he is merely a drug dealer/distributor, and not a user? Okay, sure; I'll concede that.
     
    Top Bottom