I'm a leftie pinko but I still call Red Herring. "US Constitution: Shot to Death in a No-Knock Raid" is truly a powerful headline, but show me ANYWARE on the CATO site where anyone can articulate why the "No-Knock" aspect caused any of the deaths in their examples. For example:
* Hernandez, who is nearly deaf, is making breakfast for himself and his friend, 54-year old Bortolo Pineda. According to police, as they entered the home, Hernandez took the knife he was using to make breakfast and "lunged" at them with a "menacing" look on his face. Police opened fire, and hit Hernandez in the chest five times, killing him.
>-- He was deaf. They could have knocked for hours and it wouldn't have made a difference.
* In March 1992, police in Everett, Washington storm the home of Robin Pratt on a no-knock warrant ... Though police had a key to the apartment, they instead choose to throw a 50-pound battering ram through the apartment's sliding-glass door ... One officer encounters Robin Pratt on the way to her bedroom...Deputy Anthony Aston fires his weapon, putting a bullet in her neck, killing her.
>-- Again, where does the no-knock part even come into play?
I 100% agree that the above examples are apalling and unacceptable. I am livid at the recent Supreme Court descision confirming that no-knocks are ok. HOWEVER, framing the argument in the context that it results in deaths during raids does a dis-service to trying to solve the problem or engage in productive debate.
"On August 18, 2005, police in Baltimore, Maryland force their way into the home of David Scheper and Sascha Wagner. Thinking they are being robbed, Wagner calls 911, telling the operator, "There's someone breaking into my house." Scheper slams the door on the officers, who never announce they are police."
"Baltimore County, Maryland police descend on a home in the Dundalk neighborhood at around 5 a.m. on a narcotics warrant. ...When officers enter the second-floor bedroom of Cheryl Llynn Noel, they break open the door to find the middle-aged woman in her bed, frightened, and pointing a handgun at them. One officer fires three times. Noel dies at the scene."
"On January 7, 2003, prosecutors in Baltimore announce they will not press charges against Lewis S. Cauthorne for firing a .45-caliber handgun at police who broke down his door during a no-knock raid in November 2002.
Cauthorne, at home with his mother, girlfriend, and three year-old daughter at the time of the raid, heard screaming when police broke open the door to his home and began searching for drugs. The raiding officers never identified themselves.
Prosecutors later determined that Cauthorne, who had no arrest record and whose father had been robbed and killed as a cab driver, had reason to believe his life was in danger when he fired and wounded three of the raiding police officers"
There's three I found immediately where a simple announcement of police identity would have prevented at least two deaths and one imprisonment. Granted, many (but not most) of the CATO examples are simply due to police incompetence which ostensibly could not be prevented by de-militarizing our police forces. However, it's likely that the damage casued by such incompetence could be lessened by de-militarzing them, which is really what the main thrust of Radley's paper is about, not just no-knock raids (as I understand it). Ya, the title of my post may have been hyperbolic, true. I was feeling lazy this morning and didn't feel like writing out my thoughts on this rationally, so shoot me (after kicking in my door).
Actually, let me clarify my arguement. The fact is that people DO get killed in no-knock raids. My biggest concern is there are such things as no-knock raids and searches at all.
Focusing on preventing the deaths resulting from no-knock raids seems to concede that no-knock raids are acceptable to begin with.
Are you saying that "de-militarzed" no-knock raids would be fair and constitutional?
Casey, remmeber that no matter how shitty the dems are, the republican party is much much worse. In national politics vote democratic or give the repubs another couple years to chew at your civil liberties.
"Focusing on preventing the deaths resulting from no-knock raids seems to concede that no-knock raids are acceptable to begin with.
Are you saying that "de-militarzed" no-knock raids would be fair and constitutional?"
Who is focusing on preventing deaths from no-knock raids? The author of the linked paper is trying to get the federal and state legislatures to pass laws that require police identification. That is also the position I support. I don't think we have a disagreement here. Maybe you just misunderstood the CATO institute's position. Or maybe what yoou are saying is that the examples given might mislead the general public in to thinking the issue is about about training cops to kill people less rather than about getting no-knock raids banned?
So no, I think I may have to vote third party yet again this year. Both the dems and the repubs are chewing at my civil liberties with equivalent zeal.
I think we should all keeo arguing the fact that we agree with each other.
When I saw in your 2nd post, "However, it's likely that the damage casued by such incompetence could be lessened by de-militarzing them, which is really what the main thrust of Radley's paper is about, not just no-knock raids (as I understand it)" -- I took that to mean that CATO was focusing solely focusing on just making the the cops a more "kind and gentle" death squad.
Wow... I bet if I spent 5 minutes on Google Ben could have come up with a better arguement...
6 comments:
I'm a leftie pinko but I still call Red Herring. "US Constitution: Shot to Death in a No-Knock Raid" is truly a powerful headline, but show me ANYWARE on the CATO site where anyone can articulate why the "No-Knock" aspect caused any of the deaths in their examples. For example:
* Hernandez, who is nearly deaf, is making breakfast for himself and his friend, 54-year old Bortolo Pineda. According to police, as they entered the home, Hernandez took the knife he was using to make breakfast and "lunged" at them with a "menacing" look on his face. Police opened fire, and hit Hernandez in the chest five times, killing him.
>-- He was deaf. They could have knocked for hours and it wouldn't have made a difference.
* In March 1992, police in Everett, Washington storm the home of Robin Pratt on a no-knock warrant ... Though police had a key to the apartment, they instead choose to throw a 50-pound battering ram through the apartment's sliding-glass door ... One officer encounters Robin Pratt on the way to her bedroom...Deputy Anthony Aston fires his weapon, putting a bullet in her neck, killing her.
>-- Again, where does the no-knock part even come into play?
I 100% agree that the above examples are apalling and unacceptable. I am livid at the recent Supreme Court descision confirming that no-knocks are ok. HOWEVER, framing the argument in the context that it results in deaths during raids does a dis-service to trying to solve the problem or engage in productive debate.
Any questions?
Apparently you didn't look very hard.
"On August 18, 2005, police in Baltimore, Maryland force their way into the home of David Scheper and Sascha Wagner. Thinking they are being robbed, Wagner calls 911, telling the operator, "There's someone breaking into my house." Scheper slams the door on the officers, who never announce they are police."
"Baltimore County, Maryland police descend on a home in the Dundalk neighborhood at around 5 a.m. on a narcotics warrant. ...When officers enter the second-floor bedroom of Cheryl Llynn Noel, they break open the door to find the middle-aged woman in her bed, frightened, and pointing a handgun at them. One officer fires three times. Noel dies at the scene."
"On January 7, 2003, prosecutors in Baltimore announce they will not press charges against Lewis S. Cauthorne for firing a .45-caliber handgun at police who broke down his door during a no-knock raid in November 2002.
Cauthorne, at home with his mother, girlfriend, and three year-old daughter at the time of the raid, heard screaming when police broke open the door to his home and began searching for drugs. The raiding officers never identified themselves.
Prosecutors later determined that Cauthorne, who had no arrest record and whose father had been robbed and killed as a cab driver, had reason to believe his life was in danger when he fired and wounded three of the raiding police officers"
There's three I found immediately where a simple announcement of police identity would have prevented at least two deaths and one imprisonment. Granted, many (but not most) of the CATO examples are simply due to police incompetence which ostensibly could not be prevented by de-militarizing our police forces. However, it's likely that the damage casued by such incompetence could be lessened by de-militarzing them, which is really what the main thrust of Radley's paper is about, not just no-knock raids (as I understand it). Ya, the title of my post may have been hyperbolic, true. I was feeling lazy this morning and didn't feel like writing out my thoughts on this rationally, so shoot me (after kicking in my door).
Actually, let me clarify my arguement. The fact is that people DO get killed in no-knock raids. My biggest concern is there are such things as no-knock raids and searches at all.
Focusing on preventing the deaths resulting from no-knock raids seems to concede that no-knock raids are acceptable to begin with.
Are you saying that "de-militarzed" no-knock raids would be fair and constitutional?
and this is the 'conservative' court in action?
Casey, remmeber that no matter how shitty the dems are, the republican party is much much worse. In national politics vote democratic or give the repubs another couple years to chew at your civil liberties.
"Focusing on preventing the deaths resulting from no-knock raids seems to concede that no-knock raids are acceptable to begin with.
Are you saying that "de-militarzed" no-knock raids would be fair and constitutional?"
Who is focusing on preventing deaths from no-knock raids? The author of the linked paper is trying to get the federal and state legislatures to pass laws that require police identification. That is also the position I support. I don't think we have a disagreement here. Maybe you just misunderstood the CATO institute's position. Or maybe what yoou are saying is that the examples given might mislead the general public in to thinking the issue is about about training cops to kill people less rather than about getting no-knock raids banned?
Also about the Repub/Democrat thing. Let's not forget that the biggest escalation of the drug war happened when the democrats were in control of congress during the 80's crack "epidemic" and that all of the most prominent democrats in the party are all heinous, constitution-destroying assholes themselves (ie: Senators Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Mark Dayton, Patrick Leahy, and Harry Reid).
So no, I think I may have to vote third party yet again this year. Both the dems and the repubs are chewing at my civil liberties with equivalent zeal.
I think we should all keeo arguing the fact that we agree with each other.
When I saw in your 2nd post, "However, it's likely that the damage casued by such incompetence could be lessened by de-militarzing them, which is really what the main thrust of Radley's paper is about, not just no-knock raids (as I understand it)" -- I took that to mean that CATO was focusing solely focusing on just making the the cops a more "kind and gentle" death squad.
Wow... I bet if I spent 5 minutes on Google Ben could have come up with a better arguement...
Ta
Post a Comment