search
top

No Knock Raids Gone Sour

Classical Values has a pretty insightful comment about the latest no knock raid gone sour:

Incidents keep happening, and the only remedy I can see is to get rid of night time no knock warrants.

Otherwise, if they keep doing this, it will become another argument in favor of gun control.

No, seriously. Police will claim they “don’t feel safe” executing these no knock warrants, so to “avoid more such tragedies,” all citizens (beginning with those in “at risk neighborhoods”) should be disarmed.

Don’t laugh. It’s already a major unstated reason for dog control, especially “pit bull control.” The best protection you can buy against a home invasion SWAT team is being called the “number one dog of choice for drug dealers.” Sure, there’s a “loophole”; convicted criminals can still legally own dogs. So can ordinary citizens.

That will go doubly for people who have center fire rifles which soft body armor presents no obstacle to.  It’s a price that will be demanded to make it safer for the government to prosecute the War on Drugs.

5 Responses to “No Knock Raids Gone Sour”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    And that would be the “reasonable” regulation that the DoJ wants, I bet.

  2. There are a few, relatively rare circumstances that justify no-knock warrants, such as a person who has been kidnapped, or terrorists with WMDs.

    While I am not prepared to completely dismiss the value of drug laws, when you look at the risks that serving a no-knock warrant includes (especially if the warrant is being served in the wrong place, or based on false information), it just doesn’t justify the benefits of a drug raid no-knock warrant. Yes, a drug dealer might be able to flush a small quantity of drugs down the toilet, but the risks involved are enormous–to the police, the innocent bystanders, to the person who isn’t a drug dealer but the warrant has the wrong address on it.

    No-knock warrants are issued far too broadly. I would be in favor of substantially tightening the law that defines the circumstances that justify issuing such warrants.

  3. Ian Argent says:

    This is one area that I hope returning veterans will bring some sanity back to if/when they go into law enforcement (as historically veterans seem to have done in decent numbers); given the curren tdoctrines of community engagement that the armed forces are working on.

  4. Nate says:

    I see this going the way of “It’s for the police” said in the same voice as “It’s for the children”. We will start to hear more anti-freedomers running around saying this. I imagine NJ and CA will be the springboards for this type of stuff.

  5. Ian Argent says:

    Nah – VA and CO already overuse their SWAT.

top