Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Police.

[Ronin13]

He never said anything about "a perfect world"; he never even used those words. He did provide a pretty straightforward example of how a LEO would look at the totality of the information and circumstances and how one might work that information. A

Additionally, where do you get the "because we all know" garbage? How the hell would you know? You read all the arrest and search warrants sworn out there in Jeffco or elsewhere for their completeness or truthfullness? You read internet forums? How do you know this? The threshold for a warrant isn't "proof beyond a doubt", its probable cause.

I guess the general consensus of the uninformed is that there are a ton of no-knock warrants are being signed off and done every day here in Colorado. That isn't true. The vast majority of search warrants being issued are "knock and announce" warrants.

Woah, easy tiger. I'm just saying, there are the few occasions where police obtain a warrant based on baseless, false, or otherwise wrong information, and they either A) Raid the wrong property than was intended, B) Raid a property under false pretenses or information, or C) make a mistake. I'm not saying it's common, hell it happens very seldomly, but I have read where there have been cases where people lost their lives because of wrong or mistaken information that led to a raid. Those facts are brought up in "Drug War Addiction" by Sheriff Bill Masters... I'm just simply saying that there should be a pretty big list of conditions that need to be met before obtaining a no-knock warrant (I don't know if there already is, if so, great). My whole point is that I just think that "collateral damage" with regard to LE is avoidable and should be treated as unacceptable.

[OneGuy67]

Woah, easy tiger. I'm just saying, there are the few occasions where police obtain a warrant based on baseless, false, or otherwise wrong information, and they either A) Raid the wrong property than was intended, B) Raid a property under false pretenses or information, or C) make a mistake. I'm not saying it's common, hell it happens very seldomly, but I have read where there have been cases where people lost their lives because of wrong or mistaken information that led to a raid. Those facts are brought up in "Drug War Addiction" by Sheriff Bill Masters... I'm just simply saying that there should be a pretty big list of conditions that need to be met before obtaining a no-knock warrant (I don't know if there already is, if so, great). My whole point is that I just think that "collateral damage" with regard to LE is avoidable and should be treated as unacceptable.

Those search warrants that go bad are usually the leading story of the evening news and they are few and far between. Literally thousands of search warrants are executed daily with no issues, but like all sensationalistic things, the ones that go bad are front page news.

Masters isn't really an authority in this arena; he has worked in Telluride all his life and while a hippy area, not really a hot bed of drug use or enforcement.

LEO's look at risk all day, each and every day. There are risk matrix's regarding the use of tactical teams, the execution of warrants, the making of a traffic stop.

[Ronin13]

Those search warrants that go bad are usually the leading story of the evening news and they are few and far between. Literally thousands of search warrants are executed daily with no issues, but like all sensationalistic things, the ones that go bad are front page news.

Masters isn't really an authority in this arena; he has worked in Telluride all his life and while a hippy area, not really a hot bed of drug use or enforcement.

LEO's look at risk all day, each and every day. There are risk matrix's regarding the use of tactical teams, the execution of warrants, the making of a traffic stop.

I suggest you read his book though, he pulls from his experience and then also from friends (I assume there is a decoder ring and secret handshake between LEOs? ). But yes, one point he did clarify is that they are very very rare, but the point he made was that regardless of rarity, they still happen and it's all because the drug war. I appreciate the risks any uniformed service takes day in day out- different ball game, but I grew up in a firefighter family and always feared for my dad's safety when he went on a structure fire call.
Bottom line: Stay safe out there. I hate seeing the one bad apple cop give the rest a bad rep. Or in the case for up here, the rookies who think they're South District LAPD when in fact they're county mounties in a mountain town with an almost non-existent crime rate.

[OneGuy67]

I suggest you read his book though, he pulls from his experience and then also from friends (I assume there is a decoder ring and secret handshake between LEOs? ). But yes, one point he did clarify is that they are very very rare, but the point he made was that regardless of rarity, they still happen and it's all because the drug war. I appreciate the risks any uniformed service takes day in day out- different ball game, but I grew up in a firefighter family and always feared for my dad's safety when he went on a structure fire call.
Bottom line: Stay safe out there. I hate seeing the one bad apple cop give the rest a bad rep. Or in the case for up here, the rookies who think they're South District LAPD when in fact they're county mounties in a mountain town with an almost non-existent crime rate.

Here is the issue to his book and the reason I won't bother to read it. He wrote it in 2000 and it was published in 2001. The laws have changed since then concerning asset forfeiture, which is the main crux of his argument; that LEO agencies seize assets and use the forfeiture money to fund their agencies and thus, more drug seizure means more money. Can't do that anymore. You literally have to get a fed agency involved and have them do the seizure and forfeiture and then they would do a split with the agency. Those thresholds are VERY high to get a fed agency involved as the AUSA's aren't going to prosecute a simple possession of any drug.