Okay Matt,

I do breathe deeply before writing and most times, have to take a break from all the stupidity posted here on things most do not understand, nor want to understand. I have been VERY polite on all my online conversations here. Even Byte, whom I disagree with most days, would have to agree we have been polite to each other, even if in two different idealogical sides. We simply agree to disagree as much as I would love to reach through the computer and slap him sometimes! (Sorry Byte, still owe you that beer!)

Sigh...I get to the point here where I'm banging my head against the wall trying to educate the uneducated and more importantly, the I-don't-want-to-be-educated. I take my job seriously and it angers me when people make uneducated and stupid comments, for no reason other than they were dissed by a patrol cop once.

Matt, you were a hose dragger. My brother is a hose dragger and no amount of trying is there going to be an understanding of either ones job. I will never understand the amount of money spent on fire and rescue protection or the need to have a fire house every couple of miles, employing people who eat, work out, watch tv and sleep while getting paid the whole time. That being said, I don't publicly argue the need to close those firehouses or better align fire departments or districts for fiscal responsibility sake, better managmement, better equpment, better response times. I don't even try to understand Incident Command, although I have taken ICS 100, 200, 300, 500, 700 & 800. I don't expect you to understand my job either. I don't expect you to constantly read and keep aprised of new laws, case law, Supreme Court rulings, etc., etc., etc., but I do and it is a part of MY job.

That being said, I will answer your statements. Yes, I am married. However, I can and do decide what I am going to do with me. I can quit tomorrow if I want and go be a Starbucks barista. She can and will decide if she will put up with me and my decisions or go her own way. She doesn't rule me and I don't rule her. Your marriage may be different. That being said, let's keep the wives out of it.

Your statement (some parts exluded): "To begin with, I disagree with no knock raids for the most part for a simple reason. A (no) knock raid for drugs, evidence, warrants or what have you is just a waste of resouces and a dangerous game." That is your opinion. Some will agree, others will disagree. Every single case is different than the other and must be weighed on the facts of each. To make a blanket statement is ignorant. There can be circumstances where it may be necessary.

"I am not a cop, but I don't see why turning the water/power off, and waiting for the turd to come out or grabbing them on their way to their car/bike/bus/job, is less effective as a search method, and then, no one gets shot. If there is a hostage situation, active shooter, etc. go on in with my blessing." Again, case dependent. Sometimes, that might be a way to do things. Sometimes not. Since you mentioned resources, how much money are you willing to spend on payroll, OT, to wait out someone for a simple felony (let's say check fraud for the sake of argument) warrant? I guess I should point out that there wouldn't be a no-knock search warrant issued for this type of crime, but hey, since we are digressing here, why not fall down all the way. If it is a simple arrest warrant, it is crime dependent. The previously stated check fraud doesn't require that level of resources, but someone who has committed murder might. The old adage of killed once, will kill again comes to mind for me on those types of warrants. You don't tend to want to wait them out, especially when the media gets ahold of it and wants to know why you haven't acted for the sake of public safety. Remember Brent Brents? You may not have been in Colorado during that time.

I execute a number of search warrants over the course of a year and most all are done by knocking. When I get the occasional one that requires a higher level of response due to the person's history, behavior, or bravado speech, then we will talk about using a trained tactical team, potential risk issues, and conduct a risk assessment. There isn't a time in my nearly 20 years as a cop where I have gotten a no-knock warrant. Even for 1st degree murder charges. They are simply too hard to get here in Colorado without a lot of substaniating supportive documentation. I have done a number of high risk warrants (knock and announce and after an appropriate amount of time, booted the door) without anyone being injured, both good and bad guy, and without shooring the dog. Some crimes are inherently more risky to the officers involved, and a level of safety must be met for the sake of the officers.

Again your statement (again exluding some content): "From now on, there is a new law enforcement agency, federal level, no other LE ties. Their only role is to track, arrest and prosecute LEOs that broke laws, any of them, on the job or not. No more internal affairs. This agency can bust down cops doors with a warrent, the can tackle cops in the steets, on the job even and take them in. They can give cops speeding tickets or bust them for abusing their code lights. Their role is to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of the cops status as cops. They can fine them or lock them up. How would that sit with you?" You seem to believe that cops aren't arrested, charged or prosecuted for committing criminal acts. You do read the news, don't you? Every damn cop who does something wrong is news; joe blow next door neighbor doing the same thing doesn't even make the news. Do you know what the Garrity ruling was (its case law, that pesky thing I have to keep up on)? Can you be compelled to give testimony against yourself or lose your job? How about giving testimony against your co-worker or be criminally charged or lose your job? No? Cops have to (and frankly, rightfully so).

Your statements: "If a SWAT team in Arizona, and their CO were suddenly facing a 1st degree murder rap for a raid gone wrong, do you really think the raids would continue?" Yes, they would.

Your statements: "My captain said to me once about working in a risky line of work 'We don't get paid for what we do, we get paid for what we might have to do.' For me that meant flying down the road and maybe running into a burning building/car, for a cop, this may mean drawing a weapon only when 100% sure you need it." Cops get paid for doing both. Some days are filled with taking cold reports, traffic accidents and lost/stolen cell phones, others with traffic enforcement, but once in a while, you have the high risk call of shots fired, or even the burning building in which the cops almost always get there before the fire boys and have already gone in to ensure there was no one in danger (blue canaries, right?).

And your last statement: "Finally, even if it is rare, and this stuff almost never happens, LEO abuse makes the news, and a raid gone wrong makes national news. If I ran a LE organization I would be really wary. I may not directly control the purse strings, but me and my 250 million friends sure do. Image matters, and it gets or costs votes, and votes are dollars." As the head of a law enforcement agency, you will be sued under vicarious liability each and every time. If you were worried about that to the point of your agency doing nothing, then you might as well fire everyone and contract with the neighboring city or county for LE services as you will be ineffective. People sue. You will be sued. Get over it and do your job. A sheriff is concerned about votes, a chief of police is not. Except in some rare circumstances like Denver (I won't get started on a Denver rant here), the chief works for a city manager, who works for a city council. They are the ones who get voted in, but for the vast majority of city councils here in Colorado, they aren't full time nor are they paid for as a full time job. Again, Denver is different.

This started as a rant over no-knock warrants out of a stupid song by a pot smoking liberal retard. You don't like no-knock warrants, got it. Too bad. Some places use them, some places even put time limits to when a search warrant can be executed. Colorado doesn't and getting a no-knock in Colorado is hard and mostly rare. Frankly, some are justified, based upon the circumstances, the persons involved, the crimes alleged, etc.

So, civil enough for you?