Man Found Not Guilty for Shooting 3 Cops During No-Knock Raid Read

[Annie]

I've mulled this over many times. I just hope my door is never kicked in because I fear it would be bad for all involved.

I sat in on a class last week where the instructor said "God forbid you ever shoot an officer servings a warrant on the wrong arrest. You should always wait to be SURE of your target before you pull the trigger."

I was aghast. I pray to God I NEVER have to shoot anyone but I don't thing anyone who hasn't been there realises how quickly and violently these things go down. I would like to think I would have the presence of mind to figure out what was going on before I shot someone, or I got shot defending myself in what is basically a home invasion. I am not stupid enough to think that I can make that kind of a determination and get it 100% right.

The kid up by Tulsa who shot the 3 ********* trying to rob his home recently comes to mind. If you find yourself unfortunate enough to be in what IS a violent encounter of any kind, you really don't have time to stand there and debate with yourself whether you should defend your own life, or just let it go and hope they kill you quick and painlessly.

While I still think no-knock warrants should be illegal, I do understand there could be cause for them. Once in a blue moon. Maybe. If someone's life was in imminent danger. Or if enough due diligence was done before hand to make ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY sure the only person home was the person they were after AND they were at the right address.

Human nature being what it is, Murphy pops up when you least expect him. I'm glad I'm not the person who "has" to sign off on those things.

 

[Dave70968]

As I read our Castle Doctrine, he should have been allowed to stay at home after the initial investigation, but I suspect since LEO deaths were involved, the DA decided to go against the law.
If I were the Defendant, I would sue the DA and the judge that issued the no knock, and leave the city alone. It wasn't the cities fault. It was two individuals.
The chief of police wouldn't be out of the picture either, but I suspect they are all protected by law from their wrongful decisions, and that's wrong in itself.
If you put yourself in a position of allowing this BS, you need to be held accountable for your actions when it goes down bad.

Not only would you lose, you probably wouldn't even survive a Motion for Summary Judgment, let alone a trial on the merits. Immunity gets stronger the further you get from the tip of the spear; judges and prosecutors enjoy nearly-absolute immunity. There is some reasonable rationale behind that--the judge isn't in the position of conducting his own independent investigation, so he (like the prosecutor) has to rely on what the officer tells him. As long as the officer makes a prima facie case--a very low standard--and the judge didn't actively take a bribe for the warrant, he's going to be immune. The chief as well--unless he was personally and directly involved with a violation of your civil rights, he's going to be immune to a personal suit.

Incidentally, this principle applies to a degree in suits outside the government as well: if somebody injures you in the scope of his employment, you're entirely entitled to sue the employer as well as the individual. It's call respondeat superior, the idea that a master is responsible for the acts of his servants or agents. The idea is to encourage masters to exercise appropriate supervision of, and control over, their servants; we don't want them acting in a slipshod manner, then cutting their employees loose to twist in the wind when things go badly. In practice, it's almost always advantageous to include the master as a defendant because he's more likely to have the deep pockets. In the governmental context, it ends up being the taxpayers on the hook, who should exercise their supervisory power at the ballot box; if they're okay with writing big cheques on a regular basis, that's their business. Not perfect by any means, but that's the rationale, anyway, and it is consistent with the private sector.

 

[Dave70968]

I sat in on a class last week where the instructor said "God forbid you ever shoot an officer servings a warrant on the wrong arrest. You should always wait to be SURE of your target before you pull the trigger."

I was aghast. I pray to God I NEVER have to shoot anyone but I don't thing anyone who hasn't been there realises how quickly and violently these things go down. I would like to think I would have the presence of mind to figure out what was going on before I shot someone, or I got shot defending myself in what is basically a home invasion. I am not stupid enough to think that I can make that kind of a determination and get it 100% right.

I'm impressed as hell that Rosas was able to score hits on all three after being flash-banged.

 

[Pokinfun]

I'm impressed as hell that Rosas was able to score hits on all three after being flash-banged.

I have never been around a flash bang, but after having an IED go off near me, it takes a few seconds to get your senses lined back up.
I can see a need for no-knock warrants, but their needs to be extra ordinary judicial oversight when they are issued.
I would think there should be some requirements such as: police can 100 percent can say the person is in the house, there is no way to wait for the guy to walk outside, the is danger increases to everyone if you wait, their is an immediate danger to someone else, and there is no danger to anyone else in the home.
I do not think that destroying evidence is a reason use a no-knock type warrant.
I can see a known dangerous criminal, who is normally armed in public, and there is a reason to believe he will "fight it out" if arrested in public, that waiting until he is asleep in bed to bust in his house and arresting him could be a better option.

 

[Biggsly]

They should pay him for any missed work and then a settlement for the two years in jail.
What do they expect? We live in a time where you have the right to defend your family and home, but first you better....
1. make sure they are white.
2. Ask the age of each intruder. Could be a fine youth who wants to grow up to be a pilot after he robs you.
3. Make sure it is not a cop
4. Make sure that they live in America legally. Hate to shoot an innocent illegal alien that just needs some of your stuff.
5. Make sure that they come from a good home.
6. If you must shoot, only shoot them in the knee so that they get to keep their right to a fair trial.

 

[Boehlertaught]

Rosas is probably lucky to have survived that incident.

 

[CHenry]

Rosas is probably lucky to have survived that incident.

No probably about it lol

 

[Frederick]

Rosas is probably lucky to have survived that incident.

Feel bad for the cop who was shot, but whoever authorized it needs to be in prison.

 

[Defcon Shooter]

As a former Police Officer on a wild wild west Indian reservation there were two things I would not do that were "legal" number one was work under cover. Nope not going to do it. Number two participate in the entry of a home or residence in a no knock warrant scenario. I was lucky that my rotations duty Sargent respected that I felt they were unconstitutional. I always worked traffic control during these events. When we rolled up knocked on the door and said Tribal Police we have a warrant to search the premises I was fine with kicking in the door and going in. Sliding up in a van with blacked out windows and knocking the door off it's hinges while they threw in pyrotechnics no thanks I think that action does more damage to a free society than the contraband that might be found

 

[memori]

There is no scenario where no-knock raids are a good idea, except for maybe a confirmed hostage situation or a mass shooting. And often times during mass shootings when the police absolutely should go in ASAP, they don't and just wait outside until everyone is dead. See Columbine or Pulse. Certainly don't do a no-knock raid on a suspected hostage situation where in actuality somebody is just SWATing somebody else, it must be confirmed. In most circumstances, the only thing that no-knock raids accomplish is getting people killed. People always make the excuse of "they will flush drugs down the toilet", but what is more important to you: human lives or catching somebody with flushable amounts of drugs?