Courts let cops violate 4th Amendment, murder people in their own home

[Bonesinium]

I would tend to agree with your first statement. Why a tactical team for such a small marijuana case? But we don't have all the facts surrounding their decision to use a team at 0430 hours instead of say a group of detectives or some plain clothes team during the day. We just don't know. Maybe thats just the standard procedure there. Maybe thats all the resources they have. But I can say, just from the facts I have from the articles from the OP, I wouldn't use a tact team for that.

You keep trying to justify something that isn't justifiable. We do actually have the facts. The problem is that the facts don't seem to support such action by the police. Keep trying.

 

[ACK495]

I disagree. Show me more fact surrounding the case then. Unless you guys have more info than I do, then we are all just doing the same thing here. We are speculating and slanting the data to support our own beliefs and agendas. Based on what I know to this point, I am not justifying the use of the tact team or the failure to knock and announce. Both no good in my opinion. The shooting however…a guy with knife coming at me gets shot. Sorry. I probably would have done the same thing. Agree or disagree with why they were there or all the other facts as we know them, the wheels were already in motion. This was happening. There was no stopping or calling time out. They were in the house and now that officer was in what HE PERCEIVED to be a deadly force or serious bodily harm situation and reacted as he was trained. As we are all trained.

 

[exojam]

I would tend to agree with your first statement. Why a tactical team for such a small marijuana case? But we don't have all the facts surrounding their decision to use a team at 0430 hours instead of say a group of detectives or some plain clothes team during the day. We just don't know. Maybe thats just the standard procedure there. Maybe thats all the resources they have. But I can say, just from the facts I have from the articles from the OP, I wouldn't use a tact team for that.

I did say there ARE reasons to do a no knock vs a knock and announce. Here they ****ed up and didn't knock and announce when that what the warrant called for and it turned out real bad. Nobody I work with would ever feel anyones life is worth any kind or amount or illegal narcotic out there. But it is merely a tactic for us when we really don't want them to get the jump on us, again, like I stated if there is threat of guns or if the suspect(s) have a history of violence or weapon charges.

I do want to clarify something that was brought to my attention as I keep referring this to a no knock raid when it was as you stated a knock and announce raid that was not done as it was supposed to be done. I keep referring to in that manner as that is what appears to have happened. So maybe I should be better at the way I write things.

Question on for all the other LEO's in the thread. How long is the norm in allowing someone to actually answer a door before it is broken in with a knock and announce? Just wondering since it would take me a good 10 minutes to make it down stairs and by than I would probably have a house full of people.

 

[SteelShooter]

I do want to clarify something that was brought to my attention as I keep referring this to a no knock raid when it was as you stated a knock and announce raid that was not done as it was supposed to be done. I keep referring to in that manner as that is what appears to have happened. So maybe I should be better at the way I write things.

Question on for all the other LEO's in the thread. How long is the norm in allowing someone to actually answer a door before it is broken in with a knock and announce? Just wondering since it would take me a good 10 minutes to make it down stairs and by than I would probably have a house full of people.

Same question I have, and if they don't wait until the door is answered isn't that the same as a no knock?

 

[ACK495]

Same question I have, and if they don't wait until the door is answered isn't that the same as a no knock?

You are supposed to allow a reasonable amount of time.

After a reasonable amount of time has past, if there is no response or no cooperation to open then forced entry generally occurs.

What's reasonable? Well that differs for everyone and the circumstances at hand. Not that long I'll tell you that.

I do want to clarify something that was brought to my attention as I keep referring this to a no knock raid when it was as you stated a knock and announce raid that was not done as it was supposed to be done. I keep referring to in that manner as that is what appears to have happened. So maybe I should be better at the way I write things.

Question on for all the other LEO's in the thread. How long is the norm in allowing someone to actually answer a door before it is broken in with a knock and announce? Just wondering since it would take me a good 10 minutes to make it down stairs and by than I would probably have a house full of people.

 

[exojam]

You are supposed to allow a reasonable amount of time.

After a reasonable amount of time has past, if there is no response or no cooperation to open then forced entry generally occurs.

What's reasonable? Well that differs for everyone and the circumstances at hand. Not that long I'll tell you that.

So since I am crippled and they will not wait if they had to get into my house it looks like someone will be dead and knowing my luck it would be me.

 

[ACK495]

So since I am crippled and they will not wait if they had to get into my house it looks like someone will be dead and knowing my luck it would be me.

Well like I stated every circumstance is different. If they're going to raid your house they probably know that you're crippled to begin with if they did proper raid planning. so they would probably allow a little bit more time for you to get to the door and hopefully they would have announced who they were while knocking so you would know that they are the police coming in so you would comply rather than point a gun at them. Then nobody gets hurt.

 

[exojam]

Well like I stated every circumstance is different. If they're going to raid your house they probably know that you're crippled to begin with if they did proper raid planning. so they would probably allow a little bit more time for you to get to the door and hopefully they would have announced who they were while knocking so you would know that they are the police coming in so you would comply rather than point a gun at them. Then nobody gets hurt.

You are assuming a whole lot there.

Luckily for me I just do not like being around cops unless it was family so you guys have no reason to see me at my house or in my car

 

[ACK495]

You are assuming a whole lot there.

Luckily for me I just do not like being around cops unless it was family so you guys have no reason to see me at my house or in my car

Maybe but that what this entire thread has been in my opinion. I'm only going on experience and common sense.

That's fine. Most of us like it that way. That means your not giving us any reason to interfere in your life. [emoji57]

 

[Bonesinium]

The shooting however…a guy with knife coming at me gets shot. Sorry. I probably would have done the same thing.

In a sheath, in his own home, on people he didn't know and weren't invited in.

Agree or disagree with why they were there...

The reason why they were there is exactly the point. Do you think if a cop was robbing a convenience store, the clerk pulls a knife, it would be okay for him to shoot the clerk?

 

[ACK495]

In a sheath, in his own home, on people he didn't know and weren't invited in.

The reason why they were there is exactly the point. Do you think if a cop was robbing a convenience store, the clerk pulls a knife, it would be okay for him to shoot the clerk?

For all those reasons my answer it is it doesn't matter. Sheath or no sheath. It's still a knife and the sheath is easily removed.

You keep getting caught on the "in your home" thing and "not invited". They had a search warrant signed by a judge or magistrate. Guess what...we're now invited like it or not. And 99% of all raids are the persons home. Doesn't give you the right to come at police officers with a knife... Even in your own home. I can clearly tell you dislike police but its not justifiable self defense anymore.

Is that a serious analogy? Agree or disagree they had a signed search warrant!

 

[Bonesinium]

And they didn't execute the warrant the right way! What the court didn't dispute was that they violated the 4A! Th cops broke the law, killed a guy, and got away with it. And you would do the same? It isn't often people admit they would murder people on this forum. You take the cake.

 

[ACK495]

They apparently didn't when they failed to knock and announce. Someone dropped the ball on that one. However, that doesn't take away the FACT, he came at them with a knife. You need to separate that from the rest and take each part as its own entity. The shoot isn't automatically bad because the entry wasn't good. This isn't murder or even friggin close. And I'll say it again. I would have done the same if threatened with a knife. How's that cake?

 

[dcmdon]

I just started reading the Reason article, but the FIRST SENTENCE IS WRONG.

The article implies that liberals are against the 4A and conservatives have historically been supportive of the 4A.

That could not be further from the truth. Have you ever heard the term "Law and Order Conservative". Liberals generally don't like cops.

The problem is that the Reason folks are synonymizing conservative with libertarian.
Generally liberals are more pro- civil liberties than conservatives with the sole exception of firearms possession.
This is especially true of 4A cases brought to the SCOTUS. Here conservative judges have consistently voted against 4A liberties.

 

[Bonesinium]

Fact? It's only their word. The word from the same people who were proved to have lied about what happened just seconds prior. Keep protecting that blue line, Mr. JBT.

 

[Bonesinium]

I just started reading the Reason article, but the FIRST SENTENCE IS WRONG.

The article implies that liberals are against the 4A and conservatives have historically been supportive of the 4A.

That could not be further from the truth. Have you ever heard the term "Law and Order Conservative". Liberals generally don't like cops.
.

I took it to mean that despite moving more liberal, they are still very much conservative, as this ruling shows. The wording was slightly confusing, but their point was suppose to be what your are saying.

 

[ACK495]

Fact? It's only their word. The word from the same people who were proved to have lied about what happened just seconds prior. Keep protecting that blue line, Mr. JBT.

Of course it's fact don't you know police are inherently reliable witnesses[emoji57] . Protect the blue line to my grave when I can with good conscience. And here I can in regard to the shoot based on what I know

 

[Howland]

You need to separate that from the rest and take each part as its own entity. The shoot isn't automatically bad because the entry wasn't good. This isn't murder or even friggin close.

Wrong on both counts! Their own unlawful behavior (breaking and entering while armed - for which their warrant did not provide) seems to undermine their self defense assertion and the medical examiner will without question attribute the cause of death as homicide.

 

[ACK495]

Wrong on both counts! Their own unlawful behavior (breaking and entering while armed - for which their warrant did not provide) seems to undermine their self defense assertion and the medical examiner will without question attribute the cause of death as homicide.

I completely disagree with you but that doesn't make me or you wrong, that's just our opinion. But what the hell does the medical examiner's ruling have to do with this conversation? The cause of death was clearly a gunshot wound to the head. That isn't in question. Did you even read the articles? This case is already through the appellate court.

 

[Bonesinium]

We conclude that no reasonable jury could have found that the Officers' knock-and-announce violation proximately caused Cornish's death. The evidence Kane presented at trial was insufficient to establish that Cornish did not recognize that the men in his apartment were police officers, and therefore that the Officers' illegal entry was the legal cause of Cornish's death.

The court based their decision on what appears to me to be unsound and incorrect legal grounds.

we cannot reject the jury's conclusions simply because we would have reached different ones: "If reasonable minds could differ about the verdict, we are obliged to affirm. In applying this standard, we must keep in mind that it is the Officers, not Kane, who bore the burden of proof on the dispositive question. In tort law, a superseding cause acts as an affirmative defense, and the defendant bears the burden of proving its existence.

As a Cambridge police officer testified, the department typically does not execute narcotics warrants at 4:30 a.m., and in cases involving marijuana use, typically does not seek warrants at all. Add to that the fact on which the jury verdict rests — that the Officers failed to knock and announce their presence before breaking down Cornish's door, as they were required to do by law — and the jury very reasonably could have concluded that Cornish would have presumed that the intruders in his home were not the police.

But it's all good. Two to the head is just what are friendly forum JBT would do as well.

 

[economist]

For all those reasons my answer it is it doesn't matter. Sheath or no sheath. It's still a knife and the sheath is easily removed.

You keep getting caught on the "in your home" thing and "not invited". They had a search warrant signed by a judge or magistrate. Guess what...we're now invited like it or not. And 99% of all raids are the persons home. Doesn't give you the right to come at police officers with a knife... Even in your own home. I can clearly tell you dislike police but its not justifiable self defense anymore.

Is that a serious analogy? Agree or disagree they had a signed search warrant!

You the judge/magistrate, JBTs and anyone else not completely outraged by this phony drug war, thuggery, and murder of an innocent man -- in its entirety -- are a part of the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it's fact don't you know police are inherently reliable witnesses[emoji57] . Protect the blue line to my grave when I can with good conscience. And here I can in regard to the shoot based on what I know

Wow.

 

[Lcstyle]

You the judge/magistrate, JBTs and anyone else not completely outraged by this phony drug war, thuggery, and murder of an innocent man -- in its entirety -- are a part of the problem.

Wow.

 

[ACK495]

The court based their decision on what appears to me to be unsound and incorrect legal grounds.






But it's all good. Two to the head is just what are friendly forum JBT would do as well.

Clearly they must have because they ultimately found that no reasonable jury would have found them guilty. And that Kane failed to show sufficient evidence that Cornish did not know that it was the police in his apartment. you fail to accept the decision.

Again...if threatened with a knife in those circumstances, I'm defending myself so I go home to my wife and child. And I would most likely done a double tap to the chest and then one to the head if he failed to go down.

 

[Point37]

So what would this guy have gotten if he were alive and convicted of possession in Maryland with the amount that they found?...either way the cops should be held accountable for their actions...if they would have knocked and announced maybe there would have been no knife and the guy would still be alive...its pure speculation but this is also a cause and effect situation, like a choose your own story...but in this case there should have been a different beginning for something so insignificant which will be made legal soon...excessive force for one guy that wasn't harming anyone...I like cops, work with them on details all the time...most of them are great guys/girls...they aren't all the same but unfortunately there are a lot of bad stories like this happening lately...they need to be held accountable instead of being protected by the system sometimes, they are human like the rest of us but they aren't held to the same standard...they get carte Blanche a lot of the time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GPP]

Clearly they must have because they ultimately found that no reasonable jury would have found them guilty. And that Kane failed to show sufficient evidence that Cornish did not know that it was the police in his apartment. you fail to accept the decision.

Again...if threatened with a knife in those circumstances, I'm defending myself so I go home to my wife and child. And I would most likely done a double tap to the chest and then one to the head if he failed to go down.

So youre one of the go home to my wife and child no matter what guys? The academy probably wasnt to long ago for you was it. Contrary to what they told you, ( Im guessing youre one of John Degutis guys) thats not actually your only goal when all is said and done.

The affidavit for that SW probably wouldnt pass muster today, but Im sure it sailed right thru in 2005. Without actually being in the mix, its tough to say. Clearly though, common sense went right out the window with this, from the shoddy knock and announce, to the 0400 warrant execution time.

The thin blue line you mention isnt just a stupid license plate, its origins go way back to loyalty to corrupt cops. Just
because the appellate court reversed this doesnt make it right. Shooting the guy with the sheathed or unsheathed knife coming at you? All day. But if hes coming at you because you acted improperly? No go dude.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong on both counts! Their own unlawful behavior (breaking and entering while armed - for which their warrant did not provide) seems to undermine their self defense assertion and the medical examiner will without question attribute the cause of death as homicide.

What in the actual **** are you talking about

 

[BakerBingo]

And they didn't execute the warrant the right way! What the court didn't dispute was that they violated the 4A! Th cops broke the law, killed a guy, and got away with it. And you would do the same? It isn't often people admit they would murder people on this forum. You take the cake.

Ironic, considering all the "cordwood" comments we have to read.

 

[frenchman]

Clearly they must have because they ultimately found that no reasonable jury would have found them guilty. And that Kane failed to show sufficient evidence that Cornish did not know that it was the police in his apartment. you fail to accept the decision.

Again...if threatened with a knife in those circumstances, I'm defending myself so I go home to my wife and child. And I would most likely done a double tap to the chest and then one to the head if he failed to go down.

Soon enough, pal, soon enough. You'll have to dance with the devil, and he's a decent dancer.

 

[Radtekk]

Again...if threatened with a knife in those circumstances, I'm defending myself so I go home to my wife and child. And I would most likely done a double tap to the chest and then one to the head if he failed to go down.

Winner! If ever there was an out yourself thread this is it. You supposedly exist to serve and protect, spend a statistically significant portion of your time not "working" and by acceptance of MY tax money agree to assume the risk incurred WHILE "working".

"Working" by the way means actual policing. Things like arresting rapists in the act, stopping robberies, patrolling the neighborhood so little old ladies don't get mugged. Not sitting on the side of the road, hiding behind a bush waiting for me to come by with a burnt out headlight or expired inspection sticker or some other such heinous crime. But I digress...

I absolutely promise you that my home IS my castle, my fiancee and my children ARE the reason I breathe, and that if my last breath is defending them against ARMED INTRUDERS at 4am I'm will do so until I can no longer breathe. And if they happen to be on the other side of that "thin blue line" that's okay by me.

Armed invaders are armed for one reason, and there is only one response that makes any kind of sense at 4am. Clear?

 

[dcmdon]

For all those reasons my answer it is it doesn't matter. Sheath or no sheath. It's still a knife and the sheath is easily removed.

You keep getting caught on the "in your home" thing and "not invited". They had a search warrant signed by a judge or magistrate. Guess what...we're now invited like it or not. And 99% of all raids are the persons home. Doesn't give you the right to come at police officers with a knife... Even in your own home. I can clearly tell you dislike police but its not justifiable self defense anymore.

Is that a serious analogy? Agree or disagree they had a signed search warrant!

ack45. You are wrong. All a defense attorney would need to do is introduce reasonable doubt that the home owner had reason to believe he was the victim of a home invasion. Its happened, homeowners have killed cops serving no knock warrants and been acquitted.

Also, they were not invited. The search warrant implies certain protocols. Announcing themselves, I believe this one required them to allow time for the victim to answer the door. When they disregarded those terms they violated what little is left of the 4A. They created a situation where a reasonable person would believe they were the victim of a home invasion which creates the conditions for justifiable homicide.

Shiny badges and pretty costumes shouldn't convey extra rights.

There are several other LEOs on this board who would disagree with you. A friend of mine who was a detective is totally disgusted with this kind of thing. He once said to me "we used to grab the guy when he was walking to his car at the end of his work day. Simple, quick, and safe for all involved."

The use of SWAT to serve warrants in the middle of the night on people suspected of non-violent victimless crimes is simply because they have all this tactical crap and it would be a shame to only use it once every 5 years when there is a hostage crisis or similar incident.

Its sad to say that I worry more about an incident like this than I do about a home invasion.
It would be interesting if someone could work the numbers on the actual statistical risk of each.

 

[dcmdon]

They apparently didn't when they failed to knock and announce. Someone dropped the ball on that one. However, that doesn't take away the FACT, he came at them with a knife. You need to separate that from the rest and take each part as its own entity. The shoot isn't automatically bad because the entry wasn't good. This isn't murder or even friggin close. And I'll say it again. I would have done the same if threatened with a knife. How's that cake?

The shoot is bad because they were not LAWFULLY in his home. They failed to comply with the terms of the warrant.

So you used the tired old "go home to my wife" cliche. I've got a bit of news for you.

Bread delivery drivers face more danger on a day to day basis than cops.
I've got another little tidbit. Cops are more likely to die in a car crash than any other way.

You work for US. (I will avoid the you work for "me" cliche). Because you really do work for US.

The minute your utility in serving us is exceeded by the risk you put us in, your reason for being ceases.

Its funny. I've been called anti-cop. I've been called a boot licker. I guess I"m a bit of both. I'm very pro-good-cop, and very anti-bad cop. Unfortunately, the good cops who joined for the right reasons seem to be retiring.

Also unfortunately they seem to be being replaced by douches like you who joined just to kick some ass.

I can hold out one of Arlington's finest as a great example. Don't eff with him. But he's got no tolerance for what he calls "chicken5h1t" cop crap. He's got a wife and a family and believes in de-escalation if possible. But he is also good with his hands and a crack shot. Unfortunately hes older. He'll be gone soon.