- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
Hmmmm...let's ban something because someone might use it irresponsibly and someone could get killed.
Sound familiar.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Lon Horiuchi and HSPrecision.
- Thread starter clinotus
- Start date
Hmmmm...let's ban something because someone might use it irresponsibly and someone could get killed.
Sound familiar.
Horrible analogy. My constitutionally protected gun ownership has nothing to do with me kicking down the door of the wrong house and shooting up innocent people.
You highlighted the point I was making and went in the wrong direction with it. Not sure what you want to ban either.
Its a no win situation, unless you ensure that those carrying out the raid have the proper information and are at the correct house, otherwise its a show down between the good guys and the good guy without a team and full armament is going to be the loser.
For his situation, if he were the person that they were really after, you would think that some good old fashioned detective work would be the ideal solution. You know he's deaf, use some lights. Perhaps even some surveillance so you have an understanding of his schedule and catch him in traffic or walking out to his car.
Not all of the solutions need to be tactical ones, but when they are the onus should be placed on the officers/unit as they have the best tools for the objective and that doesn't always include guys dressed in all black kicking a door in.
I see nothing wrong with more surveillance before you kick in someones door with the comfort of body armor and a full loadout. Might stop the citizens as targets due to paperwork error theme that we occasionally see. An 'opps, sorry' from the Mayor or Police Chief means squat after the coffin is in the ground for a preventable mistake.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
You are exactly correct.....these are the things are to be done to prevent tragedies.
The tragedies are when these things are not done.
Just like when a person misuses a firearm and an innocent person is killed. When this happens do we call for a ban on guns.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
In my opinion the thought process is very similar.
Why is the second amendment any different than the fourth where search warrants have been upheld to be protected by the constitution?
You are talking about someone who is acting out a constitutionally protected act and does so irresponsibly.
I think it is hypocritical to hold such high regard to the interpretations of the second amendment (rightly so) but to not hold such high regard to the interpretations of the fourth.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Y'know, HC, I'm starting to lose the respect I had for you. The Second Amendment says that the Gov CAN'T take away our guns. The Fourth says that we have the right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures"... NOT that "search warrants have been upheld to be protected". Before you can come into a house, the 4th amedment says that you NEED a warrant - NO-FRAKKING-WHERE does say that you can come busting in with guns blazing.
Sorry... but if ALL of our servants were as conscientious as you are, then we wouldn't need to be reining in our out of control police. But they're NOT, as is evidenced by all the reports of screwed up no-knock warrants. There is no RIGHT to use a no-knock warrant - this isn't a RIGHT like the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is! The no-knock warrant is a flawed tool used by law enforcement... and it needs to be scrapped. Before more innocent citizens are killed, and before more cops are killed by citizens who are trying to protect their homes and their families.
Bzzzt.
The government does NOT have rights; PEOPLE have rights. Those carrying out no-knock warrants are acting as agents of the government and any call against no-knock warrants or other commando drama is properly termed "limiting the power of the government."
There's a critically fundamental difference betwen denying the people a right and prohibiting the government from the exercise of a particular power, especially a police power.
J
Jose
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
Please explain where I stated that search warrants are a government "right".
I believe that I stated that they are an "act" that has long been protected by the supreme court under the fourth amendment as not being an "unreasonable" search.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
Since when does a differing of opinion equate into a lack of respect?
I believe you are missing my point entirely and I will attempt to clarify it for you.
The examples people are using to base their arguments against the no-knock warrants are examples of warrants executed with complete incompetence, recklessness and/or negligence. It is not fair to use these to base an argument against a piece of paper.
Is it right to want to ban guns because someone has a negligent discharge while cleaning their gun and kills their little kid. Is it the fault of the gun, the licensing process etc....NO!! it is the fault of the negligent party.
It is not fair to use examples where the police "f***ed up" to base your arguments to ban search warrants just as it is not fair to use examples where a gun owner performed a reckless and/or negligent act to kill an innocent person to argue for banning guns.
Instead of "banning" no-knock warrants why are we not disciplining/prosecuting those who f*** them up due to incompetence, recklessness and/or negligence.
What makes a gun owner a "responsible" gun owner? The fear of prosecution and the fear of losing what you love to do.
If the police knew that there was a "legitimate" fear of prosecution and the loss of their job you would see a lot more thought and care into the execution of the warrants.
As I have stated before...I had been a member of a SWAT team and resigned because I was concerned about them being used excessively and when not needed and that they did not have the proper and necessary training.
I share some of your concerns....but I do not feel that it rises to the level of an outright "ban"
I have a fundamental problem with banning anything that serves a purpose for those who perform it responsibly because of the actions of a few who are completely incompetent, negligent and/or criminal.
Last edited:
I get your point, but your analogies are flawed.
In the first paragraph, the "negligent" party is the government. When no-knocks are served on the wrong person, the government's negligence violates (at least) the 4th Amendment rights of the victim. Unless you contend that the Supreme Court protects the "act" regardless of how it is administered.
In the second paragraph, the "negligent" party is an individual, and his negligence did not involve violation of anyone's Constitutional rights - intentional or not.
When the government "f***s up" and violates a Constitutional right, (usually) nothing happens, when an individual negligently uses a firearm, he's charged accordingly - unless he's with the government.
Then we're relying on the government to penalize itself. How often does that happen? That's like asking legislators to vote on term limits for themselves. The government protects its own unless there's a politically motivated reason to do otherwise - then they crucify the "offender".
That doesn't happen though. See the link above. Two idiot LEOs were drunk blasting away in the back yard with shotguns like a couple of redneck idiots, and they got away with a slap on the wrist.
This is not a big surprise, considering one of the offenders (a corrections officer) gave $2000 to the re-election campaign of the guy that investigated the incident.
And you're surprised that we mistrust you guys?
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
The principles are the same in each anology. The use of extreme acts of negligence as a basis to justify a ban.
And they should be held responsible/accountable. If that means criminal charges...so be it. That is the issue that we should be dealing with. Not the outright ban on No-Knock search warrants.
This is the real issue. Hold the responsible parties accountable. No bans!!
Not relevant to the debate at hand. I can give you a laundry list of officers who were rung up on criminal charges because they were LEO's when a non-LEO would never have been charged.
And if we were to hold ourselves accountable more often it would go along way to change this.
You know, I have to say Half-Cocked is right on this.
No-Knock warrant that go wrong isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the real problem.
Why waste time banning the symptom, nad leaving the problem in place?
No, better to fix the REAL problem, which is LEO accountability, and that's EXACTLY what he's advocating. Fix that, no-knock warrants become a moot issue, because when they screw one up badly enough, they hang for it. A couple of long sentences instead of awards will certainly make the rest of the officers take note to make 100% sure they're right.
It will certainly make a lot of the public more confident, even downright happy, to see this, if it ever could get implemented.
HC, that's a breath of fresh air to hear that, but, you do know you appear to be a very small minority of those in your profession, right?
No-Knock warrant that go wrong isn't the problem, it's a symptom of the real problem.
Why waste time banning the symptom, nad leaving the problem in place?
No, better to fix the REAL problem, which is LEO accountability, and that's EXACTLY what he's advocating. Fix that, no-knock warrants become a moot issue, because when they screw one up badly enough, they hang for it. A couple of long sentences instead of awards will certainly make the rest of the officers take note to make 100% sure they're right.
It will certainly make a lot of the public more confident, even downright happy, to see this, if it ever could get implemented.
HC, that's a breath of fresh air to hear that, but, you do know you appear to be a very small minority of those in your profession, right?
Do you really think that not allowing no-knock invasions is the same as banning all firearms?
Guess what, there's already a ban on invasions. I'm banned from doing it. You can, because you're with the government.
It's a stupid analogy because if all firearms were banned, you could still have them. The ban would only affect me.
Unfortunately, I fear that this is a pipe dream. The laws are already in place, but enforcement is left up to the offenders.
In the meantime, we could just legalize drugs and the whole issue will go away.
Last edited:
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Since you seem to be claiming that the government has any right at all to do anything that We, the People, do NOT want it to have. Let me make this excruciatingly clear: You, sir, and all your fellows, are CIVIL SERVANTS. You work for US. Your fellow LEOs ovbiously CANNOT be trusted to "police" yourselves, so We, the People, want to tell you to stop using the method of "no-knock warrants". Clear enough?
No, I got your point all right - but you're confusing a practice with a fundamental right. The Bill of Rights says specifically that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Please show me where in the BOR or the Constitution it says that the "right of the po-po to conduct no-knock warrants shall not be infringed".
It's that simple. It's a TOOL that the police use, and they have shown that they, as a group, cannot use it properly. When a child gets his hands on a knife that he can hurt people with, you take it away from him and spank him. That's what needs to happen to the police and their no-knock warrants. There is an institutional arrogance to the police in general (you may be an exception to this, as I've said before) that is leading to misuse of this tool... so obviously, it needs to be taken away, and those who've misused it need to be spanked. Which doesn't happen often enough - Atlanta got it right, but most cases I read about don't show any punishment for the offending officers.
Because you need to do small things first, rather than tackling the larger problem. If this tool gets taken away, it may (hopefully) get the police who have this attitude that their badge makes them somehow better than the rest of the populace to wonder WHY the citizens don't trust them. But I doubt it... the arrogance is too deep in the system. Removing this tool is just the first step - the police need to show the populace that they CAN be trusted before I'd want to see them allowed to do this again.
+1
In a free society there are things that we have to deal with (which is why many of us own firearms) but one thing we should never have to deal with is government forces oppressing innocent Americans, no matter what their excuse is (usually ill fated drug laws). The government has no rights and can not be trusted to "police" itself and therefore should be restricted in their actions.
Ross, here's a place where we disagree.
LEO Accountability needs to happen NOW. Not piece by piece, but all of it. It's decades overdue (yup, at least 20-30 years or more), and the whole thing needs to be done at ONE time.
It's not a matter for LEO's to do in general, but, for Government and Elected officials to do.
Our biggest hurdle on this, isn't the civil sevants, but, rather their bosses, the elected kind. Until we start throwing the bums out of office, true reform will never happen.
Now, I did clearly state what the problem is. We do know from a good reality check that this is highly unlikely to ever happen.
I'll predict that should we ever have another Revolution in this country, this will get reformed. The crisis is coming to a head, though slowly, and all of us are going to have to consider which side we'll support. Many of us have already made that decision. I have, and I'll keep my own counsel, though some of you already know, as you do know me well enough to figure it out. (Hint, if you've never met me in person, you probably don't know for sure. Don't assume, and don't even ask, that's well, RUDE.)
LEO Accountability needs to happen NOW. Not piece by piece, but all of it. It's decades overdue (yup, at least 20-30 years or more), and the whole thing needs to be done at ONE time.
It's not a matter for LEO's to do in general, but, for Government and Elected officials to do.
Our biggest hurdle on this, isn't the civil sevants, but, rather their bosses, the elected kind. Until we start throwing the bums out of office, true reform will never happen.
Now, I did clearly state what the problem is. We do know from a good reality check that this is highly unlikely to ever happen.
I'll predict that should we ever have another Revolution in this country, this will get reformed. The crisis is coming to a head, though slowly, and all of us are going to have to consider which side we'll support. Many of us have already made that decision. I have, and I'll keep my own counsel, though some of you already know, as you do know me well enough to figure it out. (Hint, if you've never met me in person, you probably don't know for sure. Don't assume, and don't even ask, that's well, RUDE.)
I'd like to thank those on both sides of this issue who have posted in clear language for using good grammar and sentence structure, and for breaking your posts into comprehensible paragraphs, ensuring readability.
I've read two-line posts that are less lucid than the short essays here.
This is an important issue, and worth discussing. Clarity is really important.
Rep points to those eloquent writers.
You puerile text-messagers, take note. If you want to persuade, you must first be clear.
I've read two-line posts that are less lucid than the short essays here.
This is an important issue, and worth discussing. Clarity is really important.
Rep points to those eloquent writers.
You puerile text-messagers, take note. If you want to persuade, you must first be clear.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
No!! I have stated that the reasoning that is being used to argue against "no-knock" warrants is the same reasoning used by those who argue to ban guns.
The use of extreme acts of negligence as a basis to justify a ban.
Look at the tragedy with the machine gun pumpkin shoot. Do you think that is going to be used to argue for "bans"? Was it the fault of the gun? No it was not.
That is all.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
The reasoning behind the analogy used has nothing to do with rights.
How about the argument about banning the act of driving because people are negligent and irresponsible and drive drunk.
is that a better analogy as one has no right to drive?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,551
- Likes
- 33,614
The "Shooting Wire" (an on-line news service that virtually everyone who matters in the gun business follows) did an article on the HS Precision/Horouchi ad, citing it as an example of how use of an endorsement can go terribly wrong.
The most significant outcome of the Horuchi case was not what he did, but the legal precedent that a state level court has no authority to indict a federal agent for a shooting that the feds have determines was appropriate and in the line of duty. This implications of this, from a state's rights perspective, are huge.
The most significant outcome of the Horuchi case was not what he did, but the legal precedent that a state level court has no authority to indict a federal agent for a shooting that the feds have determines was appropriate and in the line of duty. This implications of this, from a state's rights perspective, are huge.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
This is probably beating a dead horse because the facts and reasoning have been laid out before you several times in the past 15 pages and you still don't "get" it. The same reasoning isn't being used to ban no-knocks as is being used to ban firearms. The only reason no-knocks exist is because of the destruction of evidence during a drug raid where entry is delayed, and it's put off as officer safety - from drug dealers usually being armed and either protecting their product/money or not wanting to go to jail.
Now, I believe the Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights in terms the laymen could understand. Once again, the BoR's does not grant rights, but rather, points out certain limitations on the government (a distinction I feel is grossly overlooked).
Edward Coke -
One could argue that the seemingly broad use of no-knock warrant execution to be akin to the King's general warrant that caused the 4th Amendment to be written in the first place. While the over-educated academia currently holds these unannounced home invasions to not be unConstitutional, I truly believe it to be against the very spirit of the Right.
Prior to the failed War on Drugs SOP's required LEO's to loudly and plainly identify themselves prior to the execution of a warrant, even on forceable entry. This was done due to concerns of officer safety that the occupants would not be aware that the invaders were, in fact, LEO and not another criminal element they would be fully justified in protecting themselves against. This was even circumvented by a forced entry only one second after announcement (you and I both know that to be fact, don't we?).
The biggest problem is the parameters that no-knocks are allowed to be executed under. As Jim correctly pointed out, if the prohibition on most drugs ended so would 99% of no-knocks and the execution of innocent people and puppys. As utterly disgusted that drug use makes me it should never be justification to erode our rights and liberties.
HC, I applaud you for recognizing Ruby Ridge for the atrocity that it is but I personaly feel you need to reexamine to view on no-knock home invasions. As to your stance on the individual being held responsible, I concur. Huriuchi, however, was not. The state AG brought him up on charges that the Feds quelched. Yet, the courts saw fit to award damages to Weaver. Too bad Weaver didn't persue civil actions like was done in the Rodney King and O.J. cases.
And, before you ask, I've executed both. I not only quit SWAT, I quit law enforcement altogether when I felt the industy as a whole chaged form being a servant to the public and became an institution hell-bent on considering the public at large as criminals that just haven't been caught yet.
From another board. The heavy hand of .gov was pretty busy in the early
90's. Horiuchi is only 1 example of the thuggish tactics employed by some in law enforcement that look at most citizens as criminals who need to be subdued at all costs.
This also happened right around the same time period as Ruby Ridge:
In an early morning drug raid on October 2, 1992, 31 officers from five police agencies break down the door to the multimillion dollar home of Donald Scott.
Frightened, Scott's wife screams, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." Hearing his wife's screams, Scott emerges from his bedroom holding a handgun, still groggy from a recent cataract operation. When Scott raises the gun in the direction of the police intruders, the raiding officers shoot him dead.
Despite assurances from the L.A. Sheriff's Department that Scott was farming more than 4,000 marijuana plants on his property, thorough search of Scott's property fails to yield any contraband. In fact, Scott's friends would later say he was adamantly opposed to illicit drugs.
Though Scott's grand Malibu ranch is in Ventura County, California, no Ventura police agency was represented among the five police agencies (the L.A. Sheriff's office, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Border Patrol, the National Guard and the National Park Service) that conducted the raid. A blistering subsequent investigation by Ventura County district attorney Michael Bradbury suggests why.
Bradbury found gross misstatements of fact, omissions, and outright falsehoods in the application for a search warrant issued by the L.A. sheriff's department. He found that the department had conducted numerous investigations of the ranch, including flyovers and firsthand visits, which found no evidence of marijuana cultivation. Finally, during a low-level flyover one DEA agent suggested to the sheriff's department that he had spotted some plants beneath tree cover that might be marijuana –– but stipulated that his observation ought not be the basis of a search warrant. On that evidence, the L.A. sheriff's department obtained its warrant.
Bradbury concluded that, confirming Donald Scott's fears, the L.A. sheriff's department conducted its raid for the purpose of seizing Donald Scott's property through drug asset forfeiture laws. Under federal law, the department would have been able divvy up proceeds from the $2.5 million ranch with the four other agencies joining in the investigation. Bradbury found documents in which the investigating agencies had expressed desire for Scott's land on various "wish lists," and one notation in which sheriff's department officials had taken note of the recent sale value of one parcel of Scott's land.
According to an L.A. deputy district attorney at the time, two of the agents conducting the raid posed for a triumphant photograph after Scott was shot and killed.
In January 2000, the L.A. Sheriff's Department settled with Scott's family for $5 million, though the terms of the settlement admitted no wrongdoing. In fact, officers from the department who conducted the raid have insisted from the beginning that both the raid and the shooting of Scott were justified, despite the absence of any illegal substances. L.A. Sheriff's Department Captain Larry Waldie told the Los Angeles Times, "I do not believe it was an illegal raid in any way, shape or form." Five years after the raid, Garry Spencer, the officer who both led the raid and who killed Scott told the same paper, "I don't consider it botched. I wouldn't call it botched because that would say that it was a mistake to have gone there in the first place, and I don't believe that."
90's. Horiuchi is only 1 example of the thuggish tactics employed by some in law enforcement that look at most citizens as criminals who need to be subdued at all costs.
This also happened right around the same time period as Ruby Ridge:
In an early morning drug raid on October 2, 1992, 31 officers from five police agencies break down the door to the multimillion dollar home of Donald Scott.
Frightened, Scott's wife screams, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." Hearing his wife's screams, Scott emerges from his bedroom holding a handgun, still groggy from a recent cataract operation. When Scott raises the gun in the direction of the police intruders, the raiding officers shoot him dead.
Despite assurances from the L.A. Sheriff's Department that Scott was farming more than 4,000 marijuana plants on his property, thorough search of Scott's property fails to yield any contraband. In fact, Scott's friends would later say he was adamantly opposed to illicit drugs.
Though Scott's grand Malibu ranch is in Ventura County, California, no Ventura police agency was represented among the five police agencies (the L.A. Sheriff's office, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Border Patrol, the National Guard and the National Park Service) that conducted the raid. A blistering subsequent investigation by Ventura County district attorney Michael Bradbury suggests why.
Bradbury found gross misstatements of fact, omissions, and outright falsehoods in the application for a search warrant issued by the L.A. sheriff's department. He found that the department had conducted numerous investigations of the ranch, including flyovers and firsthand visits, which found no evidence of marijuana cultivation. Finally, during a low-level flyover one DEA agent suggested to the sheriff's department that he had spotted some plants beneath tree cover that might be marijuana –– but stipulated that his observation ought not be the basis of a search warrant. On that evidence, the L.A. sheriff's department obtained its warrant.
Bradbury concluded that, confirming Donald Scott's fears, the L.A. sheriff's department conducted its raid for the purpose of seizing Donald Scott's property through drug asset forfeiture laws. Under federal law, the department would have been able divvy up proceeds from the $2.5 million ranch with the four other agencies joining in the investigation. Bradbury found documents in which the investigating agencies had expressed desire for Scott's land on various "wish lists," and one notation in which sheriff's department officials had taken note of the recent sale value of one parcel of Scott's land.
According to an L.A. deputy district attorney at the time, two of the agents conducting the raid posed for a triumphant photograph after Scott was shot and killed.
In January 2000, the L.A. Sheriff's Department settled with Scott's family for $5 million, though the terms of the settlement admitted no wrongdoing. In fact, officers from the department who conducted the raid have insisted from the beginning that both the raid and the shooting of Scott were justified, despite the absence of any illegal substances. L.A. Sheriff's Department Captain Larry Waldie told the Los Angeles Times, "I do not believe it was an illegal raid in any way, shape or form." Five years after the raid, Garry Spencer, the officer who both led the raid and who killed Scott told the same paper, "I don't consider it botched. I wouldn't call it botched because that would say that it was a mistake to have gone there in the first place, and I don't believe that."
J
Jose
Why is the Los Angeles County Sheriff conducting a raid in Ventura County?
MetalgodZ
NES Member
Additionally, who in their right mind believes that this type of "mistake" is acceptable - collateral damage in "the War on Drugs?"
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
As for HSPrecision... It was one thing to publish the testimonial of Horiuchi. Could have been an honest, uninformed, STUPID mistake on the part of some marketing drone. It's completely another that they've issued an apology to the effect of "we're sorry you're so thin skinned as to be offended" and think that's OK. I understand that this was likely diplomatic P.R. backpedaling, but I do not accept that.
IMO, LawDog covered this most completely, from the illegal, unConstitutional order that was issued, to Horiuchi's acceptance of the order despite several others refusing, to (in the comments) the quotes from Cooper regarding Horiuchi's character.
*Edit*: From the links in LawDog's 'blog, this also covers it quite well.
As far as I'm concerned, any purchase of their products AT ALL is tacit approval of their association with Horiuchi. I won't buy from them, won't buy product lines which include their parts as standard or options, and (arguably most importantly) I won't buy their parts used.
Last edited:
