Amazing how much rarer violent crime and murder is there, though, eh Jimbo? Maybe they’re onto something.

This reminds me of a tv-movie about Ted Kaczynski, of which I saw the last few minutes. The feds show up at TK’s shack and present a warrant. TK says, languidly smiling, “I’ll just read it first.” “It’s seventy pages!” “I got time.” “We don’t.” And they barge in. Now it seems to me that any jerk could come to one’s door with a random bit of paper and say “This is a warrant.” How many of us know what a valid warrant looks like? Not me.

Maybe if more cops paid for no-knock searches with their lives, the practice would fall out of favor.

My heart hopes so, and smiles at the thought of more dead terrorists. (Unlike some, I don’t weep for Johnny Promising here; he knowingly participated in an immoral act.)

My head says, if history is any guide, the political class will try anything to prevent such deaths except backing down. I won’t be much surprised if the outcome is legislation (modeled on England’s) greatly narrowing the self-defense principle; it will be advertised as protecting the householder from temptation to “start” a gunfight.

Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 304 (1921): cf. Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45, [374 U.S. 23, 33] 65-68 (1932) While the language of Forth Amendment is “general,” it forbids every search that is unreasonable; it protects all, those suspected or known to be offenders as well as innocent and unquestionably extends to the premises where the search was made”

18 U.S.C. 3109 and RCW 10.31.040 violated

“A lawful entry is the indispensable predicate of a reasonable search” in Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 30-306, the U.S Supreme court held that a search would violate the Fourth Amendment if the entry were illegal weather accomplished by “force or “obtained by stealth instead of by force or coercion.” Similarly, rigid restrictions upon unannounced entries are essential if the Forth Amendment’s prohibition against invasion of the security and privacy of the home is to have any meaning.

Innocent citizens should not suffer the shock, fright or embarrassment attendant upon an unannounced police entry [374 U.S. 23, 58]

The Fourth Amendment’s protections include the security of the householder against unannounced invasions by police. [374 U.S. 23, 54]

Two reasons rooted in the Constitution clearly compel the courts to refuse to recognize exceptions in other situations [374 U.S. 23, 56] when there is no showing that those within were or had been aware of the officer’s presence. The first is that any exception not requiring a showing of such awareness implies a rejection of the inviolable presumption of innocence. The excuse for failing to knock or announce the officer’s mission where the occupants are oblivious to his presence can only be an almost automatic assumption that the suspect within will resist the officer’s attempt to enter peacefully, or will frustrate the arrest by an attempt to escape, or will attempt to destroy whatever possibly incriminating evidence he may have. Such assumptions do obvious violence to the presumption of innocence. Indeed , the violence is compounded by another assumption, also necessarily involved , that a suspect to whom the officer first makes known his presence will further violate the law. It need be hardly be said that not every suspect is in fact guilty of the offense of which he is suspected and that not everyone who is in fact guilty will forcibly resist arrest or attempt to escape or destroy evidence. [374 U.S. 23, 57]

“What’s most striking to me about this thread, however, as a Canadian reader, is how normalized that culture seems to be for most of the contributors.”

Ah, the whining, oh-so-holy Canadian enters the lists. How a country that invented hockey could have become such a nation of pussies I’ll never understand…

Fair point, but the lawmakers are overwhelmingly Democrats, and they’re at least as much to blame as the executives. It’s hard to use the drug laws as an excuse to stomp all over everyone if the drug laws are repealed.

I take your meaning, but the governors of New York, California, and Massachussets are all Republicans, and in the case of MA and NY, have been since the early to mid Nineties.

Yeah, I pine for the Clinton administration and its suspension of the War on Drugs. And have you noticed how New York City, Northern California and Massachussets have all stopped violently enforcing drug laws?

Seriously, Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of dragging this country into an unwinnable War on Some Drugs. Never kid yourself otherwise.

No knocks, in and of themselves, are stupid and dangerous. So what if the perp flushes a half ounce of coke down the toilet? Doesnt sacrificing a bit of the case warrant a potentially saved life? And, when no knocks are at the wrong house, often times armed citizens will fire on the cops, getting both the cop and themselves injured/killed. No knocks are just stupid, period.

Lastly, if I were in the same situation and people broke into my house in the night, Id be thinking about my daughter and wife’s safety first. You cant see who it is or decide what their intent is in the dark, it is they who initiated the confrontation by BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE. Knock on the door, annouce you are police and allow the ‘suspect’ to answer the door. At least this lessens the chance of mistaken identity and a gunfight.

But on your own property, at night, the homeowner is usually given considerably leeway. He may be at fault (and should be), if it can be shown that the person clearly announced himself. But if someone breaks down the door and storms in, often the law says you don’t have to wait around for them to rape you before you’re allowed to fight back.

What’s most striking to me about this thread, however, as a Canadian reader, is how normalized that culture seems to be for most of the contributors.

America. Exceptional indeed. Terrifyingly exceptional.