Killeen TX: Multiple officers shot serving no knock warrant

[Cedar Park Dad]

If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

Alternatively you could announce and just...you know...wait.
No reason to actually go in.

[ShootDontTalk]

On the same topic. I agree with what I have heard Charles say several times. I am deeply concerned about the huge expansion in police departments having paramilitary units. No knocks give those departments opportunity to highlight their use more often than high profile incidents.

I think all LEO's should always remember that, if they served in the military, the day they took off the uniform of their country they became a civilian. Peace officers are civilians, not military. All the specialized equipment allows some peace officers to maintain the illusion that they are still part of a military unit. Certainly not all, but some. The missions are different, obviously.

Have you ever noticed after one of these high profile incidents the frequent news video always seems to zoom in on paramilitary-dressed officers standing outside "guarding" (?) the now non-active scene with "grenades" (okay flash bangs) and ARs in menacing black combat gear? Makes you feel all warm and protected doesn't it? Mrs SDT once asked me what we needed all that stuff for when we hardly ever arrive while anything is still happening? I always told her it was a budget thing and that she might not understand. I don't think she believed me.

[VMI77]

If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

What's that have to do with the case in question? In any case, really, how many drug dealers shoot it out with the police? I somehow doubt that most of them are "heroic" criminals ready to die in a volley of police gun fire. And come on, if this is some stash house with armed and violent felons, how would they not know they were about to be raided by the police? Wouldn't such dangerous criminals have surveillance cameras and people on watch? Anyone that would get into a gun battle with a SWAT team would be on guard and they'd be ready for the entry whether the police knocked or not.

[nightmare69]

If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

What's that have to do with the case in question? In any case, really, how many drug dealers shoot it out with the police? I somehow doubt that most of them are "heroic" criminals ready to die in a volley of police gun fire. And come on, if this is some stash house with armed and violent felons, how would they not know they were about to be raided by the police? Wouldn't such dangerous criminals have surveillance cameras and people on watch? Anyone that would get into a gun battle with a SWAT team would be on guard and they'd be ready for the entry whether the police knocked or not.

Ones I've heard with our local swat they went no knock early in the morning and the suspects were still asleep. Beside them was loaded firearms, if they would have knocked and waited that would have given them the time needed to set up a defense at the door or baracde themselves in.

If no knocks warrants were as bad as everyone makes them out to be then why are deptments all over the US still using them? In the right situations they are very effective and that's why depts use them. Sometimes things go wrong but I would rather have the element of surprise rather than knock and wait for someone to decide to run out a window or stand and fight. Our local DEA use no knocks on 80% ( word of mouth by a local agent) of the warrants they execute for a reason, they work and provide the least amount of risk for officers. If anyone has any studies suggesting otherwise or someone who has executed warrants on dangerous suspects I'm all ears. Until then, I'm more inclined to listen to those who make a living doing such.

[nightmare69]

Never heard of officer safety? We will have to agree to disagree, if you don't like no knock warrants then petition the lawmakers to outlaw them. Depts use them for a reason and will continue to do so whether you agree or not.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Ones I've heard with our local swat they went no knock early in the morning and the suspects were still asleep. Beside them was loaded firearms, if they would have knocked and waited that would have given them the time needed to set up a defense at the door or baracde themselves in.

And? Don't go in, wait them out. I'm not trying to be hostile here but what happened to the guy on the megaphone shouting about them being surrounded and come out with their hands up? How exactly is a that a worse scenario then attempting to storm a building before the BG's supposedly have suffiicent wits to engage in a shoot out?

[talltex]

Ones I've heard with our local swat they went no knock early in the morning and the suspects were still asleep. Beside them was loaded firearms, if they would have knocked and waited that would have given them the time needed to set up a defense at the door or baracde themselves in.

If no knocks warrants were as bad as everyone makes them out to be then why are deptments all over the US still using them? In the right situations they are very effective and that's why depts use them. Sometimes things go wrong but I would rather have the element of surprise rather than knock and wait for someone to decide to run out a window or stand and fight. Our local DEA use no knocks on 80% ( word of mouth by a local agent) of the warrants they execute for a reason, they work and provide the least amount of risk for officers. If anyone has any studies suggesting otherwise or someone who has executed warrants on dangerous suspects I'm all ears. Until then, I'm more inclined to listen to those who make a living doing such.

There are basically 3 possible responses to a "knock warrant": surrender / run away / fight back. The first two responses pose almost zero risk to the LEO's...AND...to any innocent parties or non-combatants inside the house. As VMI77 said, very few people will make a conscious decision to intentionally attack a SWAT team. I'd be very surprised if the actual number of targeted suspects shooting it out was even 10%, but if it was, that still means that in 90% of the situations, it would be far less risky than kicking in the door and going in hot with guns up and adrenaline pumping.

Why are departments all over still using them? Because they WANT to. They have a huge interest in maintaining the status quo and they've spent years saying they needed SWAT teams, Special Response Teams, Inter-Agency Drug Task Forces, etc... and now that they have them, along with all the cool toys... Armored SUV's, tactical uniforms, tactical thigh holsters, night vision goggles, flash-bangs, and all the assorted tactical gear. All of that comes with a big budget, and accordingly, they will make use of them at any opportunity, in order to justify their existence. They are like any other governmental agency: you spend every penny and ask for more the next year...once it's budgeted, it never goes away.

The DEA, which pioneered the use of tactical squads and "no knock" raids uses them 80% of time and thinks they are good...what a shocker. I'd like to see THEIR study that backs up the opinion that they provide the least risk for the officers. I don't really need a "study" to tell me what common sense and basic mathematics does: Unless MORE than 50% of the suspects having search warrants served, are absolutely hell bent on having a shootout with the officers, then it is, by definition, LESS risky to knock. This isn't hard to figure out...just ask yourself honestly...which scenario is MORE likely to result in "shots fired"...a knock and wait....or an assault team breaching the doors or windows in the middle of the night yelling and shouting with guns up?

[WildBill]

Here are a couple of links to studies about no-knock warrants.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cato.org/events/should-no-kn ... or-routine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/file ... r_2006.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the cases described in the white paper is ironic.

One of the reasons for approving a no-knock was that the man had a concealed handgun license so he was considered dangerous.

[Excaliber]

If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

What's that have to do with the case in question? In any case, really, how many drug dealers shoot it out with the police? I somehow doubt that most of them are "heroic" criminals ready to die in a volley of police gun fire. And come on, if this is some stash house with armed and violent felons, how would they not know they were about to be raided by the police? Wouldn't such dangerous criminals have surveillance cameras and people on watch? Anyone that would get into a gun battle with a SWAT team would be on guard and they'd be ready for the entry whether the police knocked or not.

Ones I've heard with our local swat they went no knock early in the morning and the suspects were still asleep. Beside them was loaded firearms, if they would have knocked and waited that would have given them the time needed to set up a defense at the door or baracde themselves in.

If no knocks warrants were as bad as everyone makes them out to be then why are deptments all over the US still using them? In the right situations they are very effective and that's why depts use them. Sometimes things go wrong but I would rather have the element of surprise rather than knock and wait for someone to decide to run out a window or stand and fight. Our local DEA use no knocks on 80% ( word of mouth by a local agent) of the warrants they execute for a reason, they work and provide the least amount of risk for officers. If anyone has any studies suggesting otherwise or someone who has executed warrants on dangerous suspects I'm all ears. Until then, I'm more inclined to listen to those who make a living doing such.

Well, I did make my living hunting criminals and executing warrants on dangerous suspects for over 21 years, and I believe that no knock warrants should be used only when there is strong evidence to believe that the suspects are violent and will shoot at police. An example would be a bank robbery team that has fired on police, guards, or customers.

I also believe that they should not be used in every circumstance where an officer can gin up some weak excuse for danger, e.g. the target has a CHL or is known to own firearms. According to that criterion, everyone on this forum qualifies for a no knock visit if a warrant is ever executed on their homes. I know from first hand experience that the potential for unnecessary casualties on both sides in these situations is high.

Officer safety is not well served by unnecessary use of this tactic, and it poses extreme danger to the citizens it is used on. In a Dallas incident a few years back, a police lieutenant was shot in the neck and suffered severe permanent injuries as he went through a bedroom window on a no-knock warrant. The woman who shot him said she believed the man in black who was jumping through her smashed window was a home invader. Although she was charged with assault on an LEO, she was acquitted because what she said made sense to the jury. That officer would be living a full and healthy life today if he and his team had knocked and announced themselves.

Successful police work depends upon the support of and respect from the community, and unnecessarily violent military tactics stretch the bonds between the people and their police. Police leaders need to reread the Constitution and remember that is they who serve their communities, not the other way around. The criterion for use of force should be the least that achieves a lawful purpose, not the most that can be gotten away with. That understanding appears to have been lost, and it needs to be restored before the relationship between communities and their police turns adversarial as it is in danger of doing today.

[Excaliber]

If I was going after a stash house with armed and violent felons I would want the element of surprise to rush in, get control of the suspects before they could get to their weapons. I would hate to have to knock and stand fast knowing they getting set up with their firearms pointed at the door waiting for you to enter. Who wants to be the first to go in?

What's that have to do with the case in question? In any case, really, how many drug dealers shoot it out with the police? I somehow doubt that most of them are "heroic" criminals ready to die in a volley of police gun fire. And come on, if this is some stash house with armed and violent felons, how would they not know they were about to be raided by the police? Wouldn't such dangerous criminals have surveillance cameras and people on watch? Anyone that would get into a gun battle with a SWAT team would be on guard and they'd be ready for the entry whether the police knocked or not.

Ones I've heard with our local swat they went no knock early in the morning and the suspects were still asleep. Beside them was loaded firearms, if they would have knocked and waited that would have given them the time needed to set up a defense at the door or baracde themselves in.

If no knocks warrants were as bad as everyone makes them out to be then why are deptments all over the US still using them? In the right situations they are very effective and that's why depts use them. Sometimes things go wrong but I would rather have the element of surprise rather than knock and wait for someone to decide to run out a window or stand and fight. Our local DEA use no knocks on 80% ( word of mouth by a local agent) of the warrants they execute for a reason, they work and provide the least amount of risk for officers. If anyone has any studies suggesting otherwise or someone who has executed warrants on dangerous suspects I'm all ears. Until then, I'm more inclined to listen to those who make a living doing such.

Well, I did make my living hunting criminals and executing warrants on dangerous suspects for over 21 years, and I believe that no knock warrants should be used only when there is strong evidence to believe that the suspects are violent and will shoot at police. An example would be a robbery team that has fired on police, guards, or customers.

I also believe that they should not be used in every circumstance where an officer can gin up some weak excuse for danger, e.g. the target has a CHL, is known to own firearms, or sleeps with a loaded firearm nearby. According to that criterion, everyone on this forum qualifies for a no knock visit if a warrant is ever executed on their homes.

People do not have full sensory awareness when they are violently jarred from sleep. They can easily miss the subdued lettering on tactical uniforms in the dark or the word "Police!" among other shouts and the sounds of breaking glass and splintering wood, and are likely to respond as they would to the home invasion they believe is happening. I know from first hand experience that the potential for unnecessary casualties on both sides in these situations is high and cannot be reasonably justified when the occupants of the target location have no history of violence.

Officer safety is not well served by indiscriminate use of this tactic either. It poses extreme danger to the citizens it is used on as well as to the officers who use it. In a Dallas incident a few years back, a police lieutenant was shot in the neck and suffered severe permanent injuries as he went through a bedroom window on a no-knock warrant. The woman who shot him said she believed the man in black who was jumping through her smashed window was a home invader. Although she was charged with assault on an LEO, she was acquitted because what she said made sense to the jury. That officer would be living a full and healthy life today if he and his team had knocked and announced themselves.

Successful police work depends upon the support of and respect from the community, and unnecessarily violent military tactics damage the bonds between the people and their police. Police leaders need to reread the Constitution and remember that is they who serve their communities, not the other way around. The criterion for use of force should be the least that achieves a lawful purpose, not the most that can be gotten away with. That understanding appears to have been lost, and it needs to be restored before the relationship between communities and their police turns adversarial as it is in danger of doing today.

[Dori]

If no knocks warrants were as bad as everyone makes them out to be then why are deptments all over the US still using them?

If cigarettes are as bad as everyone makes them out to be then why are people all over the world still using them?

[srothstein]

As another who has made a living chasing criminals, and now studies crime in a more academic fashion, I think Excaliber put it very well indeed. They are dangerous to everyone involved and help erode public support of the police. They are also a necessary tool for specific situations, just an overused tool.

[mojo84]

As another who has made a living chasing criminals, and now studies crime in a more academic fashion, I think Excaliber put it very well indeed. They are dangerous to everyone involved and help erode public support of the police. They are also a necessary tool for specific situations, just an overused tool.

Excaliber and srothstein are two of the more level headed posters on here and I I agree with them on this. Overused is the key word. There are times when such tactics are warranted but not near as often as they are used in this day and time.