Long-time readers of this blog (Hi Jack!) know that I am not a big one for the "war on drugs." Turns out I'm even more down on no-knock raids resulting in death when the alleged drug dealer is schizophrenic or actually dealing in japanese maples.In this case out of Seattle, an informer told police that a man was dealing pot, but it turned out to be japanese maples. When plainclothes police officers raided his home he opened fire, thinking police were the same people who had burglarized his home the week before. The man killed an officer, and is charged with first-degree murder.
"If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.
Really? Well check out this interactive map over at the Cato Institute showing just how many botch-ups there have been. Here's just a sample from my home state:
George and Katrina Stokes.April 11, 1990—DC
In 1990, Washington, D.C. police crash through the front door of George and Katrina Stokes, who live in a high-crime area in the Southeast sector of the city.
The elderly couple is watching television when the raid begins. George Stokes is ordered to the floor at gunpoint, gashing his head as he falls. A terrified Katrina Stokes then falls down the couple's cellar stairs while trying to flee.
Police have the wrong address. The raid is captured on camera by a local TV news crew, who happened to be in the area covering a protest.
Sourced:
Tom Morganthau, Mark Miller, David A. Kaplan, Todd Barrett, and Lynda Wright, "Uncivil Liberties," Newsweek, April 23, 1990, p. 18.
Frank Wolfe, "Police hit wrong home in search for handgun," Washington Times, April 13, 1990, p. B3.
I really think we need to reevaluate our tactics, especially when the "crime" is nonviolent such as the possession of drugs. I understand that there are meanie, The Wire-style drug dealers out there who really won't think twice about messing up a cop. On the other hand, in my college days I knew a drug dealer or two who looked exactly like every other middle class college kid and the only thing they were packing was natty light.
Posts
2 comments:
Yeah, I remember first reading about this case a little while ago when it popped up on some feed I keep an eye on. It reminded me of an article I read a little while back about the increased instances of near paramilitary raids on home poker games. As if a bunch of folks with some chips and salsa playing cards requires an armed response of any type. It's speaks to the very real danger that presents itself when a society allows its fear to override its reasoning. Do photographers on the metro really pose a terrorism risk? How about nail clippers at the airport? Should tasers be the automatic answer to every encounter between a police officer and someone that does not agree with their assessment of the situation? Do we automatically grant the side of 'right' to the police in every situation?
There was some similar case I remember reading about a while ago and while I can't remember the details it followed loosely along the lines of a man who had resisted an unlawful arrest, and the serious problems he then faced afterwards. The police had been quoted as saying that even if you believe the officer is totally in the wrong that you still have to obey them and do whatever they say. That doesn't really seem to jive with the actual law though (granted, I'm certainly no blood sucking law... er.. wonderful insightful lawyer).
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
Possibly even more specific to the article in question is: “An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
It must be said that the police are finding themselves more and more in life-threatening situations that require action for their own self defense, but that seems like all the more reason for using brains instead of brawn. Is bringing more weaponry and military tactics really the answer?
What a sad state we find ourselves in when the conversation isn't about protecting ourselves from the criminals, but from the police.
This kind of raid is exactly what a B.C. Supreme Court justice noted in a decision that exonerated a man of a possession and cultivation charge in B.C. court last month.Surprisingly,the Vancouver Province supported the decision and the crown stated they had no grounds for appeal.The police,of course,said they would not let the decision affect the way they did business.That'll be good news for the next guy who's door is smashed down by a squad of gun pointing para military police.The charge will again be tossed and then they will have to behave in a more reasonable and legal manner.Risking lives for a few pot plants is no longer legal in this province.
Post a Comment