Clinton Era Fun

Russell Turpin deafbox at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 22 02:56:32 PDT 2003


"James Rogers" <jamesr at best.com>:
>Courts have traditionally held that when police initiate violent action, 
>the person on the receiving end has the right to respond in kind even if 
>the police are nominally serving a legal function.  This is one of the 
>stronger arguments against "no-knock" raids ..

There have been times when such raids were carried
out against people who were entirely innocent,
either because the police had wrong information,
or because the police were simply at the wrong
house. Police and innocents have died when the
innocent victim defended himself against home
intruders that turned out to be the police. In my
view, this kind of police action is justified
ONLY in the most extreme circumstances, where
either (a) the suspect is holding innocent victims
and threatening them harm, or (b) the suspect has
holed himself up and refused to emerge. They are
NOT justified, in my opinion, merely to secure
evidence, though this is the usual justification
for conducting drug raids in this fashion.

In the case of Waco, David Koresh regularly
left his compound to go into town, for errands,
shopping, etc. There was no urgency to the
arrest warrant, and ATF could have arrested him
on any of his trips into town. It's hard to
understand why they acted as they did, except
that this kind of raid has become a normal part
of law enforcement.




_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



More information about the FoRK mailing list