Innocent MN Family Held At Gunpoint In SWAT No-Knock Warrant Raid

Dana7360

Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2014
15,147
13,592
2,405
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional I knew the problems that would come with this. It was a very irresponsible ruling especially since in my opinion it violates the second amendment.

This time no one was physically hurt but the house was damaged with the residents terrorized by the police.

The thing is, if the police had actually done their job, they would have known that they were raiding the wrong house. They had the real address of the criminal they were looking for but they were just too lazy to do their jobs correctly.

As a result, innocent people were terrorized.

If I lived in that house I would be looking for the meanest lawyer I could find to sue the police department and cops so that they're bankrupt. Maybe the people of Minnesota will wake up to what is happening and finally put a stop to it. Or maybe not. If not the people of Minnesota are going to keep getting sued and having to pay out countless millions of dollars that the city and state can't afford to pay.

 
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional I knew the problems that would come with this. It was a very irresponsible ruling especially since in my opinion it violates the second amendment.

This time no one was physically hurt but the house was damaged with the residents terrorized by the police.

The thing is, if the police had actually done their job, they would have known that they were raiding the wrong house. They had the real address of the criminal they were looking for but they were just too lazy to do their jobs correctly.

As a result, innocent people were terrorized.

If I lived in that house I would be looking for the meanest lawyer I could find to sue the police department and cops so that they're bankrupt. Maybe the people of Minnesota will wake up to what is happening and finally put a stop to it. Or maybe not. If not the people of Minnesota are going to keep getting sued and having to pay out countless millions of dollars that the city and state can't afford to pay.

OMG!! people were terrorized??

say it aint so,,,
 
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional I knew the problems that would come with this. It was a very irresponsible ruling especially since in my opinion it violates the second amendment.

This time no one was physically hurt but the house was damaged with the residents terrorized by the police.

The thing is, if the police had actually done their job, they would have known that they were raiding the wrong house. They had the real address of the criminal they were looking for but they were just too lazy to do their jobs correctly.

As a result, innocent people were terrorized.

If I lived in that house I would be looking for the meanest lawyer I could find to sue the police department and cops so that they're bankrupt. Maybe the people of Minnesota will wake up to what is happening and finally put a stop to it. Or maybe not. If not the people of Minnesota are going to keep getting sued and having to pay out countless millions of dollars that the city and state can't afford to pay.

Which Supreme Court case are you referring to?
 
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional I knew the problems that would come with this. It was a very irresponsible ruling especially since in my opinion it violates the second amendment.

This time no one was physically hurt but the house was damaged with the residents terrorized by the police.

The thing is, if the police had actually done their job, they would have known that they were raiding the wrong house. They had the real address of the criminal they were looking for but they were just too lazy to do their jobs correctly.

As a result, innocent people were terrorized.

If I lived in that house I would be looking for the meanest lawyer I could find to sue the police department and cops so that they're bankrupt. Maybe the people of Minnesota will wake up to what is happening and finally put a stop to it. Or maybe not. If not the people of Minnesota are going to keep getting sued and having to pay out countless millions of dollars that the city and state can't afford to pay.



Are the cops okay?
 
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional I knew the problems that would come with this. It was a very irresponsible ruling especially since in my opinion it violates the second amendment.

This time no one was physically hurt but the house was damaged with the residents terrorized by the police.

The thing is, if the police had actually done their job, they would have known that they were raiding the wrong house. They had the real address of the criminal they were looking for but they were just too lazy to do their jobs correctly.

As a result, innocent people were terrorized.

If I lived in that house I would be looking for the meanest lawyer I could find to sue the police department and cops so that they're bankrupt. Maybe the people of Minnesota will wake up to what is happening and finally put a stop to it. Or maybe not. If not the people of Minnesota are going to keep getting sued and having to pay out countless millions of dollars that the city and state can't afford to pay.



Are the cops okay?

Well they may be unemployed soon. And with good reason n
 
sorry folks-----I did not know-----there was a pro vs con case brought against
"NO KNOCK WARRANTS" ----to the Supreme Court? The big one?----the
federal supreme court?
 
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional
This is why I call you stupid. If the people on the Supreme Court are doing their jobs, it doesn't matter who is on the Supreme Court as judges. They are not supposed to have any political affiliation.

That has nothing to do with the story... It's actually something that should be known and talked about... But you treat politics like it's two fuck'n football teams. You AUTOMATICALLY put it as if this is a partisan issue.
 
Last edited:
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional I knew the problems that would come with this. It was a very irresponsible ruling especially since in my opinion it violates the second amendment.

This time no one was physically hurt but the house was damaged with the residents terrorized by the police.

The thing is, if the police had actually done their job, they would have known that they were raiding the wrong house. They had the real address of the criminal they were looking for but they were just too lazy to do their jobs correctly.

As a result, innocent people were terrorized.

If I lived in that house I would be looking for the meanest lawyer I could find to sue the police department and cops so that they're bankrupt. Maybe the people of Minnesota will wake up to what is happening and finally put a stop to it. Or maybe not. If not the people of Minnesota are going to keep getting sued and having to pay out countless millions of dollars that the city and state can't afford to pay.

Tennessee State Senate, this month passed SB1380, a bill that bans magistrates from signing a warrant to enter for search or apprehension without announcing, effectively ending "No Knock" warrants inside the state by all state law enforcement agencies. Bill also bans choke holds unless officer is under impression deadly force is authorized. Bill was approved unanimously in the Senate, Ayes 33, Nays 0. Bill has now moved to the TN House of Representatives.
1619970007256.png
 
sorry folks-----I did not know-----there was a pro vs con case brought against
"NO KNOCK WARRANTS" ----to the Supreme Court? The big one?----the
federal supreme court?
The only case I can think of, that the poster is referring to about No Knock warrants was 9-0, written by Justince Thomas...and that was the Wilson v Arkansas case....where the Court actually said the State must Knock and Announce...but that Knock and Anncounce is part of the reasonableness test, and that it's possible to get around if the State can show that there would put the officers life in an unreasonable risk, or unreasonably lead to the destruction of evidence.
 
sorry folks-----I did not know-----there was a pro vs con case brought against
"NO KNOCK WARRANTS" ----to the Supreme Court? The big one?----the
federal supreme court?
The only case I can think of, that the poster is referring to about No Knock warrants was 9-0, written by Justince Thomas...and that was the Wilson v Arkansas case....where the Court actually said the State must Knock and Announce...but that Knock and Anncounce is part of the reasonableness test, and that it's possible to get around if the State can show that there would put the officers life in an unreasonable risk, or unreasonably lead to the destruction of evidence.
Doesn't that basically allow it then?
 
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional I knew the problems that would come with this. It was a very irresponsible ruling especially since in my opinion it violates the second amendment.

This time no one was physically hurt but the house was damaged with the residents terrorized by the police.

The thing is, if the police had actually done their job, they would have known that they were raiding the wrong house. They had the real address of the criminal they were looking for but they were just too lazy to do their jobs correctly.

As a result, innocent people were terrorized.

If I lived in that house I would be looking for the meanest lawyer I could find to sue the police department and cops so that they're bankrupt. Maybe the people of Minnesota will wake up to what is happening and finally put a stop to it. Or maybe not. If not the people of Minnesota are going to keep getting sued and having to pay out countless millions of dollars that the city and state can't afford to pay.

You just have to find the most Jewish one lol
 
sorry folks-----I did not know-----there was a pro vs con case brought against
"NO KNOCK WARRANTS" ----to the Supreme Court? The big one?----the
federal supreme court?
The only case I can think of, that the poster is referring to about No Knock warrants was 9-0, written by Justince Thomas...and that was the Wilson v Arkansas case....where the Court actually said the State must Knock and Announce...but that Knock and Anncounce is part of the reasonableness test, and that it's possible to get around if the State can show that there would put the officers life in an unreasonable risk, or unreasonably lead to the destruction of evidence.
Doesn't that basically allow it then?
well yeah...it was allowed...but the idea that it was "Conservative" Court is silly...it was a 9-0 case.

The reasonableness test has always been the test when it comes to the Constitution and no-knock warrants.

The States, and some have, can restrict it though
 
sorry folks-----I did not know-----there was a pro vs con case brought against
"NO KNOCK WARRANTS" ----to the Supreme Court? The big one?----the
federal supreme court?
The only case I can think of, that the poster is referring to about No Knock warrants was 9-0, written by Justince Thomas...and that was the Wilson v Arkansas case....where the Court actually said the State must Knock and Announce...but that Knock and Anncounce is part of the reasonableness test, and that it's possible to get around if the State can show that there would put the officers life in an unreasonable risk, or unreasonably lead to the destruction of evidence.
Doesn't that basically allow it then?

seems to me it does I actually have a PERSONAL experience. A cop BROKE INTO my apartment door after knocking because he heard my 2 year old son crying and for some BIZAARE reason he seemed to think that the kid was left alone. I made no issue of it at all-----the poor cop believed he was doing a good deed ??? Apparently -----USE OF DISCRETION is ok
 
This is why I call you stupid. If the people on the Supreme Court are doing their jobs, it doesn't matter who is on the Supreme Court as judges. They are not supposed to have any political affiliation.

That has nothing to do with the story... It's actually something that should be known and talked about... But you treat politics like it's two fuck'n football teams. You AUTOMATICALLY put it as if this is a partisan issue.
The OP'er is an idiot.

The SCOTUS ruled in that case that knocking was mandatory due to the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. They did leave room for discrepancy for the lower courts to decide.
 
sorry folks-----I did not know-----there was a pro vs con case brought against
"NO KNOCK WARRANTS" ----to the Supreme Court? The big one?----the
federal supreme court?
The only case I can think of, that the poster is referring to about No Knock warrants was 9-0, written by Justince Thomas...and that was the Wilson v Arkansas case....where the Court actually said the State must Knock and Announce...but that Knock and Anncounce is part of the reasonableness test, and that it's possible to get around if the State can show that there would put the officers life in an unreasonable risk, or unreasonably lead to the destruction of evidence.
Doesn't that basically allow it then?
well yeah...it was allowed...but the idea that it was "Conservative" Court is silly...it was a 9-0 case.

The reasonableness test has always been the test when it comes to the Constitution and no-knock warrants.

The States, and some have, can restrict it though



Actually no.


Since the Court had recently concluded that 15 to 20 seconds was “reasonable” and that such a “call [wa]s a close one,” surely cutting that time down to 3 to 5 seconds would fall on the unreasonable side of the line. And the Court found that it did. But then something really strange happened.
A 5-4 Supreme Court majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia decided that the Constitutional violation simply did not matter. The arrest was preceded by a proper warrant. As per the warrant, they were looking for drugs and guns, and found them. If the police had not violated the knock and announce rule, the guns and drugs would have been found anyway. Thus, no suppression was necessary. Justice Antonin Scalia was able to make such a ruling based on a little word puzzle. In earlier knock and announce cases, a constitutional violation was sufficient to require the exclusion of evidence. In this case, a constitutional violation became necessary to consider excluding evidence. By converting the standard from sufficient to necessary, the Supreme Court now could choose not to uphold a constitutional right whenever a majority feels like it.
To simplify:

Before Scalia, violation sufficient to exclude evidence, or violation = sufficient. All violations are sufficient to invoke Constitution.
After Scalia, violation necessary to exclude evidence, or violation > necessary. Not all violations invoke the Constitution.
 
sorry folks-----I did not know-----there was a pro vs con case brought against
"NO KNOCK WARRANTS" ----to the Supreme Court? The big one?----the
federal supreme court?
The only case I can think of, that the poster is referring to about No Knock warrants was 9-0, written by Justince Thomas...and that was the Wilson v Arkansas case....where the Court actually said the State must Knock and Announce...but that Knock and Anncounce is part of the reasonableness test, and that it's possible to get around if the State can show that there would put the officers life in an unreasonable risk, or unreasonably lead to the destruction of evidence.
Doesn't that basically allow it then?
well yeah...it was allowed...but the idea that it was "Conservative" Court is silly...it was a 9-0 case.

The reasonableness test has always been the test when it comes to the Constitution and no-knock warrants.

The States, and some have, can restrict it though



Actually no.


Since the Court had recently concluded that 15 to 20 seconds was “reasonable” and that such a “call [wa]s a close one,” surely cutting that time down to 3 to 5 seconds would fall on the unreasonable side of the line. And the Court found that it did. But then something really strange happened.
A 5-4 Supreme Court majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia decided that the Constitutional violation simply did not matter. The arrest was preceded by a proper warrant. As per the warrant, they were looking for drugs and guns, and found them. If the police had not violated the knock and announce rule, the guns and drugs would have been found anyway. Thus, no suppression was necessary. Justice Antonin Scalia was able to make such a ruling based on a little word puzzle. In earlier knock and announce cases, a constitutional violation was sufficient to require the exclusion of evidence. In this case, a constitutional violation became necessary to consider excluding evidence. By converting the standard from sufficient to necessary, the Supreme Court now could choose not to uphold a constitutional right whenever a majority feels like it.
To simplify:

Before Scalia, violation sufficient to exclude evidence, or violation = sufficient. All violations are sufficient to invoke Constitution.
After Scalia, violation necessary to exclude evidence, or violation > necessary. Not all violations invoke the Constitution.
it didn’t as far as suppressing the evidence i. that case because there was an exception allowing the evidence in

that’s a totally different issue
 
I see we have another liberal more concerned about their supply of weed than of the safety of our fellow citizens.
 
When the conservative Supreme Court ruled no knock warrants constitutional I knew the problems that would come with this. It was a very irresponsible ruling especially since in my opinion it violates the second amendment.

This time no one was physically hurt but the house was damaged with the residents terrorized by the police.

The thing is, if the police had actually done their job, they would have known that they were raiding the wrong house. They had the real address of the criminal they were looking for but they were just too lazy to do their jobs correctly.

As a result, innocent people were terrorized.

If I lived in that house I would be looking for the meanest lawyer I could find to sue the police department and cops so that they're bankrupt. Maybe the people of Minnesota will wake up to what is happening and finally put a stop to it. Or maybe not. If not the people of Minnesota are going to keep getting sued and having to pay out countless millions of dollars that the city and state can't afford to pay.

OMG!! people were terrorized??

say it aint so,,,
So, you approve.
 

Forum List

Back
Top