No-Knock Warrant Controversy Continues As Amir Locke’s Juvenile Cousin Arrested on Homicide Charges
Oddly, the only no-knock warrant was for the apartment in which Locke was killed, not for the suspect’s legal address.
The more I learn about the no-knock warrant that resulted in the police shooting death of Amir Locke, the more incensed I become.
The 22-year-old Locke was asleep on the couch when a SWAT team stormed the residence and shot him dead within 10 seconds of their arrival. Locke was reportedly a legal gun owner with a carry permit and was gunned down as he roused from sleep—at the sound of the SWAT team’s riotous and undisciplined entrance—and grabbed his legally-owned and -permitted weapon, seemingly in groggy response to the chaotic SWAT invasion.
We are now learning not only that the warrant did not name Locke but that the person on the warrant, a juvenile cousin of Locke’s who has since been arrested in the underlying homicide investigation, didn’t even reside at that address.
Apparently, law enforcement was informed that the juvenile suspect in an ongoing homicide investigation “stayed” at the apartment in which Locke was gunned down by police. That gossip was somehow grounds for seeking, and for a judge signing, a no-knock warrant . . . on the dwelling of law-abiding citizens at which the suspect might be couch surfing.
A 17-year-old was arrested Monday in connection to a homicide investigation that led to the death of Amir Locke, who was shot and killed by a Minneapolis police officer last week during a predawn “no-knock” raid.
The teenager was identified as Locke’s cousin in court documents. Prosecutors have charged him with second-degree murder in the Jan. 10 fatal shooting of 38-year-old Otis Rodney Elder.
Charging documents provide some new details about the investigation that led to the fatal encounter with Locke, 22, who was not named in the search warrant. Officers from the Minneapolis Police Department were executing the warrant as part of the St. Paul homicide investigation, interim Police Chief Amelia Huffman said last week.
Police tracked the teenage suspect and his associates to the Bolero Flats apartment building in Minneapolis, ultimately executing search warrants on three apartments: the one the teen lived in with his mother; another apartment two doors down connected to his associate; and an apartment belonging to the girlfriend of the teen’s brother seven floors down. Minneapolis police say the last apartment where Locke was killed was the only one with a “no-knock warrant.”
. . . . St. Paul police had obtained search warrants as part of their investigation into Elder’s death, including a warrant for the downtown Minneapolis apartment where Locke’s family said he had been staying. Minneapolis Interim Police Chief Amelia Huffman has said her department had warrants that would have required authorities to knock and not knock. Huffman has said that Locke was not named in the search warrants. (emphasis mine)
How is this even possible? This no-knock warrant was issued on the residence of American citizens who have no apparent criminal record, yet not on the residence of the homicide suspect. The suspect was not even in the residence at the time of the raid. How does this happen? They didn’t surveil the apartment, at least ensure that the suspect was there before barging in like bit players in a bad leftie movie about American troops in Iraq?
No-knock warrants, I noted previously, “carry with them the assumption that everyone in the warranted dwelling/site is not only a potential and immediate lethal threat to the invading SWAT team but also is a criminal, has criminal intent, or is otherwise unworthy of basic legal rights. Due process, in other words, is thrown out the window with these no-knock warrants.” And in this case, it swept up an innocent occupant, Amir Locke, who was ambushed as he slept and shot to death within 10 seconds of a SWAT team swarming the apartment.
I have no words. This is disgusting, and there is no place for this sort of war-zone treatment of American citizens on American soil by American law enforcement.
I know that there are political angles to this, but frankly, I don’t care whether the left is racializing this tragic outcome or that the vile, race-baiting shyster Ben Crumb represents the Locke family. I don’t live in the racist “antiracist” upside-down dystopian fantasy world. I live in a world where right is right and wrong is wrong. And here, I think, a great wrong has been done.
Race hustlers are going to race hustle no matter what. And personally, I don’t believe this great injustice is about race; I think it’s about the mission creep that has infected law enforcement stateside. They have become so militarized that they have completely lost the plot and are running “missions” against American citizens on American soil with no regard for our God-given and Constitutional rights.
I cannot think of one solid instance where a no-knock warrant would make any sense at all. The offerings from supporters of this anti-American perversion of ‘public safety’ burble about imminent threats to human life, but that is nonsensical since law enforcement needs no warrant to enter any dwelling or building when human life is at imminent risk.
In this case, they were reportedly acting on a weeks-old single (i.e., not a rampaging shooter or serial killer about to pounce) homicide investigation; there was no imminent threat to innocents . . .unless you count that from the overly-aggressive and egregious SWAT invasion of a private home by law enforcement treating American cities like Fallujah and American citizens like jihadi combatants.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
The judge who signed off on this warrant needs some sort of swift and sure punishment. I’m thinking Mussolini or Ceausescu-style.
Why? He was presented with evidence and asied for the warrant. Did he sign all 3 at the same time? Did others ask other judges for other warrants? Did the leasee of this apartment have a different record than those 9f the other apartments causing them to ask for a different type of warrant? Sounds more like it was on those who asked, jot the judge.
The same judge put Darren Chauvin away.
But also the guy named on the search warrant was in that apartment when police/fire were called not that long ago.
Was Locke really a legal gun owner w/ a concealed carry permit or is that just what Ben Crump says?
A good question, but, not every black male is disqualified.
Kind of amazing that people still repeat stuff Ben Crump says as though it comes from an authoritative source. I mean maybe Locke was good guy, but Ben Crump saying he was doesn’t establish anything of the kind.
If anything, Crump saying it raises suspicions of their own.
That’s a fair point about Crump. In the absence of evidence to the contrary how about we apply a simple presumption of innocence standard to Mr Locke?
Whether or not that detail is correct is irrelevant. Amir Locke wasn’t the suspect. The suspect wasn’t located in the apartment. The police had warrants for multiple living spaces, a certain indication that they were unsure of the location of the suspect. Amir Locke reacted in a manner consistent with many innocent persons in the same situation. People blowing through the door of a residence in the middle of the night are almost guaranteed a rude reception from many Americans, no matter that the intruders are shouting that they are police and issuing commands. ANYONE can do that. Police know this but use no-knock warrants anyway because they’ve been taught their daily objective is to go home safely at the ends of their shifts. If it’s safety they want, they should look for other work.
Wasnt the middle of the night. It was morning. Had the target been there, he couldve taken Locke hostage while police stood in the hallway asking permission to come in.
Police should not have to risk their oives more than necessary because parents keep raising criminals.
And finally, after the announcements of police, search warrant, hands, drop it and get onthe floor, Locke decided to pick his weapon up and turn towards police. They were looking for a suspected murderer who had been violent with police in the past. They DIDNT know it wasnt who they were looking for. In basic training, inthe military, you have 3 seconds when woke up to react ‘naturally’, then you need to obey commands. A person with at least 1 criminal who is known to stay where he was staying, Locke had a reasonablie idea, police would come looking, or the family of his victims. Its sad, but the police in that room, did nothing wrong.
Hard to do survailience in an apartment building full of people who are told police are the enemy, who shelter criminals by choice.
Sorry it’s the polices job to investigate and make reasonable assessments of the situation. Instead they burst into a man’s home and shot him dead all because as far as I can tell they couldn’t be bothered to do any police work. It’s lazy. The very fact the police knew practically fuck all about the suspect, where he lived, the situation he was in, his location etc etc points to it being a poorly run operation.
No offence who the hell cares what the military teach with respect to waking up. Are you seriously suggesting that every person in the USA is held to that standard when in there own home even where they don’t have that training and even assuming that’s accurate?
The suspect lived in apt 1402 with his mother. One of his friends frequented apt 1403 and his brother/brother’s girlfriend lived in 701, where Amir Locke was asleep on the couch. There was a reason for each of these warrants; also, Speed had been in 701 when there was a fire call in January. It’s completely reasonable to look for a suspect in places he has been known to be; however, they found him 75 mi away.
A true statement, but it presumes that the original question arose from a racial bias. Such bias is not to be found therein, unless one is specifically looking for it.
From what I can gather this information was gleaned from Locke’s father (I noted it in my original post on this travesty).
I think the right makes a mistake when we dismiss an obvious miscarriage of justice because Crump (or name your favorite lunatic radical fringe freak) is involved, accidentally, on the right side of an issue. We have to think for ourselves, not react emotionally based on who is “for” or “against” what is right. /just my two cents, that and $6 will buy you a pound of ground beef or less than two gallons of gas in Biden’s America
The left has spent a decade tossing out the rule of law and replacing it with naked tribalism. These are the new rules and it’s time we started playing by them.
People had to learn the hard way why tribalism is worse, overall, than equality under the law. They’re going to have to learn again.
I agree we need to play be the leftists rules but I disagree the police are in our tribe. Look at the FBI, Capitol Police, Michigan, Canada, Loudoun County, etc, etc, etc.
It’s time to put the police back in the box.
Never forget, some of the greatest protections of our rights were codified from trials of some of our worst thugs. The Miranda Rule, for example, arose from the trial of a violent kidnapper/rapist.
The Miranda rule doesn’t protect anyone’s rights. A citizen should know his rights. If he doesn’t. well la-dee-da. Our citizens locked up in DC for trespassing for over a year have a right to both a speedy trial and the evidence against them. And neither has happened. And they know their rights, and the courts refuse to take action.
The miscarrige of justice is not charging the 17 year old for Lockes death.
If a pers9n drinks and drives, then someone else hit them as they are doing everything by the book, speed limit, signals, etc, it is still the drunks fault and they will be charged with manslaughter if someone dies. Locke was shot for turning towards police with a gun in his hand. The 17 year old caused that.
“We have to think for ourselves, not react emotionally based on who is “for” or “against” what is right.”
True, but you’ve just described about half the commenters here – emotional reactionaries who see those with whom they disagree as the enemy, not deserving of presumption of good faith.
It isn’t as irrational as you think; Mehdi Speed was a suspect in a murder, drug deal gone bad, and the three apartments in the same buildingwere a) the one he lived in; b) the one his brother/brother’s gf lived in, where their cousin was killed and c) the one next door to his, where his friend was known to frequent.
There’s a ton of crime here and the suspect is a violent man and killed someone for basically no reason, which is good reason for a no knock warrant.
I find it unlikely that Medhi Speed’s family had no idea that he was involved with drugs and was a killer; it seems a bit odd that Amir Locke would sleep gun in hand in the living room. Most of the home invasions seem to be actual houses and mostly strangers.
You can see from the freeze frame Crump was lying about how Locke was holding the gun. Lying is a good starting assumption for everything that guy says.
If the autopsy and tox screen show positive for marijuana or other controlled substances, then no he was not and the alleged CCW is void as well.
18 U.S. Code § 922 (g)(3)
(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(3)who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
If Locke had a criminal record or was not a legal gun owner, the police department would have publicized that – as if it was any excuse.
No knock warrants should only be used in a rescue situation. Warrants served outside of normal business hours should have a very specific reason as to why they cannot be served during daylight hours (meth production only happens at night, so that’s the only time we can arrest them).
First, an “active” threat ( rescue or whatever) doesn’t require a warrant in any case.
Second, warrants are routinely served in off hours for a variety of reasons such as ( but not limited to)- not giving a suspect “safe times”, minimizing public exposure, catching off guard, operational security, reducing situational awareness and sensory deprivation etc.
That system works well and does minimize the totality of risks overall and is more effective.
This particular incident is not proof of a flawed warrant execution “process” as much as it highlights flaws in numerous areas.
A couple observations from the civil war zone, Minneapolis. When asking about domicile, it is not “where do you live” but rather “where you stay at?”
Apartments here are often rented by women, but on moving day many men not on the application also move in, many with criminal records.
The cousin murderer was released after serving one year for shooting another man.
Minnesota is still under an eviction freeze due to C-19. The landlord wanted to evict but was prevented from doing so.
Just yesterday, a bus driver was shot in the head & a 15 year old quarterback also shot; both in the ghetto, north Minneapolis.
The quarterback has since died. Thanks for the further info about the desired eviction; I had no idea.
There was no “no knock warrant” in this case. If the officers announce their presence and state the reason for their entry, the warrant does not qualify as a “no knock.”
More importantly, Locke’s conduct is explicity prohibited by Minnesota law.
Sec. 609.06 MN Statutes states in relevant part:
Subd. 2 .Deadly force used against peace officers. Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
The fact that the officers had a valid warrant provides probable cause that criminal activity occured at that location.
Furthermore, if Locke tests positive for marijauna or other controlled substances, he was NOT legally armed and the alleged permit is void under 18 USC 922 (g)(3)
(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(3)who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
“At the other apartment, one person was present but not Speed or his associates. Investigators seized a “large amount” of marijuana from that apartment.”
1. Locke was NOT legally armed.
2. Locke’s actions upon entry constitute felony assault with a firearm under Minnesota law.
3. “No knock warrants” have nothing to do with this case because the officers announced their presence and stated the purpose for the entry.
a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult
Don’t see you supporting that portion of this requirement with evidence.
The fact that the officers had a valid warrant provides probable cause that criminal activity occured at that location.
Note the tense of the verbs. “OccurrED” is NOT the same as “occurrING“. There’s a reason that distinction is made in the law you cite.
Nice spin, but wrong. Your incorrect interpretation would restrict the provision to situations such a robberies in progress. Futhermore, your erroneous interpreation leaves out the concept of continuous and ongoing crimes such as in this case.
What on earth are you talking about? The suspect was arrested for a homicide he allegedly committed on Jan. 10. There has not been a murmur of “continuous and ongoing crimes” by the suspect (beyond his own record prior to the alleged homicide) or by Locke himself. Do you just make stuff up and hope it will stick? That won’t fly here, JD.
How is this a “continuous and ongoing crime”?!
And yes, the first bit SHOULD be restricted to actual ongoing crimes. If you kick in my door in the middle of the night and start what is arguably a violent attack on me I should be allowed to shoot back at you – if I’m not in the act of committing a crime in the first place.
I’m going to guess that little caveat was inserted precisely because cops were justifying shooting innocents because “well, I’m a COP!”
This is why I think no-knocks should be much more restrictive. They are a tool that assumes (as you have noted below) you’re going into a war zone with “enemy combatants” on the other side of the door, instead of entering someone’s HOME which they are living in as a free citizen of the very sovereign state kicking in their door. Sorry, but that mentality is absolutely wrong.
And my interpretation of that legal language isn’t based on what I want it to be, but on what the actual words mean. If you can’t see that, then I think you must be sniffing the mothball fumes from your old robes.
As to the marijuana, I found this with a quick search:
In recent years, Minnesota has partially legalized cannabis – both hemp and medical marijuana.
So, even the presence of it in his system does not automatically make him an illegal possessor of a firearm in that case.
Yes it does.
Medical Marijuana Patients in Minnesota Seek Gun Rights
Minnesota lawmaker seeks changes to let medical cannabis patients get gun permits.
Why federal regulations are likely to keep lawful gun owners away from Minnesota’s medical cannabis program
Just an FYI, JD, our filter automatically holds comments with multiple links to prevent spam. I’m sitting here right now, so I could approve the last two of your multi-link comments, but I’m about to finish up my comment mod shift, so I wanted to alert you that multiple links will hang up your comments until the next comment mod frees them. 🙂
You are correct in that you quoted federal law. I stand corrected on that legalism.
It is arguable whether that jurisdiction is constitutionally applicable, but current law makes it illegal.
JD, this is all complete claptrap.
First, you write, “There was no “no knock warrant” in this case. If the officers announce their presence and state the reason for their entry, the warrant does not qualify as a “no knock.”
You provide a link that completely undermines your statement. At that link YOU provided, a no-knock warrant is defined as warranted entry “without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises.” Watch the body cam footage again, do you see anyone knocking or announcing their presence PRIOR to entering the premises with a key? Oh, right, no, you do not. Because they did not.
You then write, “The fact that the officers had a valid warrant provides probable cause that criminal activity occured [sic] at that location.”
Yep, that’s the problem with these no-knock warrants, everyone present is presumed to be guilty of criminal activity, including any person’s residence that somehow attracts warrant attention–through family gossip (or deliberate misdirection the police were too stupid to consider?) about where a family member and suspect might be staying–but at which no known criminal activity occurred. But hey, let’s barge in and shout stuff and fatally shoot an innocent man within 10 seconds of gaining entry. Woots! What a win.
If Locke had tested positive for any drug disqualifying him from legal gun ownership, we would have heard about it by now. You do not seem to be acting in good faith here. There is no reason at all to believe that Locke was not in legal possession of that firearm (and again, we would surely have heard about it if he weren’t).
And I don’t even know what to say about this statement: “Locke’s actions upon entry constitute felony assault with a firearm under Minnesota law.” This is ridiculous on its face and belied by the bodycam footage.
Dude, remind me if I ever need a lawyer to avoid you like the plague. I’ve rarely seen such absolute garbage peddled by an actual attorney. Well, I have, but it was Ben Crump.
Wrong. But your misinformed opinion is noted. I provided cites. You did not.
They let themselves in with a key, Einstein. Then started yelling.
They hold autopsy results all the time, waiting on drug panels, unless its a private autopsy done by telephone to justify a terrorist attack on a city, like the 2nd George Floyd autopsy.
Even if something didnt disqualify him from gun ownership, was he drunk or high when he went to sleep? On a sleeping pill? 10 seconds is an eternity in a situation involving weapons. The military gives you 3 seconds for natural reactions when you wake up. Bit, legal weapon or not, legal handling or not, no one has the right to brandish towards police.
I’d have to guess that “Juris Doctor” is not a lawyer. Maybe in his own mind, yes, but not on any bar rolls. I’d have to say, given his lack of reasoning power he likely never graduated from law school. He thinks links to news outlets are a form of a legal citation.
Jeez, do you never tire of humiliating yourself. On the original post you jumped to the conclusion that Amir Locke apparently had a criminal record in WI simply because in your social circles Amir Locke isn’t a common name and WI is right next door.
WTFO? Locke isn’t an especially rare surname. It’s probably nearly as common as Smith or Johnson. Oh, whoops! here are pro basketball player Amir Jalla Johnson’s career stats:
I did two minutes of searching and found that Amir Rahkale Locke, 22, of St. Paul MN is an entirely different person from Amir Marcello Locke, 36, of Milwaukee WI. I couldn’t find too much for free as to the specifics of Amir Marcello Locke’s extensive criminal record. Just that he had one, while the file for Amir Rahkale Locke was not similarly flagged. I did find that the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept. booked Amir Locke into the Kenosha municipal pre-trial detention facility on 11/26/2012 due to a federal agency hold.
Which means the feds wanted to bring Amir Locke in front of a judge on some pending matter.
Which Amir Locke do you imagine the feds wanted to introduce to the judge. genius? Then 12 y.o. Amir R. Locke, or then 24 y.o. Amir M Locke? Which Amir Locke do you think had the extensive criminal record dating back even before 2012?
And now here you are falsely claiming that Amir R. Locke acted illegally when even a convicted felon can be acquitted of charges if the cops raid into an apartment before dawn without giving the person they shock out of a deep sleep time to get their bearings. I’ve got numerous examples of felons successfully making the case for lawful self-defense.
Difference being Amir R. Locke wouldn’t have been prosecuted for felon in possession of a firearm because, derr! He wasn’t a felon. The felons who are acquitted on any use of force charges still go to prison for that.
You have to be alive to go to prison.
Keep embarrassing yourself. I’ll make some popcorn.
And the two minutes of using people search engines was on the original comment thread, motivated by your bizarre, inane, nonsensical leaping to unsupported conclusions. I see you haven’t learned a thing. Good, good. The world is more entertaining with people like you in it.
You do realise we are talking about not just the law but what the law should be right? The idea that you can burst into someone’s home and within 10 seconds open fire on a sleeping person is pretty damn awful. Clearly you need to have a threat in order to justify that which wasn’t the case based on what we know.
They had both types of search warrants issued for all 3 apartments; he and his mom lived in one and one of his associates frequented the other which is my guess for the one the drugs and person were found in. At least that seems more likely than the one he lived in with his mom, otherwise, since they said his brother and brothers gf were home in their apartment.
No, this situation accurately why a no knock warrant is necessary. Amir Locke is dead because he associated with a cousin whom I will say he knew to be a criminal at minimum, a murderer at max. I have no sympathy here. I have family members who are hardened criminals, on both my Momma and Daddy’s side and I don’t associate with any of them because I know I run the risk of being caught up in their nonsense, either with other criminals or with the police. The no knock warrant is not why Amir Locke is dead. Amir Locke is dead because he hung around his good for nothing criminal of a cousin and had a gun on him at the time the cops breached one of the premises they requested a warrant for. Should the family see the cops for wrongful death? Sure, but ultimately that blood is on the hands of his own family and they know it and frankly so does anyone commenting on this issue.
You seem to be stating support for ignoring any presumption of innocence standard and replacing it with one in which mere alleged, not yet proven, association, is paramount. You then utilize this standard to argue that because of this alleged association Locke ‘had it coming’ or ‘got what he deserved’.
Under our constitutional system a citizen is supposed to enjoy the presumption of innocence to live their lives unimpeded by agents of the State. Part of that is exercise of 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms and 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches.
IMO and many others, shooting a citizen in their residence during the course of a tactical entry to serve a warrant is highly unreasonable. Especially when there doesn’t appear to have been any specific Intel gathered to support this choice. In fact the PD requested three separate warrants to be simultaneously served because they themselves couldn’t decide which location the subject of the warrant was in.
That alone, IMO, undermines the legitimacy of the warrant precisely because LEO were not held to choosing ‘the particular place to be searched’ as required in our Constitution.
Chief, you said what I wanted to say so much better than I. Thank you! 🙂
Not exactly regarding the “presumption of innocence” but that’s a widely misunderstood and subsequently misused term.
The “presumption of innocence” ONLY attaches and applies in a COURT during a TRIAL and is even then ONLY applicable to a jury and judge.
That is a check and balance on the judicial and trial process and the state.
Law enforcement does NOT have such a presumption and never has or will in the execution of their duties.
Neither does a prosecutor.
Actually their jobs require them to execute the tenets under a presumption of GUILT.
And like other urban legends such as popular election of a president or the US being a “democracy”- there has NEVER been a “presumption of innocence” requirement expressed, required or law as applied to LE or a prosecutor. The entire concept is a Hollywood created mythos.
That’s just the plain and simple historical fact regarding US law. It has never been anything but.
Clearly you are correct in that and I probably shouldn’t have used a linguistic short cut. However what I am attempting to contrast is the attitude of the commenter with my own.
He seems to unreservedly and reflexively support every action of LEO as not only necessary and proper but beyond any criticism much less reproach. My own view is that LEO should be, by virtue of higher levels of training, be held to a higher standard of care if you will than a normal Citizen. Further I don’t limit my criticism to LEO,.far from it.
A judge reviewing three warrant applications for a single person should be asking LEO for more info as to why they can’t decide upon a ‘particular place’ to be searched. I fail to see why limiting issuance to a single warrant is objectionable. The subject can only be in one place at a time. Simple surveillance would reveal which one. Lack of resources can’t be the reason to allow LEO to utilize limits tactics to raid alternative locations and in this instance with deadly consequences to, as.far as.we.know, an innocent civilian.
The misguided war on drugs and the later Patriot act along with sending LEO surplus military equipment has changed the nature of law enforcement and the relationship between LEO and Citizens for the worse. IMO, anyone arguing that the death of Mr Locke is acceptable collateral damage is essentially arguing that the ends justify the means. That is a road long paved with bad outcomes leading directly to tyranny.
I read you Lima Charlie and knew exactly what you were saying and meant. ( and agreed with it)
I posted that for the audience benefit who may not have actually been on the trail.
As you see from my other posts, I am a heavy LEO supporter and i also hold LE to that higher standard you speak of.
That’s why I do NOT agree with this being a legitimate use of deadly force ( again, based ONLY on the evidence presented so far)
YOUR COMMENT>>A judge reviewing three warrant applications for a single person should be asking LEO for more info as to why they can’t decide upon a ‘particular place’ to be searched. I fail to see why limiting issuance to a single warrant is objectionable. The subject can only be in one place at a time.
This is why I have stated the affidavit submitted for the warrants and what it contains is critical to seeing what exactly happened.
The NKW provision is unusual for a purely evidentiary warrant unless there was a reasonable expectation or belief the suspect would be there. If he was “suspected” to be there then that usually implies a level of surveillance by someone.
The fact its 3 locations tells me this was an evidence warrant and not primarily an arrest warrant. (Its normal for a evidentiary warrant to be issued for multiple known habitations when hunting evidence because you never know what may be stashed there)
Too many pieces missing
Whatever type of warrant was issued is frankly immaterial, IMO. What matters far more are the tactics used in executing the warrant.
Lets use basic terms that don’t allow for confusion. Soft = knock and wait until an occupant comes to the door and a conversation ensues re the warrant. Hard = any other scenario where LEO enter tactically without that conversation with the occupant.
IMO use of hard tactics should be limited to very extreme situations and provable threat environments at that location. If that makes LEO mission more complex while preventing the circumstances Mr Locke found himself in then it’s a fair trade-off.
Single warrant in a society where parents dont make their children behave and obey the law. Where the parents dont make their children live at home, allowing them to roam the city, stay ehere they want. Where, as a convicted criminal he wasnt made to give the true address where he lived, and actually live there. And an entire section of society who actively try to work against LE, to protect murderers over honest citizens. Where there are no consequences for falifying records, lying anout homeless status so you can get low bail and free lawyers. What should police have done? Roam the halls asking neighbors where the suspect stays the most? Send him a text and ask where he will be sleeping on tuesday so they can come arrest him? Only serve 1 warrant, when he isnt there and they receive no information because everyone protectsthe criminal, then wait to get another warrant, giving him time to leave or take hostages?
Tell you what; you go back and work through your list of societal problems and apply the Constitution as a filter. What you will discover is that LEO, however difficult their job, are supposed to be constrained by the Constitution. There are not any exceptions because the LEO is trying to arrest a violent person.
PD create policies for use of force and for serving warrants that seek to minimize their risk while shifting risk to the citizen. That’s not acceptable. There must be a more balanced approach to the risks inherent in kinetic or dynamic entry raids.
If the presence of firearms or past violence is an excuse to use heavy handed tactics then in a Nation with widespread firearms ownership and hundreds of thousands of combat veterans the same argument could be used to target otherwise law abiding military veterans. Not the ideal we would wish for.
Law enforcement does NOT have such a presumption and never has or will in the execution of their duties.
Going to partly disagree. Your distinction between how the police and the judicial system deal with that is correct. But we DO presume innocence with police. Otherwise they could simply rough up suspects all they want, shoot them at will (hey, he’s a murder suspect, right?), search them whenever they wanted, etc. They require differing levels of evidence of non-innocence in each of those situations.
If the police had to presume everyone innocent they’d never arrest anyone unless they had already been convicted and found guilty.
Reasonable suspicion means that a reasonable person has more than a guess or a hunch that a crime may have been committed. For instance, if the police pulled a car over for speeding and as the driver rolls down the window an officer smells a strong smell of marijauna. The cops would have reasonable suspicion that the occupants were smoking pot.
Barney Fife isn’t required to presume them innocent and send them on their way with a warning.
The cop calls a K-9 unit. The dog indicates there are drugs inside. They now have probable cause to search the car. (the K-9 sniff isn’t in itself a search as long as it’s in public). They find a variety of drugs including marijuana.
The police now have probable cause to arrest the occupants of the car. The totality of the circumstances indicates the occupants have committed the offense of possessing and using controlled substances, and may be en route the commission of another crime such as dealing.
The police would be acting illegally on the other hand if they arrested people and booked them into jail for crimes they thought those people were entirely innocent of.
How do you get to the slippery slope that ends in roughing people at will when the cops act on the reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred and than probable cause to believe a crime has occurred?
Your “facts” are wrong and misapplied. The example doesn’t even make “walking around” sense as you wrote it.
“Presumption of guilt” ( which doesn’t exist in any formal documentation but is written to contrast the “presumption of innocence” which DOES exist in a court) is simply the way every officer and department operates.
I never “presumed innocence” when I arrested a suspect because “probable cause” negates and presumption otherwise ( both cant be present)
None of the above has any bearing or degree of approval for “roughing” up anyone.
Please explain to me what a “differing level of evidence of non-innocence” is?
Part of that is exercise of 2nd amendment rights
Also, the 1st Amendment right of association. It is NOT illegal to associate with a criminal.
(If it were, Biden would already be in jail instead of the Oval Office.)
While that is certainly true in the gross statement,
Association CAN ( not always) lead to things like aiding and abetting, accessory and other ancillary charges.
As Paul said: All things are lawful but not all things are helpful ( profitable or other like terms)
The officer had the right to shoot once the gun was pointed at him.
The gun was pointed at the cop because his superiors, a DA, and a judge all screwed up and created the situation where an innocent man woke up to armed intruders in the apartment and shouting incoherently. Since they got warrants for three different locations, the chance the guy they were looking for was in this apartment must have been less than 50%, and the chance that they’d be rousting innocents more than 50%.
Don’t blame the cops on the spot, but those who planned and authorized this raid should be on trial for manslaughter.
Here’s the deal, though, Locke was not at the home of the suspect, nor was he “associating” with him. Authorities got warrants for three addresses, none of which were Locke’s. The only no-knock warrant was issued for the suspect’s brother’s home, an apartment he shared with his girlfriend and at which Locke was staying. Locke was “associating” with the suspect’s brother, not the suspect.
But here’s my larger problem with what you are saying: by staying at the suspect’s brother’s dwelling, Locke deserved to be shot dead by rampaging wannabe Rambos because . . . erm, why again? The suspect wasn’t even there, nor was it his legal address. How is Locke culpable here?
Also, this is freaking America, and scores of millions of citizens have guns on them at any given moment of any given day. How is this not okay simply because, as you put it, “the cops breached one of the premises they requested a warrant for.” Having a warrant means to you that no one on the premises is permitted to have a firearm? Even if they don’t know the warrant exists and aren’t even able to get up and answer the door when the police arrive . . . because they just, again as you put it, “barged in”? How is being in possession of a firearm something to be condemned or seen as a reason to be shot dead in 10 seconds? We do have a Second Amendment, you know, and that doesn’t go away just because police have a warrant (for someone else who doesn’t even live at that address). I just really don’t get what you are trying to say here.
Amir Locke didn’t have the right to point a gun at anyone unless he was planning on shooting them. That’s why he was shot.
Incorrect. In this instance Locke has an affirmative self defense claim based on his understanding of the situation at the time. He was startled awake by LEO purposefully shouting to sow confusion and create chaos.
Ten seconds later he was shot by LEO, who incidentally already had weapons drawn, entered first then announced. In this case both LEO and Locke have the legal right to self defense.
You’re making a lot of assumptions here.
The police had a good reason to raid this apartment looking for someone who doesn’t live there?
The police were better off “coming hard” rather than going in during daylight?
Locke is guilty of “associating with scum” based on what exactly? His cousin didn’t live there, and I have yet to see evidence that he spent any time there at all.
Having a bottom feeder like Crump standing with the family doesn’t look good, but just because they’re letting a grifter help them doesn’t mean that the family isn’t in the right here. If Crump can get $27 million for the family of a Darwin Award winner like George Floyd, imagine how much he might get for a more sympathetic victim.
I disagree that Amir Locke is more sympathetic; he was shot because he was pointing a gun at a police officer.
Locke was in his cousin’s apartment; while Mekdi Speed wasn’t the resident, his brother and brother’s girlfriend were. He lived in the same building and had a fob for an apartment he didn’t live in.
Ok. Now prove that Locke had actual knowledge that the home invaders were LEO. If you can’t then you don’t have intent. Instead you have a citizen reacting to what he perceived as a deadly threat. No, you can’t make an inference that he should have known because LEO were yelling at him. That’s not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.
The fact is Locke has a legit self defense claim that you can’t overcome by inference. Ten seconds isn’t enough time to hear, process, understand and react when startled out of sleep.
Amir Locke is dead because he associated with a cousin whom I will say he knew to be a criminal at minimum, a murderer at max.
I think this is citing facts not in evidence at this point.
I think you meet the qualifications for hiring into the Minneapolis Police SWAT team! You got that no mercy attitude!
I’m gonna tell you (reserving the right to modify as I don’t fully trust the media information I am basing my evaluation on) I am at the point now that the NKW is more a symptom of a larger issue than the problem here.
This was “supposedly” a typical post incident evidence warrant so why was a NKW stipulation for this one there in the first place.
Plus in a normal SW execution ( the ones I was involved in anyway back in the day)- it was either a low or high risk scenario ( what we anticipated the alleged perps may be present). That would trigger a pre-execution recon or even active/passive surveillance. ( sometimes we would find the perp and know he was not at the warrant location)
Something is wrong with the entire operation ( starting at the investigation leading to the warrant request) but there’s not enough information to really say at this point ( just a gut feeling)
I was actually going to say….where’s the recon ahead of time gathering information?
This isn’t a hostage taker/kidnapper scenario where the immediacy to enter is apparent. This actually seems to be one of the few situations where time could have been taken to avoid a heat of the moment tragedy such as this. Deploy some resources, surround exit points, control the situation rather than creating one.
Whoever was in charge of the deployment strategy should probably be on trial, but I”m sure they will weasel their way out and put the shooting officer on trial instead.
That’s a VERY GOOD question and one I REALLY want to see the answer to.
Something just isn’t right with the way this was planned and/or executed but there’s not enough information out there to determine exactly what. (and I don’t believe that’s accidental either)
Something is wrong with the entire operation
One of the things I think we can definitely say is wrong, even at this point, is the attitude of gung-ho let’s-get-’em that seems to be prevalent in many cases with the police. I won’t say all or even most, but there is some measure of it spread unevenly across police departments.
There’s very few forth-mouthed reductio-ad-absurdum libertarians in this crowd (yes, there are a few) yet a significant portion of us here still look askance at this stuff because we know that some people really get off on the authority and power inherent in being a cop. Especially in those jurisdictions where the cops are the only ones allowed to defend themselves or others. There’s something in giving up your authority to gov’t that turns the gov’t into a bully.
This is what so many people I think inherently feel or grasp subconsciously, but can’t express it well (because their education was lacking, often), and so they are easily swayed by “it’s racism!” or “ACAB!” or other sweeping generalizations that don’t actually hit the real problem.
Should be froth-mouthed.
Though they are often “forth” about their opinions, as well.
Deep blue jurisdiction with deep blue political and police leadership with deep blue judges and deep blue prosecutors that most negatively impact deep blue voters. They’ve run the good cops out of town on the deep blue promise that more deep blue policies will one day have the opposite effect of all the deep blue policies that came before.
“I cannot think of one solid instance where a no-knock warrant would make any sense at all.”
Then you aren’t very smart or are stuck too far into your feelz.
“there was no imminent threat to innocents”
So? Mekhi Speed was known to be violent. Before he killed Otis Elder he had shot somebody before. Should the cops wait until a known violent person they have an arrest warrant for murder for is out in public during the day where there are more bystanders to put in danger are available? Maybe they should wait until he’s near a school during recess.
From the USAToady article you linked –
“After shooting Locke, investigators searched the apartment and seized a jacket they believe the teen (Mekhi Speed) wore after ditching a stolen car, as well as a bullet…”
You left out the police found evidence in the apartment that indicated that Mekhi Speed had been present there. I guess including that would have contradicted this statement by you –
“Apparently, law enforcement was informed that the juvenile suspect in an ongoing homicide investigation “stayed” at the apartment in which Locke was gunned down by police. That gossip was somehow grounds for seeking, and for a judge signing, a no-knock warrant . . . on the dwelling of law-abiding citizens at which the suspect might be couch surfing.”
“Mekhi Speed was known to be violent.” But he was NOT known to be in that apartment at that time. If the cops had thought he most likely was there, they wouldn’t have been raiding two other addresses at the same time. And in fact, he wasn’t found at any of the three addresses. And since he was eventually taken alive, I assume that he did not come out shooting when the cops finally found him.
But you think that a less than 50% chance that a guy who was violent once _might_ be there, and a chance that he _might_ be so stupid as to try to shoot it out with the cops, justifies violent police tactics _designed_ to confuse and terrify any innocent occupants, and the high chance that those tactics will result in a shooting.
Wondering if anyone here has opinion on criminal liability. Seems to me cops executing the SW and the trigger man were justified using deadly force. Further, since a judge issued the NKW, they would be privileged in executing it as such. I don’t want to see another innocent cop crucified. Would that make the city safer? The judge is probably immune from civil and criminal liability? Now was the affidavit supporting the NKW truthful? It has not been released. Not sure about a homicide rap for making a false sworn statement. As for civil liability, if the affidavit was truthful and NKW is permitted under state law, I’m not sure I even see that. Cousin was obviously dangerous. The cops can ask and the judge can deny. If judge issues NKW, cops are justified in executing it that way. Having said all that, regardless of the legal merits, the city will quickly settle for an enormous sum, probably before a thorough investigation. And maybe state will either bar NKW or raise the standard. Is NKW safer for the cops? That this was a horrible tragedy no one can deny.
Assuming the warrant was legitimate, then no. That doesn’t mean Minnesota won’t try.
Regarding criminal liability ( pending a good and proper investigation based on FACTS that can be examined and verified)….
I have questions regarding this entire investigation and warrant procurement process but that’s beyond the scope of your immediate question and cannot be addressed without a lot of detailed information not currently in the public.
Right now ( based on what’s out there) the only “criminal” liability I see as reasonable right now is POSSIBLY with the shooting officer. (Not murder but possibly negligence and manslaughter)
This is not cut and dried based on the one clip circulating.
Right now ( based on what’s out there) the only “criminal” liability I see as reasonable right now is POSSIBLY with the shooting officer. (Not murder but possibly negligence and manslaughter)
What would your theory of “negligence” be here?
Its the invisible line between apparent versus imminent threat as defined by the best practices regarding USE (firing the weapon) versus presentation ( pulling and pointing) as they apply to a trained and POST certified LEO.
Contrary to belief, an officer does not have “authority” to fire except when certain things are present ( or reasonably expected) and its based on the totality of circumstances. ( that means there is a “fluid” determination measured against different variables)
In this case specifically ( and only)- There were multiple officer at multiple angles. The shooting officer “could” have sought cover and let a lesser exposed officer draw down and control the situation.
There is a legitimate question of the orientation of the victims muzzle and intent and the video is unclear. ( would love to see other officers videos). Contrary to TV, mere “possession” and even “presentation” of a weapon does NOT ( in and of itself) justify an officers use of deadly force. Lots of factors need to be considered and weighed against the specific circumstances of this incident only.
Having BEEN in similar situations, ( and based solely on the video), I do NOT see an immediate justification for the officer to have fired but as i say that, JUSTIFICATION is the key word and in a “necessary” state to prevent injury or death to another.
All of that said, the “evidence” in the media is bad quality, not fully revealing and questionable.
I see this maybe rising to being outside department use of force policy. I can’t see how this rises to a criminal act based on Minnesota law. That doesn’t mean the they won’t try for a prosecution. It is Minnesota.
Interesting comment, with much food for thought. I don’t want to see any innocent cop crucified, but at the same time, we really have to be wary of the infamous “I was just following orders” travesty.
That entry was horrific. Every single cop seemed to be screaming different things, and it was utter chaos. That poor man, sleeping on the couch, couldn’t possibly have understood the situation at all.
One cop giving lawful commands to someone standing in front of them is one thing; five or so screeching random crap (I can’t make out much of what the SWAT team members were even saying, and I’m not there, asleep, and trying to work it out in less than the 10 seconds it takes them to shoot me dead) is a recipe for disaster. He didn’t obey commands? What the actual frack?
This entire thing is a cluster, and some heads need to roll (figuratively speaking). And yes, I’d rather command or the judge be held responsible, but I am not about to excuse cop behavior this egregious on the Nuremberg defense.
Let me help you out on this because you have never been in a situation or through the training for this type of OP.
Back in the MOUT training days, we learned quickly the psychology and mechanics of facility entry.
All of that yelling is for a purpose ( which is why officers wear hearing protection)
Humans have bi-aural hearing and subject to variations in pressure, echo and volume. These “noises) ( even flash bangs) are deliberate and designed to disorient and even cause sensory overload leading to a hesitation ( ostensibly so persons can be captured rather than killed)
Weapons fire can cause pressure differentials and induce infrasound based physical reactions and shock.
The “goal” is to get the “drop” FIRST ( take command of the situation) then issue understandable commands.
That’s ridiculous unless you’re in a freaking war zone. This was one guy, asleep on the couch. All that chaotic shouting did was let him know he was in danger, so he–like a normal person–reached for his firearm.
Look, you can’t treat American citizens like you do hostiles on foreign soil (or even like organized crime, drug cartels, whatever). These are just normal people; they need to be treated with respect, not bombarded by psyops from militarized units invading their residence. I cannot stress to you enough how much your explanation sickens me. American citizens are not the enemy and should never be treated as such by the police. What the heck has happened to our country? Can we even get it back?
I’m sorry it may sicken you but its the fact of the matter and always has been ( back in the day there was just not the publicity)
Law en-FORCE-ment is just that. Bad guys don’t generally respond to “please” and show concerns for others.
Law enforcement ( on the street ) IS A WAR ZONE. The criminal element has EQUAL ( and often superior) firepower and equipment, modern communication, support systems, often financing plus they have no moral, legal or ethical constraints and they are “unmarked” ( don’t wear uniforms or other high visibility)
They set ambushes and gang up too.
If those are not the techniques and tactics of an enemy combatant- please explain to me what they are?
I understand your frustration and agree with you to a point but I draw the line having been there and done it. ( not from the safety of a screen or keyboard with nothing on the line but my personal ideology)
Many “American Citizens” are in fact HARDENED EVIL CRIMINALS. That’s a logical fallacy just like all soldiers are hero’s (Jeffry Dahmer was a Green Beret- Americas BEST).
What’s happened is the Marxist ideology or equity and equality. All people of color are NOT innocent. All cops are NOT “good guys” and so forth.
Also there are some BAD people out there who will ONLY respond to the business end of a barrel.
So to protect the public at large (macrocosm)- there will be bad things at the micro/individual level. (even in bombings in WW II- there were innocent civilian casualties)
It not a perfect world with a perfect set of rules or techniques- sometimes bad things happen to good people.
Those techniques exist for a reason and yes, they sometimes go wrong and casualties result but thats reality.
Now, in this case, we have what clearly looks like an innocent person caught up in the machine and was killed. Cursory observation indicates there are many flaws here and a measure of officer culpability.
That’s bad and inexcusable but it happens. That doesn’t mean the system is automatically wrong- it can have multiple causal factors.
Any “raid” is a high stress fast moving situation encumbered by an infinite number of variables. Bad things can and do happen.
Our responsibility is to forever work to minimize knowing they will never be eliminated.
Well, your war zone is fast expanding beyond the situations and hardened criminal element you describe, and that is not acceptable. No-knock warrants are abused, as here, and if you war-minded law enforcement types can’t handle the power allowed you by we, the people, it must be removed from you to protect normal Americans . . . who are increasingly deemed criminal elements, terrorist threats, and national security risks/targets. And now, apparently, “enemy combatants.” That is not okay.
Remember the FBI raid on the Alaska couple who were at the J6 rally but never entered the Capitol building? Unacceptable.
Ben Franklin, in 1785, opined that “it is better one hundred guilty men should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.” That is a foundational principle of American jurisprudence. Law enforcement seem to have completely lost the plot and think that killing innocent people is “just” collateral damage, bad things “just happening” to good people, and acceptable “causalities.” What the actual frack? Your mission creep is creeping too close to my home and neighborhood, and it will not stand. Period.
It’ll be a bad day when normies wake up and realize what police have become. When people realize they are seen as nothing more than acceptable collateral damage in a war zone, they may just act appropriately.
The entry techniques used by military forces v enemy combatants in a war zone are not appropriate for routine use by LEO domestically. Many of us in the wider public ignored the militarization of LEO in terms of equipment, tactics and unfortunately attitude of LEO.
There are certainly occasions where those tactics make sense but they should be the exception and only authorized under specific circumstances. Collateral damage; unintended deaths, are an unfortunate but very real part of the battlefield. You are correct in your description of why, upon entry, the team sows chaos and confusion but that is not appropriate in serving a search warrant on multiple locations.
This is the bigger question; if three separate warrants were issued then the subject could only be at one or none of the locations. Which means that, no matter how dangerous he may be, at least two of the locations won’t have him present which in turn means any use of these tactics at those locations is unjustified based on the actual threat level.
Had LEO been sent back to do more surveillance and gather more Intel to designate which of these locations the subject was in then this event wouldn’t have occurred. Instead of a knock and wait for the occupant to respond the LEO chose a tactical entry. The subject wasn’t present and an otherwise law abiding citizen was killed because the Judge the DA and LEO chose to authorize and a employ tactics suited to the battlefield.
I have multiple combat tours using and teaching these tactics to coalition forces. We never shot a guy unless we had zero options. In this case LEO had options but didn’t choose them nor did anyone force them to choose another option by rejecting their request.
What about several cops shouting several contradictory orders, I wonder what the peasant is supposed to do in those circumstances. Please answer that question.
He should freeze
He should die. That’s literally the only point. Raise your hands! Lower your hands! Don’t move! Lie down! Hands behind your heads! Bang! Bang! Bang!
Why’d you shoot him? He did X! He didn’t do X!
Consider how absolutely insane it is that any human would think this is even remotely okay. And then have the gall to say that person should ignore “lawful” orders and just freeze within a few seconds of being violently awakened. Any person who is willing to do this to another person is garbage and shouldn’t have a place in our society.
From a number of incident reports, it almost looks like having multiple people giving conflicting orders may have been developed as a deliberate strategy to provide an excuse for shooting a suspect for failure to obey orders. In the Daniel Shaver case (I think) the suspect was told to do conflicting things and/or impossible things (e.g., “keep your hands above your head and crawl towards me”).
You have the right case. That one was absolutely sickening. Then, the department pulled some nonsense and got him paid disability (PTSD from his murder).
I’m with you and your assessment of what’s needed in the situation. I don’t think attacking the process of forcible entry is anything more than a fruitless distraction at this point.
I think we all (almost all) agree that this situation does not seem justified and that there were huge mistakes made. I don’t think criticizing the training and procedure is going to help in any way. Cops practice this stuff…the gravest error, to me, is coming from “management” sprinkled with a dash of dereliction of duty by judicial oversight.
I also think we have a bunch of drive by motor voters in these threads coming by, reading a sentence or two, and deciding whether or not it confirms their worldview without reading the rest first (or the totality of the poster’s points in multiple responses).
By management, I mean should SWAT have even been there in the first place?
Those are literally the units that deploy military-style tactics and they are done for very dangerous situations that already exist, not to create them.
And even, for sake of argument, stipulating that SWAT should be there, where’s the intelligence and information gathering on that scene?
You make an entry designed to disorient the occupants while simultaneously demanding they instantly and exactly execute the commands you’re yelling at them under pain of execution? That’s stupid, obviously so.
No, the “obvious” thing is that you are totally and completely ignorant of what this process is, how it works and what it is designed to produce. They don’t teach this in episodes of NCIS and Law & Order.
First- the fact that there is a judicial warrant ( someone went and testified before a judge and has authority to SUSPEND certain individual rights FOR CAUSE)
( we can argue the warrant process but that’s beyond the scope of this answer and a different thing)
During execution, in as safe a manner as is REASONABLE ( there is no one technique that works everywhere every time)- step 1 is to “shock” ( get off balance to PROHIBIT them launching an offensive back)
That’s why the “flash bang”, yelling, heavy motion, rushing and everything.
Priority one ( and reason for the shock and awe) is to take COMMAND of the situation ( by force if necessary)- that is the SAFEST way for both the officers and suspects and innocents even if those who have never seen it on TV don’t understand that concept in the real world.
That’s why you FREEZE ( even lifting a hand in the fog of the action can be misidentified as a threat)
Once all that’s done- then we start issuing “intelligible” commands.
And, NO, that’s hardly “perfect’, its certainly ( and by design) not “fair”, it is clearly a dangerous situation where any number of things can go wrong and even innocent people get hurt or killed. I’m not denying any of that- in fact I am stating it in plain English.
However, it is the best way overall to bring about the quickest and safest end to a situation overall and i challenge anyone to produce one better.
And yes, mistakes ( even fatal ones) will happen ( didn’t say “might”)- that’s why we train to minimize them. The process is far from perfect too.
Remember, there are times seatbelts cause a death- it happens but we still use them.
Also, deliberate misuse/abuse or negligence of a process is NOT a problem with the process, its a matter of adhering to the process.
It is hard to imagine that you think you are remotely close to understanding this situation, particularly from the point of that guy on the couch. Indeed the very points you offer to support use of “shock” are the points that will guarantee an innocent citizen will be killed by these power mad thugs with badges and massive firepower. That behavior is precisely the sort of thing that will cause an innocent law abiding person to resort to self defense, including by using a weapon he has a constitutional right to bear.
The defenders of these cops in some of these comments are precisely the folks who drive bad police behavior.
I think you also missed part of this story.
Allegedly, FIRST they got a REGULAR warrant. Then they WENT BACK TO THE JUDGE, and asked for an ADDITIONAL no-knock warrant so the police ‘had options’.
Then without ANY information or reason to believe that there was the slightest bit of danger to them, they executed the no-knock warrant looking for somebody that didn’t live there, AND THAT THEY HAD NO INFROMATION WAS THERE other than a ‘tip’ that he ‘sometimes’ stayed there.
This is a fucking joke, and the officer that made the decision to serve the no-knock warrant needs to be put under oath and demanded to explain exactly what circumstances executing the no-knock warrant, and he needs to be found criminally liable.
AND THAT THEY HAD NO INFROMATION WAS THERE other than a ‘tip’ that he ‘sometimes’ stayed there.
Except for the cops finding evidence he had been there you’re exactly right.
The suspect had been to his own brother’s apartment? The horror! They didn’t have evidence he was actually there when they executed their no-knock warrant (we know this because he wasn’t there). Further, warrants were issued for three different sites, so they clearly had no idea where he was. Yet they barged into this apartment and shot a young man dead within 10 seconds. This cannot be justified by gee, but the suspect had been there . . . you know, at some point. Most likely. We’re pretty sure because someone said so. And stuff.
Your comments go back to the initial affidavit requesting the search warrant and exactly what was laid out that the judge made the decision on.
The fact ( assuming it is a fact) there were THREE search warrants issued for 3 separate places leads me to believe these warrants were evidence based and contact was not expected.
Then that begs the question ( since this was a SWAT team and not a group of case investigators)- where was the coordination between the investigating officers as to the suspect and location to the serving team?
There are too many pieces missing right now ( that shouldn’t be) to suit me.
I have to admit that the lack of detail provided to the public actually raises my suspicions. Where are the details the PD can use to defend this move? That they haven’t been released is highly suspect and does not boost my confidence in the chain of events that led to this young man’s death. That said, sure, let’s see something that makes this okay.
Isn’t it pretty typical for those pieces to be missing for defense strategy because releasing them can only damage their case in an actual courtroom?
You’d expect them to lay out all evidence to the court of public opinion? Not happening until trial. I don’t think it will matter in this case but remember that the police released the expanded George Floyd videos to try and sate the mob with bigger context and look where it got them?
His apartment, the apartment next door that his associate was in and out of and the apartment 7 floors down where his brother and gf live and where he’d been present recently when there was a fire call. They found things that he’d been seen wearing, thingis his associate had been seen wearing and marijuana.
My best guess is that his stuff was in the apartment he lived in with his mom and in his brother’s place an that the other persons stuff and the marijuana were in the apartment next door to his. Oh, and he had a fob for an apartment he didn’t live in.
The suspect had been to his own brother’s apartment?
Seems like a reasonable place look.
They didn’t have evidence he was actually there when they executed their no-knock warrant (we know this because he wasn’t there)
Somebody not being in a place doesn’t mean there is no evidence they aren’t there. It just means the evidence wasn’t accurate. There is evidence he had been there and people tend to go to or be in places they have been to before.
Further, warrants were issued for three different sites, so they clearly had no idea where he was.
Wrong. They had the idea that is was possible there were three places he could be. All three were in the same apartment building.
This cannot be justified by gee, but the suspect had been there . . . you know, at some point. Most likely. We’re pretty sure because someone said so. And stuff.
By this logic basically zero search warrants would ever occur. Are you arguing against all search warrants or just no-knock?
“Witnesses at the apartment complex were able to identify the male in the light-colored hooded sweatshirt as Speed. The building’s staff told authorities that Speed had access to his brother’s apartment, his mother’s apartment and another person who he was with the night of the murder’s apartment.”
It’s more that “somebody” said so.
Sigh. Earlier you said that I was lacking in imagination (or something like that, can’t be bothered to find it) because I stated in my post that I can’t think of a valid reason for a no-knock warrant. Notably, you did not follow this up with a long list of situations that would make such an invasive and inherently dangerous use of state power justifiable.
And now, you are blathering on about how the suspect was known to be at his brother’s apartment and how it doesn’t matter that he wasn’t there when the police swarmed in, acting like absolute lunatics, and shot a man unrelated to either their warrant or the underlying investigation dead within 10 seconds of entering the dwelling. You can think this is fine and dandy. I don’t.
And yes, I am fine with search warrants, but no-knock warrants are, at root, antithetical to American values and to our foundational principles of justice. Your bizarre suggestion that my noting that issuing violent, dangerous, militaristic no-knock warrants on random places based on rumor and (clearly false) witness testimony is wrong means that I want to abolish all warrants is the most sophomoric claptrap I’ve read all day. And that’s not saying nothing.
Me: Tea made from Deadly Nightshade is toxic and should not be sold.
You: So you want to BAN green tea, Earl Grey, English Breakfast and all the teas! For all people everywhere, you fascist!
:::biggest eye roll ever:::
It may be boring, but it keeps you from blowing away the wrong person.
“Earlier you said that I was lacking in imagination (or something like that, can’t be bothered to find it) because I stated in my post that I can’t think of a valid reason for a no-knock warrant. Notably, you did not follow this up with a long list of situations that would make such an invasive and inherently dangerous use of state power justifiable.”
Not a me problem. Your inability to be able to think of a reason does not mean no reason exists.
And now, you are blathering on about how the suspect was known to be at his brother’s apartment and how it’s doesn’t matter that he wasn’t there when the police swarmed in, acting like absolute lunatics, and shot a man dead within 10 seconds of entering the dwelling. That’s okay. You can think this is fine and dandy. I don’t.
Mischaracterization of the argument. I never said the shooting of Locke was okay. I am pointing out how a search warrant, even a no-knock, could be justifiable under the circumstances.
And yes, I am fine with search warrants…
Are you sure? Per you the search warrant was based on “based on rumor and (clearly false) witness testimony”. That seems to be a problem for any warrant.
Your bizarre suggestion that my noting that issuing violent, dangerous, militaristic no-knock warrants on random places…
Was not a random location.
…based on rumor and (clearly false) witness testimony
Testimony was true. Presence of Speed’s possessions proves that.
Can’t reply to you below but per MN Chapter 13, the Data Practices act, ongoing investigations aren’t public information; they become public when complete so MPD had no obligation to share anything until that’s complete.
Note also the usual suspects are out and about shutting down commerce; there was another protest march–Target and other stores that are normally open past 9 pm were advised to close. Yet they say the truckers are the problem.
Yet, he wasn’t there at the time of execution. Presumably the subject of the warrant moved around so how about surveillance to determine a pattern of when he stayed where? For that matter how about simply surveillance and communication to direct additional LEO when he exited the building?
Clearly these sorts of militaristic raids have foreseeable consequences including otherwise law abiding citizens being shot to death by LEO in the execution of these raids. When do we place those consequences on the scale? Who does so?
What is objectionable about requiring LEO to seek one warrant describing the particular person or place to be searched? Heck I would even go so far, for arguments sake, to say in this instance authorize a tactical warrant for the most likely location but the other two locations would be limited to old fashioned knock and wait for a face to face with occupants by handing them the warrant. That alone may have prevented the death of a citizen by LEO. Risk minimization for citizens needs a much better voice at the table in the future.
Here in Canada we don’t have a Fourth Amendment, so there’s essentially no bounds on searches. Warrants are fig leafs; the police can and do execute warrantless searches based on nothing and get away with it as long as some evidence of any illegal activity is found after the fact, regardless of whether that evidence has anything to do with the alleged cause for the search. Only if the police executed a warrantless search and found nothing incriminating at all would there be consequences to the officers.
And once you can see the massive incentive that creates for the police to “find” such evidence, whether it was there before they entered the premises or not, you’ll understand what’s wrong with your statement.
Are you arguing that the police planted the evidence of Speed’s presence to somehow justify the shooting of Locke?
No…only that they can… but then it has been done in the past…planting “corroborating evidence”.
No worries, we in the USA are used to nearly that situation in cars and motorhomes, which are practically Fourth-Amendment-Free Zones here.
“Except for the cops finding evidence he had been there you’re exactly right.”
A ticket stub for the White House tour is evidence that I have been there.
Why don’t you do a dynamic entry there? You never know, I might still be there.
No it isn’t. It’s evidence you might have been there, not that you were there.
Actually, per the Federal Rules of Evidence, that ticket stub is merely hearsay and not “affirmative evidence” of you ( specifically) doing anything unless otherwise corroborated by other evidence.
They didn’t have that evidence (that he had been there) until after the raid.
So, what was the reasoning that he was there and might provide a dangerous situation to the police executing the warrant?
I didn’t miss that part- I actually zeroed in on it and want to see the actual documentation justifying the need for the enhancement.
That aside, ( knock or not) the shooting ( as based in the video) does not clearly rise to the requirements I am used to and was trained on regarding the proper use ( not presentation) of deadly force.
FYI, the “executing” officer may not be the “requesting” officer and may not even know why the request was made.
Again, much of this incident raises a lot of suspicions to me.
No knock was used because the suspect had been convicted of shooting 1 person, wanted for murder, and had previously been violent towards police. Commands be whatever, but Locke had enough time to know it was police. He chose to turn towards them with a gun in hand. Police were there to arrest a violent young man, and found a young man grabbing a gun and turning towards them.
The 17 year old suspect should be charged with Lockes’ murder.
Get the warrant and then do a bit of surveillance ahead of time to sort out whether he is there or not. They sould have waited for Locke to leave the building, Detain and question him as to whether the targeted person was there. If no one is held accountable at any level, then we are a stone’s throw away from any of us being targeted for any reason that “THEY” deem worthy. And not just for warrants. A friend of mine had to wait another 10 minutes for an ambulance because his residence was flagged as a place that had guns based on state registration requirements, and the EMS people refused to come (they sat at the end of the block) until a police cruiser showed up.
As for associations, I agree with that in part. I don’t go to stupid places at stupid times with stupid people, and I avoid throuble 99.9% of the time by that practice. Nothing good happens after midnight. The lesson learned from this, which of course will not make its way around the Minneapolis (or anywhere else) ghetto is, avoid contact with gangstas and you will avoid trouble. As I tell people, the upside of my divorce was no longer needing to be around my meth addict nephews (in law) at family gatherings. Divorce is expensive because some times it is worth it.
“A friend of mine had to wait another 10 minutes for an ambulance because his residence was flagged as a place that had guns based on state registration requirements, and the EMS people refused to come (they sat at the end of the block) until a police cruiser showed up.”
F-g idiots. A house that registers its guns is the SAFEST place to approach. It’s the ones that aren’t on the list where you’re gonna get killed.
They sould have waited for Locke to leave the building
I’m not sure they knew he was even there. There’s that question of “what surveillance was ongoing?” again.
Wait for suspect to leave the building to where he is in public around a lot of innocent people to take hostage or get hit by stray fire?
If you do not oive with criminals or let criminals stay where you live, you never have to worry about grabbing a gun and turning towards police when sleeping on a couch.
Midnight? Hell, 8 pm! I have 2 jobs so need to be in front of my computer most of the time but I’m particular about when I leave home; last year I had to pick up a prescription and when the dentist asked where I wanted it to go, I told her a store 4 mi from me in a suburb; there were riots in the neighborhood I usually went to and unknown to me they were rioting that evening so I made the right choice. Same neighborhood stores were advised to close early tonight because of more protesti-rioting.
Now we know the reason the no-knock was requested and approved…and it’s not a reason I agree with.
“The warrant requests specifically claimed that the suspects in the Jan. 10 homicide had used a .223 Caliber firearm, which uses “rounds (that) can penetrate police body armor.” The warrant request claimed a “no-knock warrant enables officers to execute the warrant more safely by allowing officers to make entry into the apartment without alerting the suspects inside. This will not only increase officer safety, but it will also decrease the risk for injuries to the suspects and other residents nearby.”
Ironic that Judge Cahill, the judge that helped railroad Chauvin, signed off on it.
Here’s the general rule of thumb: common body armor protects you against pistols, and will not protect you against rifles. .223 is a relatively wimpy round, “serious hunters” use calibers that start with 24, 27, and even 30. So by this standard, Elmer Fudd gets no-knocked every time.
Yeah Elmer Fudd and Biden’s 12 gauge; which he says should be fired through the door at anyone attempting entry…….
12 GA buck fired at an aim point of belt buckle would be unpleasant to receive. Femoral artery damage risk plus the jewels plus the possibility of lower abdomen hit under the armor….not a pleasant experience at all.
The armor that SWAT wears is NOT the old Level IIA stuff. The SWAT stuff is ceramic plates rated to stop at least smaller rifle rounds. The folks who might be termed “militarized” are wearing Level IV, I’m betting. But I’m going to guarantee it’s full Level III.
The stuff the other guys grab out of their trunk is most likely Level IIIA, which is unlikely to stop the “wimpy” .223/5.56 round. The stuff people wear concealed under their shirts is most likely (unless it’s obvious) Level II, which might stop some of the pistol rounds I shoot (and will likely stop others).
So what? I don’t care about their clothing and gear, I care about what they are doing and why. And what they are doing in regard to no-knock warrants is a horrendous breach of our God-given and Constitutional rights. Why they are doing it is a trickier question, and I left my tinfoil tiara at home. 😉
Ummm, I was responding to a statement about cops wearing body armor and what that means. Why do you think it means I’m stating anything about the case?
Ah, I see. Sorry, I sometimes read/respond to comments in Dashboard, so they are not in context. My bad.
An important question nobody seems to be asking but should be….
When the hell did BLM blue vested wacko Deray McKesson become an expert on search warrants and the execution thereof….
And how the hell is he even remotely qualified to weigh in?
Civil rights activist and podcast host DeRay Mckesson is credited with helping a number of states and localities pass laws banning no-knock warrants. He’s been enlisted by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey’s administration to work on public safety policy.
The city will enlist the help of DeRay Mckesson and Katie Ryan of Campaign Zero to recommend best practices on how to serve warrants.
Mayor Jacob Frey announced the city’s plans to partner with DeRay Mckesson, an activist with national influence and co-founder of Campaign Zero. Mckesson, who once worked for Minneapolis Public Schools, now advises cities in crafting policies that minimize the use of no-knock warrants.
As I have previosly noted, there was no “no knock warrant” in this case. The yappa bapping about no knocks is a giant red herring.
“The court further finds that no-knock entry, without announcement of authority or purpose is necessary to prevent the loss, destruction, or removal of the objects of said search or to protect the safety of the searchers or the public,” the Feb. 1 warrants each state.
Since the officers stated their authority, announced their presence, and stated the purpose for the entry, it was NOT a “no knock” even though they had been granted the right to execute it as such.
Let’s simplify this discussion about how warrants are served. If LEO knock, announce themselves and WAIT for the occupant to come to the door and present the warrant then lets call that soft. If LEO instead enter via pass key or breach in a tactical manner lets call that hard.
Now lets address the ‘announcement’ ‘ police search warrant open up’. Did LEO allow time for the occupant to hear, process and respond? In this case the clear answer is no. A citizen who a few seconds earlier was asleep was gunned down in less than ten seconds by LEO who choose the time of execution; when occupants would be asleep and their response time slowed.
Keeping with ‘announcing’ how about the hearing impaired? Someone on sleep meds? A CPAP? The announcement isn’t complete until it’s purpose is served; the occupant being alerted to LEO presence and the occupant processing that info in order for the occupant to comply with the announcement. Some dude or in this case several dudes yelling at 0 dark when the occupant is asleep in a confusing and unintelligible manner increases the chaos and decreases the odds that the occupant will either understand or be able to process the info to be able to comply.
Now lets step back and ask why a hard entry was deemed necessary. Based on what intel? Clearly the subject they are looking for was dangerous but they had three simultaneous raids at separate locations. The dangerous subject can only be in one place at a time so why didn’t the judge tell them ‘pick the one with the highest probability that the subject is present’? These unjustified tactics and adversarial attitude of LEO towards Citizens must end. Wearing a badge doesn’t automatically make the LEO correct nor is any community well served when LEO choose to intentionally alienate those of us who don’t carry a badge.
Strictly from a military counter insurgency standpoint the first rule is not to intentionally PO people but to work to show them that govt forces are there to improve things. Shooting confused citizens seconds after being startled awake in their residence is not a sign of improvement. These tactics cause the populace to doubt that LEO are there to protect anyone but themselves or serve anything but their own interests. Eventually these tactics will compromise and undermine cooperation and trust of LEO by the public leading to poor outcomes.
It is the responsibility of the gun weilder to control their own actions. If they cannot do so, because they took sleeping pills, even with Rx, were drunk or stoned when they went to sleep, or wear medical equipment like a CPAP that may hinder the waking up process, they need to take that into account in handlig their fire arm. Maybe put it where they have to get up to get it, giving them that second or 2 to get the cobwebs clear, or if on drugs, legal or not, lock the weapon up. Gun owners have a responsibility to be safe at all times. Brandishing is against MN law. He was turning towards cops with gun in his hand.
Law enforcement could have better intel if crimes like aiding and abetting a fugitive were prosecuted more. Everyone liesto the police, hides people, warns people, like its a video game.
But, more importantly, this criminals parents should be held accountable for raising a criminal, aiding and abetting him. If parents were held responsible for what their tax deductions did, there would be less criminal children.
My word what a good little fascist you are!
You took the words right out of my fingers, Chief.
Been there and done this civilian and military too. This is well established and legally vetted methodology with tons of case law. This is not a Robin Sage exercise.
First, there is no requirement LE be clairvoyant or have super powers of perception regarding what impediment a person ( suspect or innocent)- the requirement is REASONABLE (not absolute) consideration.
Even the announcement is to be reasonable ( what about those who don’t speak English- the list of exceptions never ends and its impossible to accommodate everything)
And also, much of this is DESIGNED to create controlled chaos for the purpose of making the end quick with least risk ( not elimination) as is REASONABLE.
Remember, the PRESUMPTION ( yes a legitimate presumption) is that there is a REAL AND POTENTIAL threat ( a risk assessment- not perfect but REASONABLE)- the LAST thing is to let a criminal get the upper hand due to the inherent danger.
If you have ever actually DONE this- you know what I am saying is true and correct.
From military “counter insurgency”- no, that’s not how that works ( except maybe for the State Department)
Also, while using the media term “militarization of LE”- what exactly is this? Give me concrete examples, not hyperbole and nebulous statements.
In no particular order;
Militarization- use of military tactics and equipment. Also subtle things like use of military style boots and fatigue uniforms v previous generations low quarter shoes, crown caps and pressed, starched class b uniforms. All those plus training create a different attitude in how LEO perceive themselves, their relationship with the community and what is justified to accomplish their mission.
I am not arguing that these misplaced tactics better suited to a battlefield have not been incorporated into routine LE operations. or that CT have not blessed off. I am arguing that they should be used in very limited circumstances. Even then, there must be a better balance between the safety of LEO and of occupants. Unfortunately these tactics demonstrate that the priority of LEO is protecting themselves first and serving their own interests with little regard for the safety or rights of occupants.
This was a search warrant on one of three address. It wasn’t a served on a criminal organization in a fortified location. It was an apartment. A soft v hard approach, see previous posts, would have been a better and more fitting choice under the circumstances. IMO, these kinetic raids are overused and lead to foreseeable consequences.
A loud and chaos creating dynamic entry intended to sow confusion among the occupants certainly achieved that. A sleeping citizen startled awake and unable to process the situation grabbed a firearm; all lawful actions and in fact reasonable actions. LEO had multiple people shouting v one single person giving straightforward commands and shot this citizen within ten seconds of entry for lack of compliance.
That’s not an acceptable outcome. While LEO can’t be expected to know every occupants situation they must incorporate the knowledge that that issues like sleep meds, cpap or other factors which may delay recognition, understanding and ability to comply exist. Not to mention that LEO themselves choose the time of entry and the level of chaos sown.
IMO, if we were to apply a standard of proportional liability to this example then it becomes much more clear which parties bear most of the responsibility. We won’t in a legal sense obviously but as an AAR tool in the way we think and discuss this on a web site it seems the best way to review the events.
Fair points all so here is my counter
>> Militarization: That’s really media generated psychobabble. Having military equipment ( and here’s a news flash from Bragg- much of this “military” equipment was CIVILIAN stuff tested adapted for military use first).
Uniforms and stuff is just a talking point- LE already wear uniforms and a “tactical” uniform has different layout and TO&E requirements than regular duty so there is legitimate mission focused justification.
The “relationship with the community” is at best a fluid thing because it presupposes a “community” can see through their own bias/prejudice and make a fair assessment. (which is rare). The officer and department CONDUCT will go further along that goal than how the individual “looks”.
On the tactics: Give me a “nice and polite” way that doesn’t risk injury to anyone to enter a secured dwelling to potentially deal with an armed and dangerous suspect(s) and unknown situation. If you cant tell me specifically and exactly what “right” is- then don’t start telling me what’s wrong because one is measured against the other.
Execution of warrant: is was served on a LOCATION ( makes no difference if it was an apartment or a cardboard box). The officers cannot know or foresee booby traps, suspect conduct and a host of other things. That’s an unrealistic and impossible expectation.
Expectations: All “events” ( raids, service, encounters or whatever you wish to call them) are high stress, tense and virtually have an infinite number of considerations. We “mere mortals” don’t have the time or luxury of doing everything every time then to be Monday quarterbacked against a “perfect world” set of requirements. That’s not an excuse for abuse/negligence etc. but it is a legitimate explanation for judgement.
Liability: there already is a proportional liability (torts) but its a very high bar. I do agree with what I believe is your stance that this bar needs a lot of work because I will state for the record and concede the point that in many cases its “too high” and this DOES “invite” an unacceptable level of abuse. I believe we are in agreement on this point.
I believe we mostly agree as well. The fact is that these tactics are overused. The entire system of LE, DA, Judges and the public need to develop a realistic alternative to the current situation.
Bottom line is I want LEO to be as safe as possible but I demand that LEO not prioritize their own safety over that of citizens. If that makes them do more surveillance, alter their practices and generally make their jobs harder in order to achieve a better balance between the needs of LE and the rights of Citizens then that’s the way it must be. I am also in favor of better pay and spending the funds required for ongoing training to deliver that; including employment of sufficient # to be able to pull in LEO for a week or ten days a year for that training without reducing coverage in service.
Did they knock prior to entry? No.
The standard is “Knock AND announce.”
They did not announce until AFTER they had actually entered the apartment.
Cops are acting increasingly as an army of occupation. Okey-dokey. If they want to play-act at rollin’ hot in al-Anbar Province during the height of the Iraq War, then they have no reason to complain about someone parking an SUV full of ANFO and feces-covered shrapnel outside their favorite doughnut shop, getting sniped while on patrol, or coming home to discover that their wife was sodomized to death and their son’s last meal was his own testicles before he was nailed to the wall.
I mean, they should get the full experience. It’s apparently what they want…
Were you dropped on your head as an infant?
626.14 MN Stautes
Subd. 2.Definition. For the purposes of this section, “no-knock search warrant” means a search warrant authorizing peace officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing the officer’s presence or purpose prior to entering the premises. No-knock search warrants may also be referred to as dynamic entry warrants.
As noted many times, If they announce their presence and state the purpose for the entry, it is objectively NOT a no knock warrant,
Squawking about something that objectively DID NOT HAPPEN in this case is bizarre.
A knock-and-announce (notice that BOTH knocking and announcing are required) requires waiting a reasonable time for any person(s) in the dwelling to respond to the knock and announce before attempting entry. And in the wee hours of the morning, when people may be reasonably expected to be asleep, that’s on the order of minutes, not seconds.
This was a no-knock warrant, in that they did not knock, they did not wait a reasonable period of time, they only announced AS the lead officer’s foot crossed the threshold, and they did such an incompetent job of tactical entry that Biff the Wonder Dog could’ve scragged them all from that door they ignored on their left flank.
You need to realize that quoting a statute alone without reading supporting case law is the breeding ground for serious misunderstanding.
“Knocking” means to make a “noise” for the purpose of getting attention in the immediate area for people. It does not have to be a physical “knock” and situational discretion can negate the need for it at officers discretion. ( varies by individual jurisdiction)
Response time is the same- it varies and can be negated as well.
In a warrant service – there is no requirement ( reasonable or otherwise) to respect or consider the reactions of others prior to service. (the fact there is a WARRANT is the authority to restrict individual rights for CAUSE which is what a WARRANT is in the first place and why it must be signed by a judge)
Part of the problem here is people ( civilians mostly) are “interpreting” the law through TV, the media or other false mean which creates an “innocent” ( usually) straw man situation.
What the law ACTUALLY IS- is what the LE have to abide by- not the last episode of NCIS.
Most of us, me anyway, are arguing for changes to how warrants are served not that current methods are illegal.
What would this new process be? How would it work?
What type of risk assessment?
There is a “warrant” ( order of court based on cause) to go somewhere and do something involving a person(s0 who has demonstrated themselves a threat to some degree and even with passive external surveillance ( cant go deeper without a different warrant)- we know little to nothing about the circumstances , people or other hazards which may be present at the time of service.
Then there’s the threat this “suspect’ could commit more acts harming more the longer the action is delayed.
And like every other human, officers are not “sacrificed” or paid to die or take more than the CALCULATED risks of the profession.
So, lets have those proposed changes and how they will work so they can be reviewed.
Campaign Zero urges a change to Minnesota state law that allows search warrants to remain active for 10 days. Ryan said that window should be smaller if a search warrant is truly urgent. The group also recommends requiring officers to be completely visibly attired in law enforcement gear to be readily identifiable, and limiting nighttime raids to when someone’s life is in imminent danger.
Ryan said the group also recommends a 30-second wait time after announcing and before entering. Ryan said the last recommendation is particularly significant in Locke’s killing, which happened around nine seconds after officers entered the apartment where was staying.
Giving suspects and accomplices an additional 30 seconds to destroy or conceal evidence in the name of wokeness is a very stupid idea.
Giving suspects and accomplices an additional 30 seconds to take hostages is also a stupid idea.
Giving suspects and accomplices an additional 30 seconds to arm themselves is going to get people killed.
Giving armed suspects and accomplices an additional 30 seconds to gain tactical advantages is going to get more police officers killed.
The baffling ignorance of these proposals highlight why Deray Mckesson and the BLM kooks are wholly unqualified to weigh in on this issue and Mayor Frey is beyond reckless in bringing them in and giving them legitimacy and authority.
The equally ignorant proposal to reduce the window of warrant validityto less than 10 days will necessarily lead to more rushed executions and thereby more injuries and more deaths.
You make zero sense to me right now. I have this vague recollection of enjoying reading your comments, but this is all just sloppy, ill-considered, and a bit off the rails. Can we have the real JD back, please?
You really do come across as someone who thinks every warrant is correct and every raid is after some bad dude from the movies. I realize there are jurisdictions where the problem is large – primarily because the gov’t has let the ferals run rampant. And I do want cops doing their job properly to be safe. Really, I do.
But we citizens do have rights.
I think any citizen has the right to assume – until they see badges and can check them with the department, and can see a warrant and validate it – that anyone breaking in their door in the middle of the night is planning harm to them and theirs and has a right to employ deadly force to resist it. It is my home. Whether I own or rent, it is my sovereign domain within limits. And the authorities must respect that. Period.
So, the only good way to balance those two goods – free citizenry and cops getting to protect themselves from bad guys – is to mostly eliminate no-knock warrants. And then to increase the good policing to capture the actual bad guys and put them away for a very long time. (BTW, I am an advocate for the death penalty for murder and some other crimes – ultimate recidivism cure, among other things.) In general I don’t mind cops shooting bad guys – or civilians shooting them for that matter. But, for the sake of the officers and of the citizens whom they serve and who have given them this authority* they need to reduce this stuff to exigent circumstances and when you know there is actually a real bad dude in there, looking to hurt people soon.
(* The police are only paid full time to do what is the duty of every citizen. Peelian Principles.)
the officers in this incident were very lucky indeed–in our little corner of the world, you go breaking down someone’s door, you’re facing a couple of rounds of 00 at a minimum–regardless the level of body armour, at three or four metres, you’re looking at avulsing extremities/entire limbs
The door wasnt broken down. And no matter where you live, police dont need your permission to execute a warrant. Murdering a cop in the role of executing a legal warrant will get you executed in normal parts of the Country, a parade in pro criminal states like MN.
you misunderstand me–these guys entered with a key(even more insidious than a dynamic entry) and THEN begin yelling re their presence/purpose
how do you suppose that registered with the occupant(s)? out of a deep sleep, you awaken to a group of armed, screaming individuals who may/may not have announced their identity/purpose–how would you react?–“no knocks” are usually executed at night/first light for the express purpose of surprise/disorienting the occupant(s), etc.–on the other hand, generations of americans have learned that garden variety thiefs/ thugs typically operate during working hours(as occupants are less likely to be present)–intruders that enter out of the darkness are typically present to harm YOU–we’re not in the mog or afstan, just good ‘ol middle-america–if you’ve done nothing criminal, and the intruders have not clearly(to YOU, not to THEM)announced/identified their purpose, am going to protect my loved ones to the best of my ability and believe each of those officers would do the same in their own homes
I am starting to think you and Juris doctor were both dropped on your heads as infants.
So, I’m pretty sure that all of the sane, rational, and thinking people here realize that “Juris Doctor” is a troll and, TBH, a pretty stupid one at that. Can we please stop feeding the trolls (Fuzzy, I’m looking mostly at you on this one)?
That being said, there is an aspect to this case that I find curious. From the BWC footage, you can clearly see that Locke did not REACH for his firearm, but actually had it at-hand already. He was, basically, sleeping with a (presumably) loaded gun in his hand. This strikes me as very, very odd (but NOT illegal).
I’m a former Military Brat, former military, and a lifelong gun owner as well as being a CHL (now LTC) holder in TX since I was legally allowed to and I have never, NEVER, seen anyone actually sleep with a firearm at hand outside of the military or an enemy combatant standing guard. My wife and I both carry, are “preppers” who are convinced that CW Part 2 is coming down the pike (timing to be determined), but our pistols are “close-to-hand”, not actually “in-hand”.
On one hand: This, to me, suggests that Locke *MAY* have been serving as a guard or lookout for his cousin’s activities and *MAY* have been warned ahead of time.
On the other hand: There was absolutely no way for the LEOs involved to have known that there was someone, ANYONE, with a firearm “at-hand” who might potentially prove a credible and immediate threat to the invading perpetrators (which I consider the LEOs to be at this point, based on BWC and reports).
Again, this is *NOT* illegal! It’s just a curious kind of “WTF?” unanswered question at this point.
Well sure he’s a troll but bad speech is cleaned with good speech. Allowing glaringly perverse statements to unanswered isn’t productive. That’s the same sort of passivity that allowed the militarization of LEO to occur.
As for the guy sleeping with a weapon, lots of vets do and as you stated it isn’t illegal. When LEO conduct these sorts of tactical entries in a nation which still retains widespread firearm ownership they can not be allowed to use ‘hey, they occupant had a gun’ or ‘there might be firearms present’ as the basis for their tactics or to excuse the outcome that is entirely foreseeable in context.
My wife and I both carry, are “preppers” who are convinced that CW Part 2 is coming down the pike (timing to be determined), but our pistols are “close-to-hand”, not actually “in-hand”
handguns are fine but personally don’t rely on them in an instant, in the dark, at home–shotgun is the premier weapon for self-defense at home, in the dark, in an instant–though we have handguns, when we’re asleep, the street howitzers are very close by
After looking at crime stats, if I lived in that neighborhood, I would be sleeping with weapons at the ready, wearing body armor, the door would be obstructed, and the entryway would be covered with marbles spray-painted matt black.
“…He was, basically, sleeping with a (presumably) loaded gun in his hand. This strikes me as very, very odd (but NOT illegal)…”
When I did my search using various people search engines all the ones that included Amir Locke’s address in the free results (I was NOT going to give them my CC information just for comments on a blog) showed a St. Paul MN. Here he was staying at his cousin’s apartment. Or his cousin’s girlfriend; it’s not clear if the cousin was on the lease. It’s also not clear if the couple have children together.
He’s a DoorDash driver. He may have finished his shift late. I checked the weather for the wee hours of 2 Feb, the morning he was killed, for Minneapolis. It was below zero. I have no information on road conditions but apparently it wasn’t snowing that night.
I entered the address of the Bolero apartments into a crime map of Minneapolis. Based upon the color coded map, if it isn’t in one of the highest crime rate neighborhoods, it’s up there.
So, valid reasons he may have stayed the night.
1. He finished his shift late.
2. Icy road conditions; didn’t want to drive home.
3. Combination of the above.
Given the neighborhood I wouldn’t leave my firearm in the car. So why sleep with it? It’s not his place. He might have a safe or lock box of some type at home, but no doubt the best place to secure it, and to keep it handy given the nature of crime in the neighborhood.
I never avoided downtown until a couple of years ago. I think with Antifa was the start of more crime, but definitely Timmy the Tyrant’s shutdowns had a big effect as did giving the George Floyd rioters room to destroy things.
North Minneapolis never recovered from the 1968 riots and both North and Lake street suffered durinig the riots; they both lost major grocery stores which have since been rebuilt – the corpration put in temporary tent stores while rebuilding. Target stupidly rebuilt on lake street. People either had no business insurance or insured only the current cost of the building, then thouht that people should be prohibited from buying land and building on it or should be required to build only with apartments on the property. This, after a nearly complete complex with low-income housing was destroyed.
Tonight there was more uptown; I never went to North, rarely went to Lake Street and thought both Uptwn and Downtown were fine. Stopped going to both and there were more protests tonight but haven’t seen anything about businesses being destroyed; there are businesses that have been hit more than once in the last 2 yrs.
Heh, JD is alright, a bit trollish, but bearable. I read that Locke was sleeping with the gun in his hand over at Powerline, but I don’t see it in the video since the couch back is in the way. My assumption (and we all know about those, heh) was since he was leaning toward the coffee table when the bodycam picked him up, he’d reached for it. That said, even if he slept with it in his hand for the purpose of standing guard (while sleeping?), so what?
He can keep it under his pillow, on his chest, or actually in his hand . . . nothing illegal here. He can sleep on guard all night long, nothing illegal there, either. But what, precisely, do you imagine he was guarding? The subject of the warrant wasn’t there, nor was he at the other two warranted domiciles, and there was no drug or weapons bust or whatever. Makes no sense to me at all. This might be one of those unanswered questions that wasn’t asked in the first place for good reason?
JD keeps vomiting a mountain of horse manure completely unhinged from reality. He insists that the cops somehow knocked before entering and “announced their authority.” The bodycam footage shows the exact opposite. They entered silently with a key and then shouted loudly and unintelligibly as a deliberate tactic to stun the occupants.
As Taurus the judge noted: “The ‘goal’ is to get the ‘drop’ FIRST ( take command of the situation) then issue understandable commands.”
It is insane to argue that they knocked and announced their authority. They clearly didn’t knock and they had not gotten to the stage where they were issuing intelligible commands.
On the last thread I asked if JD had worked in the MFM and was perhaps in on naming the wrong John Holmes the Aurora, CO theater shooter since there was a John Holmes who was a TEA Party member. That was too good to check before broadcast, as was his accusation that Amir R. Locke, 22, of St. Paul MN was the same guy as career criminal Amir M. Locke, 36, of Milwaukee WI.
But now I just got to point out that JD has a bright future ahead of him as the White House spox now that Psaki-bomb is stepping down. It takes a special kind of moral compass to stand at the lectern and tell us we didn’t see or hear what we clearly saw and heard on video. JD has demonstrated he has just that kind of moral compass; broken or God checked the “factory delete” option upon assembly at the plant.
I was never a LEO, but in the Navy part of my training for ship’s reaction force was to conduct dynamic entries. It was part of Shipboard Security Engagement Tactics (SSET). I also trained in Shipboard Security Engagement Weapons (SSEW) and was qualified with every weapon in the small arms locker.
I believe I do have an informed opinion on some legal/law enforcement issues. I was an intelligence officer in the Navy, but I followed a somewhat unusual career path. I have years of experience providing intelligence support to counter-narcotics operations, anti-terrorism, counter-terrorism, and force protection. Which means I worked with DEA, the USCG, NCIS, Navy Security Police, and other local and national police forces. Generally OCONUS (when I worked counter-narcotics I was in Central and South America). That’s why when I was recalled after 9/11 I deployed to Japan and Singapore (later Diego Garcia; that’s the closest I got to the sand box). I’m not ethnically Japanese not am I a native speaker but I can read, speak and write Japanese effectively, so I was part of a working group that included the Yokosuka Municipal Police and Japan National Police (outside of my other liaison duties with the Japan Maritime Defense Force, which were also focused on force protection).
People keep fixating that Locke wasn’t the subject of the warrant, that he was a legal gunowner, that he had a CCW permit, he had been asleep, etc.
He didnt know who they were there to arrest when he reached for his weapon and turned towards police.
Yes, he owned the weapon legally, butthat did not give him the right to brandish a weapon at police.
He wouldve been taught in CCW class (or should have) brandishing is illegal in MN as is resisting arrest.
He had 10 seconds to drop his weapon, that he picked up when they announced themselves. Inthe military, you are given 3 seconds to ‘react naturally’ before you must obey commands and orders. The military has centuries of experience in waking people up into caos, using medical and pratical experience to cometo that timeframe. If people are raised to NOT RESIST ARREST, to not f8ght or run from police, that would kick in. No one in the US has the right to resist arrest. If the arrest is unlawful, you dont fight, you sue.
You seem to be making the case for citizens to install illegal man traps; a shotgun set to trigger when the door is opened in order to create time and space for occupants to react to home invasion. After all if a citizen, not of military age or physically incapable of military service, as most citizens are FYI, has any impediment to your proposed 3 second rule they would also fail to react equally to LEO or a criminal home invasion.
As for arrests and resisting….ok you realize that most States allow citizens to detain and in some cases make arrests ….. the next logical question is what happens when citizens decide to arrest LEO? Should the LEO meekly comply and refrain from resisting and wait to sue the citizen?
“In the military, you are given 3 seconds to ‘react naturally’ before you must obey commands and orders.”
Cite a general order, instruction, or article of the UCMJ as authority or admit you are full of s***. Are you and JD in a competition to out stupid each other?
If the arrest is unlawful, you dont fight, you sue.
such a comfort to mr locke’s family
Wake them up, call them out. If they do not surrender TURN OFF electricity, gas, central HVAC, water, etc. Then WAIT ‘EM OUT.
Costs more but if it saves one life in return for $$$ spent on overtime.
Very little is known about the actual circumstances here. His lawyer claims he had a CCW and legally owned the gun. That might or might not be accurate. We don’t know whose apartment it was, or even the exact details of the warrant.
There just is not enough verified information to form an opinion about this.
His cousin and cousin’s gf lived there. Brother to the suspect.
Amir Locke was in the act of swinging his pistol towards police when he was shot. A frame grab just prior to the one Fuzzy posted shows Locke’s gun pointed straight across the frame. In hers it is swung about 30 degrees towards the approaching officer. One frame later the police are shooting.
Prima facie that makes this case an example of why no-knock warrants are sometimes necessary. One more second and Locke would have been able to shoot the entering police, as it seems he was about to do.
Fuzzy started out this anti-no-knock jag by Fuzzy-pomorphizing Locke’s behavior, suggesting that he was just doing what she would do:
“…who the heck—groggy from sleep and thus not grasping who these people are—wouldn’t automatically reach for their legal firearm in that situation?”
“…not grasping who these people are”? That is quite the assumption. We can be quite sure that Locke knew that his cousin was wanted for murdering a man in a drug deal.
It was the cousin’s girlfriend’s apartment. If that’s where he was staying it is implausible that he didn’t know his cousin was on the lam, and the reason he was sleeping with his gun next to his hand was not to defend against street criminals carjacking his Door Dash deliveries.
Knowing that he was sleeping in a place that was associated with his cousin, there are at least two types of visitors that would obviously have on his mind. 1. He would have been fearing his cousin’s criminal associates and the enemies they have made, such as the friends of the man his cousin murdered. 2. He would have been anticipating police barging in to try to find his murderous cousin.
There is no way he would not have been aware which of these two were barging in. If it was his cousin’s criminal associates or their enemies they probably would have been quiet, since criminals are ambush predators. They don’t announce their presence, but if they DID announce their presence their identity as members of the black street-criminal cohort would have been immediately obvious from their black accent and street-criminal dialect.
These police were shouting with standard American English accents. They were talking like white people, and in particular they were talking in the “dialect” of police officers: “Show your hands!” etcetera.
Since Locke was aware enough to draw his gun he was aware enough to identify that these were police, not the black criminals he might have been expecting. He was also given clear warning that these invaders had gotten the drop on him.
Fuzzy thinks anyone would draw on someone rousing them from sleep. That’s absurd. Everyone who tries to be prepared to defend themselves thinks about when they should draw and when they shouldn’t.
In particular, if someone already has the drop on you, you only draw if you believe that they are going to shoot you anyway, and these guys were doing their best to identify themselves as police so that Locke will know that they were NOT going to shoot him anyway.
So why would Locke have drawn on police, knowing they were almost certainly police? Probably for the same messed up racial reason Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend shot at police when he knew police were entering.
In that raid the police had a no-knock warrant but did not use it, loudly identifying themselves as police before entering. At that Taylor’s boyfriend grabbed his gun and moved toward the door, so there is no reasonable doubt that he was able to hear that they were identifying themselves as police, yet despite not being the subject of any warrant, he did criminally shoot at the police when they entered, thereby felony murdering Miss Taylor. The only reason he wasn’t prosecuted for that murder is because he’s black.
There are endless other cases of blacks fighting with police who are trying to arrest them, or merely question them, when this can only make things worse for themselves. This behavior can only be driven by hostility towards police.
When Elijah McClain’s weird masked behavior (pre Covid) caused a mini-mart customer to call police he refused to submit to questioning, forcing the two responding officers to physically stop him from walking away. Within a few seconds of that initial physical contact the supposedly innocent and naïve McClain tried to murder the two officers by grabbing one officer’s gun.
They were ridiculously lenient towards him after this and did nothing but restrain him, which he continued to furiously resist until his own manic fury killed him.
Maybe it’s because their parents are telling them that if they are ever subject to police attention it will not be for anything they did but will be just because they are black. “But don’t get mad! That’s just the way it is!”
Right. Good way to guarantee that your kids WILL get mad and fight and end up killing or being killed.
Hindsight in the Taylor case says police should have used their no-knock provision so that Taylor’s boyfriend wouldn’t have had time to ambush them. Hindsight in the Locke case suggests it’s a good thing that Locke did not have another second to finish drawing down on police.
It was the suspects brother and his gf living in the apartment. The suspect lived in an apartment on another floor with his mother, next door to his partner in crime.
Wow. Racist much?
Racist? That’s a slanderous charge. There is nothing racist in what I said. What in the world do you think is racist?
I noted simple facts of the reality of the situation. Do you think it’s racist to note that black criminals speak an instantly identifiable black English? If so then you are calling yourself racist because you know it as well as I do.
Is it racist to say that no black would ever worry in the least about a home invasion robbery by whites because they have to worry about crimes that actually happen?
Sounds like you don’t want to credit black people with an awareness of the realities of the world around them.
Is it racist to say that Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend was not charged with felony murder only because he is black? That is a FACT. Dropping felony murder charges was an explicit racial deal that was offered to appease the BLM mob.
Irrational accusations of racism are evil woke garbage.
A sad situation indeed. I have a CC permit and would be very concerned if I also had friends / relatives who were considered armed and dangerous especially if they occasionally stayed with me. A cop is under no obligation to give a perp or potential perp the first shot. Nevertheless we should review the “no knock” rules and see if we can agree to some improvements.