Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

No-Knock Warrants Debate Reinvigorated By Police Shooting Death of Amir Locke

No-Knock Warrants Debate Reinvigorated By Police Shooting Death of Amir Locke

The 22-year-old Locke was shot three times within 10 seconds of the SWAT team storming the residence.

Let me start this by stating that I am not a fan of no-knock warrants; the very idea strikes me as grossly unjust and in direct violation of a foundational element of American jurisprudence that rightly considers it better that 10/100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man should suffer.

In theory, our legal system is designed to protect the innocent at all costs, including the occasional guilty person walking free when the burden of proof is not convincingly presented.  Sir William Blackstone famously argued that it is “better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man should suffer,” and this premise was later iterated by Benjamin Franklin in 1785, with a significant change to emphasize the underlying principle of the Blackstone Formulation:  “it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.”

No-knock warrants are, to my mind, an unacceptable inversion of that core principle of American justice because they 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.

This is wrong, and there is no justification whatsoever in my mind for storming a residence with a SWAT team whose members are necessarily on high alert and combat-ready because they are storming a dwelling with a SWAT team.

I don’t care if they are looking for Jack the Ripper or the next jihadi intent on causing America harm.  No-knock warrants are an inexcusable use of force that unnecessarily places everyone involved at risk of serious injury or death–including innocents who may be in the dwelling, those who aren’t even the target of the warrant, or, as too often happens, the team has the wrong address—and as such no-knock warrants have no place in a free and civil society.

The recent police shooting death of Amir Locke in Minneapolis during the execution of a no-knock warrant is a case in point.  It’s worth noting that police had both a warrant and a no-knock warrant (related to a homicide investigation that itself was unrelated to Locke) but rejected executing the regular warrant.

Things to note: Locke was not named in the warrants nor was he reportedly a suspect or even a person of interest in the homicide investigation that served as grounds for the warrants.  Further, he was in legal possession of a firearm for which he had a concealed carry permit that he reportedly obtained because as a Door Dash delivery driver he feared carjackings.

The 22-year-old Locke was shot three times within 10-14 seconds of the SWAT team storming the residence.

Here’s the police bodycam footage:

The New York Post reports:

Dramatic bodycam video captured the moment a Minneapolis police SWAT team member fatally shot a 22-year-old armed black man during a no-knock-warrant raid on his apartment.

In the clip released by police Thursday, cops are seen turning a key to enter a seventh-floor apartment on South Marquette Avenue at 6:48 a.m. Wednesday while serving a warrant in connection with a homicide probe out of St. Paul, the Star Tribune reported.

The officers are seen barging inside the unit, yelling, “Police search warrant! … Get on the f—- ground!” One SWAT team member is heard yelling, “Hands! Hands! Hands!”

The cops move toward a couch where the man, Amir Locke, is seen covered in a blanket as he tries to stand up while holding a firearm in his right hand. Three gunshots are then heard from one of the officers.

In a city still reeling from the police killing of George Floyd, the shooting is likely to spark new questions about the use of no-knock warrants — particularly since Locke was not the subject of the warrant, according to the paper.

Yes, Locke was reaching for and managed to grab his legally-owned and -permitted firearm, but he was asleep when the unit swarmed into the dwelling, and 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?

And this is yet another problem with no-knock warrants, they are often executed in the wee/pre-dawn hours of the morning specifically in order to catch victims while they are asleep.  The police in this case created the situation in which the sleeping Locke groggily reached for his legal firearm . . . and then shot him dead.  I have a problem with that.  And frankly, I’d have a problem with that if he were the subject of the warrant and/or its underlying homicide investigation.

Here’s the presser featuring the mayor and chief of police:

Over at Reason, Billy Binion discusses why he thinks “Amir Locke’s Death Should Incense Anyone Who Cares About Gun Rights.”

An officer with the Minneapolis Police Department SWAT team shot and killed a 22-year-old man early Wednesday morning during the execution of a no-knock raid, reinvigorating debate around a law-enforcement tactic that many say is ripe for abuse.

The victim, Amir Locke, who appeared to be asleep on the couch that morning, was not named on that warrant. In a matter of about three seconds, body camera footage shows the man—buried under a thick white blanket—stirring to the sound of the cops’ entry with his hand on the barrel of a firearm. Officer Mark Hanneman then shoots him three times.

Interim Minneapolis Police Chief Amelia Huffman initially said that Hanneman shot Locke because Locke pointed his gun “in the direction of officers.” But the footage released by the government appeared to contradict that: Locke’s gun was pointed to the side, and his hand was on the barrel of the weapon, not the trigger.

He owned the gun legally and had a concealed carry permit, according to his family’s legal representation. “My son was executed…and now his dreams have been destroyed,” said Locke’s mother, Karen Wells, at a press conference Friday. “They didn’t even give him a chance,” echoed attorney Ben Crump.

. . . . Locke’s scenario should bother just about anyone who supports the right to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment does not discriminate, nor does it evaporate as soon as the government enters the premises, particularly when considering that the Founding impetus behind it was to protect against a tyrannical state.

Everything about this shooting needs to be investigated thoroughly and, if found to be applicable, charges pursued against the officer/s involved.  I don’t say this lightly and am certainly not about to join a BLM march or burn my thin blue line American flag, but the police shooting death of Amir Locke is, to my mind, a prime example of why no-knock warrants should be abolished throughout this country.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

johnny dollar | February 6, 2022 at 7:41 pm

I believe “no knock” warrants should be issued sparingly, only in the most exigent circumstances.
I can imagine a scenario where an armed kidnapper is threatening to kill his captive if the police try to make entry. I can envision a scenario where fanatic militants wearing bomb vests would blow themselves and everyone else up in the police tried to enter.
To ban “no knock” warrants would result in the deaths of an unknown quantity of police officers.
I believe that they should be strictly scrutinized by the issuing judge, but to ban them entirely would result in an unacceptable risk to police.

    Only used with the level of caution we use in antiterror raids overseas. Identify the number/gender/age of people in the building, Enter when the target is alone to the greatest extent possible, General responsibility to avoid collateral injuries.

    Yeah, I haven’t seen anything about why they requested a no-knock warrant in this case.

    What? The feds would be dealing with any kidnapping or terrorist situation you outline. Not local PD and SWAT unless they were working as feebee butt monkeys. Banning no-knock warrants doesn’t change a thing regarding the handling of kidnappers or terrorists. You know that, right?

      johnny dollar in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 6, 2022 at 8:23 pm

      You did not limit your comments to state and local pd. Your statement is “no-knock warrants should be abolished throughout this country”. If you now concede that at least the Feds should have that ability, then perhaps you should explain why local police and sheriffs should not have the ability to secure those warrants when faced with local situations involving highly unstable and dangerous suspects. Which occurs quite often.
      As far as your point about kidnapping and terrorism, kidnapping is a state crime as well as a federal crime, and I have personally prosecuted several of them in state court.
      Your point about terrorism is probably correct, though since you did not limit your advocacy to state and local law enforcement, there would have been no way for me to know that.

        I didn’t specify because in the case of kidnappings and terrorist threats, the feds don’t need freaking warrants.

        Even local LE doesn’t need a warrant if they believe a rampaging murderer is on the scene.

        Here’s me clarifying me on my anti-no-knock warrants stance: Shut them all down. No LE agency from local to fed can handle having that much power, and it needs to be shut down. All of it.

        (Note, I was originally in favor of the feds having more leeway, but on reflection, they can’t handle that amount of power, either, and will abuse it just as much as the Minneapolis PD/SWAT did here. So now I am shut it all down, no more no knock warrants, by any agency. Ever. Period.)

          SuddenlyHappyToBeHere in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 7, 2022 at 12:28 pm

          On the subject of local LE involvement in kidnapping matters, you need some education. It is not hard to find if you are not lazy. Here is what the US DOJ says about federal jurisdiction in kidnapping:

          Federal jurisdiction over kidnapping extends to the following situations: (1) kidnapping in which the victim is willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce; (2) kidnapping within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; (3) kidnapping within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States; (4) kidnapping in which the victim is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1116(b); (5) kidnapping in which the victim is a Federal officer or employee designated in 18 U.S.C. § 1114; and (6) international parental kidnapping in which the victim is a child under the age of 16 years.

          Leaves a lot of territory for local LE, no?

          You’re right, no. The FBI is called in on kidnappings all the time (I can’t find a single instance in the past 50 years when they were NOT called in when law enforcement is involved); whether or not charges are brought at the federal level is dictated by this fungible outline and pretty much depends on whether or not the locals/state gets a conviction. In many cases, when the locals don’t get a conviction, the feds will double back and get the kidnapper via (flexible reading of) federal statute (or for something else entirely, think Al Capone). How can you be so condescending while having no idea at all what you are talking about? Mind-boggling.

          civisamericanus in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 7, 2022 at 2:06 pm

          True. If a hostage is in imminent danger then police do not need a warrant to intervene.

        First of all, local law enforcement agencies have SWAT teams to deal with hostage situations. They don’t sit around and wait for the FBI HRT to show up. Second, local PDs train their officers to deal with active shooter situations such as school shooting.

        Nobody at any level of law enforcement needs to wait for a judge to sign a search warrant to deal with an imminent, active threat. A crime actually in progress. They only need a search warrant when the only reason they have to enter a property is, you know, conduct a search.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | February 6, 2022 at 11:52 pm

          I should have added that they need a warrant to conduct an arrest. Not merely search for property. Both can be executed when there isn’t a crime in progress.

          Still, I don’t see why anyone would need a no-knock warrant of either kind. Cops don’t need to bust down doors to arrest someone inside, all you really need to do is cover all the exits and arrest the suspect outside. In fact, that used be old timey police work 101. Nearly all no-knock warrants are used in drug busts to prevent the dealers from getting rid of the drugs. The TV scenario is to prevent the destruction of evidence when the dealer flushing the drugs down a toilet.

          The problem is to obtain a no-knock warrant all a cop needs to swear to in an affidavit is that all the cop needs is a confidential informant (CI) to tell him that the 1) residence is confined (who lives in unconfined spaces) and the suspect keeps the doors locked and 2) the suspect keeps the doors locked and 3) they don’t let people they don’t know into the residence and 4) the residence has a functioning toilet. Then the affiant basically lists his/her experience making drug busts and controlled buys, and based on his/her law enforcement experience it would be too easy for the suspect to destroy the evidence if given warning.

          Got that? The suspect lives in a house or apartment with walls and doors, and the doors lock and the residents keep them locked, and they don’t let strangers in to wander around, and they have a working toilet. In other words, they live like a normal human being. That’s all it takes to get a no-knock warrant. I have issues with that. Also with relying on the word of CIs, who are themselves criminals who usually have their own agendas.

          Kidnapping is an automatic federal offense, so yes, the FBI is involved. Local SWAT may deal with random hostage situations, but even then, the FBI is called in. And yes, locals do defer to the feds (sad but very true).

          And you are right that no LE is required to wait for a warrant in almost any situation that they believe poses a direct threat to civilians.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | February 7, 2022 at 1:25 am

          Fuzzy, not to be argumentative but kidnapping is a state offense in all 50 states, and presumably D.C. as well.

          The feds can prosecute the kidnappers but almost always only when the kidnapping crosses state lines. Or if it occurs on federal property.

      henrybowman in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 6, 2022 at 11:39 pm

      Oh sure. But then the next excuse is, “Well they can flush victimless drugs down the toilet and we have to surprise them so they don’t get the chance.”
      As Aesop preached, “Any excuse will serve a tyrant.”

        Ha! They are already saying that and have begun to protect this unjust and unAmerican practice.

        Frankly, I don’t care if Locke was some kind of crackhead pimp gangbanger blah blah blah (I should note here that so far there is no evidence that he was remotely criminal in any way). What happened to him never should have happened. And it wouldn’t have, he’d be alive today, if there were no no-knock warrants.

        Honestly, this is so horrific. Locke committed no crime, was not under investigation for any crime, yet was shot dead by cops acting on a no-knock order that is so faulty it makes me want to vomit.

        This is ten kinds of wrong.

          henrybowman in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 7, 2022 at 1:46 am

          And it’s not as if this behavior is in any way new.

          In 1992, the very white, very rich Donald Scott (CA) was no-knocked on “suspicion of growing MJ in his yard,” and shot dead when he came out of his bedroom in his PJs, armed. Scott was clean as the driven snow. Come to find out, “It is the District Attorney’s opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. Based in part upon the possibility of forfeiture, Spencer obtained a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. This search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant.”

          Incredibly long list of innocent dead no-knock victims here, including Scott and (one of my favorites) Accelyne WIlliams, a 75yo black minister in Boston who died of a heart attack just from the home invasion (at the wrong address).

    ” “no knock” warrants should be issued sparingly”….

    Like FISA warrants?

    Once the a Stacey Abrams’ nose is under the tent, the body will follow.

    Stacey Abrams Is On The Board Of A Group Collaborating With The Chinese Communist Party:

    https://thenationalpulse.com/2021/04/15/stacey-abrams-on-board-of-ccp-cap-group/

      henrybowman in reply to TheFineReport.com. | February 7, 2022 at 1:51 am

      Dayton Daily News, July 19, 2008:

      Topic: A cannon to SWAT a fly?

      Those of us who are old enough to remember how the concept of police SWAT teams were sold to the public will recall that they were sold as emergency specialists, reserved for the apprehension of hostage-holding madmen and other dangerous criminals who were well armed and barricaded.

      This past week, Dayton has treated the entire United States to the bathetic image of an elite SWAT team assaulting a motel room to apprehend a man suspected of snatching a purse from a shopping cart. 50 years ago, this was the sort of task that we would have seen routinely handled by Sheriff Andy Taylor, probably even without the backup of Deputy Barney Fife.

      When did we as Americans agree to the all-out militarization of our domestic peace forces? Things have gone too far, too fast — when are we going to rouse ourselves to say, “no more”?

        DaveGinOly in reply to henrybowman. | February 7, 2022 at 12:23 pm

        Google increase in use of swat teams over time.
        For example:
        https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/content/the-rise-of-swat-sources/
        From the page:
        S.W.A.T. has increased 15,000% (from the late 1970s to today). (“Today” is March 2016, the date of the article – DG)
        7% of all S.W.A.T. deployments are for hostage, barricade or active shooter scenarios. 80% of all S.W.A.T. raids are to execute search warrants.

          taurus the judge in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 8, 2022 at 9:28 am

          Hardly articles and studies from legitimate unbiased sources without agendas.

          Here are some comments that put a truer context on much of this propaganda trying to pass itself off as a legitimate statement from one who has actually done it and trained such forces currently.

          First SWAT (special weapons and tactics) in and of itself is a broad section of training which can legitimately cover things ranging from terrorism and even down to traffic detail or warrant serving. Most of the words are journalistic hyperbole. Serving warrants is in fact a “special tactic” often requiring additional training.

          Then there is resource allocation and money- Everybody wants to “right size” and follow a process. Duties have to be allocated. It often makes sense to keep uniforms and investigators engaged while warrant teams do that task. Also, a “TV” type “swat” scenario doesn’t happen every day and this payroll and training has to be justified somehow.

          There has also been a “push” toward specialization/certification and “expertise” over the last few decades everywhere- using a SWAT for specialized things such as warrant service is not out of a reasonable expectation. Often liability attaches when someone isn’t “properly trained” ( as argued in court) with punishing results.

          As far as equipment- grenade launchers ( riot agent and smoke) are normal, the M-4 is mechanically no different than any AR on the market ( other than selective fire)- is there a different weapon anyone would prefer( Mini-14, M1A, FN-FAL?).. I have never seen “fixed bayonets'” in a stateside raid but the issue bayonet also cuts wire and pry’s windows and doors as an entrance tool. A hummer is no mechanically different than any other vehicle except it “looks” cool but it is built for abuse.

          “militarization” is a nebulous term for effect- not an accurate description. I have never seen or heard of a SWAT team calling in artillery and air support prior to obliterating an objective. I have also never seen or heard of a unit wantonly going in and just trench brooming with “spray and pray” stuff.

          So, other than individual conduct and errors of judgement ( there is such a thing as a legitimate fog of war in addition to actual incompetence) – what exactly are the issues ( and legitimate justifications for those issues) for SWAT teams and them serving warrants and other tasks?

    Exigent circumstances like those you described eliminate the need for warrants entirely. If you have an ongoing hostage situation and you believe the hostages are in imminent danger you don’t go to a judge and ask for a warrant. If you have a hostage take/terrorist threatening to shoot hostages then you take out the hostage taker/terrorist.

    Remember the synagogue hostage situation a few weeks ago in Coffeeville, TX? Yeah, no judges and no warrants involved when the HRT went in and killed the perp.

      Exactly. There are plenty of crisis situations in which local and federal law enforcement can act without a warrant.

      There is no need at all for LE to use a no-knock warrant in any situation. Pick up the suspected perp, get a warrant to search his property, and then let him go (since you clearly didn’t have crap to begin with or you wouldn’t have just randomly picked up this suspect, obtained a warrant to search his premises, and then let him go because you not only didn’t get a confession but didn’t get any incriminating evidence you hoped for with that first warrant). Well, what a bummer.

      And here if you just entered the premises of this legally innocent person and shot him to death on a no-knock warrant, everything is better (except for the victims’ families. And for America.).

    henrybowman in reply to johnny dollar. | February 6, 2022 at 11:37 pm

    “I believe “no knock” warrants should be issued sparingly, only in the most exigent circumstances.”

    Why bother? That’s precisely how they were sold. Once approved, mission creep set in, as it always does.

    Why will Americans never learn?

    If you give government a power that CAN be abused, it WILL be abused. Every f-g time.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to johnny dollar. | February 7, 2022 at 2:19 am

    I find it hard to fault the swat team for this. And, I want to see Amir Locke’s rap sheet, if there is one, in order to determine if he is truly a victim. Also, Chump’s involvement is a very good reason to be suspicious about the nature of Amir Locke.

    Is this a case of faulty intelligence? Or was Amir Locke associated with bad players?

    mbecker908 in reply to johnny dollar. | February 7, 2022 at 2:59 pm

    Banning no-knock warrants would not result in the death of any police officers. That is a complete crock of crap.

    Suspects are accessible outside their residence in any number of locations where they can be identified and arrested without any greater risk to officers.

    No warrant is necessary in that situation.

The Gentle Grizzly | February 6, 2022 at 7:42 pm

Just collateral damage on the war on drugs. Yay team. I guess…

Thin blue line, amirite?

I don’t like no-knocks, especially as broadly applied as they are. Nor do I think this is an incident we shouldn’t be concerned about.

Having said that, it doesn’t look to my eye like he was holding the barrel, though his finger does look to be along the slide. And while the gun wasn’t pointed in the direction of the camera, it does seem to generally pointed in the direction (or at least vaguely in the direction) of the lead officer who is to the right of FOV.

    Dathurtz in reply to f2000. | February 6, 2022 at 7:59 pm

    Yep. It bugs me that cops can foolishly create a dangerous situation for a groggy/waking up person and then murder them when they instinctively respond.

      Juris Doctor in reply to Dathurtz. | February 6, 2022 at 8:06 pm

      Cops didn’t “create” anything. They were there in response to a homicide.

        Dathurtz in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 6, 2022 at 8:12 pm

        Wait…they were they to prevent a homicide? To disrupt a dangerous situation?

        Or were they there to collect evidence from a peaceful situation?

        Hell yes, they created the dangerous situation.

        Well, no, they weren’t. There was a homicide investigation related to that address, but there is no evidence at all that they were responding to a recent homicide (a crime scene).

        There’s a big difference between “responding to a homicide” (which, as you know, would require no warrants at all) and getting warrants, including a no-knock, in the process of an ongoing homicide investigation.

          Thank you, Fuzzy.

          Sure, but, maybe, they were closing in on a very dangerous murder suspect.

          If they were ‘closing in on a very dangerous murder suspect’, then maybe they should have done a basic amount of surveillance and investigation to know whether the suspect was actually there.

          Because there’s been NOTHING that demonstrates the guy that they shot was a suspect, and there was apparently nobody else in the apartment.

          So ‘closing in on a very dangerous murder suspect’ is not going to cut it.

          Juris Doctor in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 6, 2022 at 9:12 pm

          And what was the genesis of the homicide investigation? (hint….a homicide). This isn’t difficult.

          Okay, so say there’s a homicide investigation that leads to your home, but not you, or heck, it may even be your neighbor’s home, LE isn’t always precise, and they raid your home. You’re snoozing away with visions of police state sugarplums dancing in your head, and all of a sudden, random, uninvited people have stormed your home. Many males, and I wouldn’t presume to count you among them, would instinctively reach for their legally owned weapon to defend their loved ones.

          He’s dead now.

          Later we learn that the actual target was next door but one. Silly typo! Support the police and their no-knock raids, we rarely get our target but we have an 85% kill rate on random Americans! Woots!

          maxblancke in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 6, 2022 at 9:16 pm

          There has been essentially no information released on the specifics of the warrant or the crime that it is related to.
          What we do have is the partial body cam video, with no context, and statements by Ben Crump, the lawyer for the family.
          “He owned the gun legally and had a concealed carry permit, according to his family’s legal representation” is from the article.
          The “according to….” part is key, in that statement. That particular legal representative has a long history of telling lies about his clients in order to shape public sentiment and stoke outrage.

          We are being asked to come to conclusions about an event which we know little about, so far.

          Don’t get me wrong. Crump is race-baiting, ambulance chasing pond scum.

          But the fact that the police chief held a freaking press conference and the best they could come up with was a lie about him pointing a gun at officers, with absolutely NO justification for the actual warrant, tells you an awful lot.

          If Locke were the homicide suspect, or the primary suspect, then they would have already released that information.

          The fact that they’re playing cagey with exactly who and what they were looking for tells you that this isn’t going to stand up to public scrutiny.

          The Ferguson Police waited like a month to tell the public Michael Brown had just robbed someone and that was why the police were after him. What we think we know about this case may be wrong.

      f2000 in reply to Dathurtz. | February 6, 2022 at 8:17 pm

      I imagine there are cops out there that are happy for this situation to arise, but absent specific evidence that is the case here, your characterization is unsupported. On the other end, I doubt many cops want a situation where a confused resident leaps up with a gun in hand. That’s a very life threatening situation for both of them. The main problem seems to me that the possibility of innocent loss of life over this sort of confusion is not given any weight at all in exercising these warrants, which is what Fuzzy also seemed to be driving at.

        Well said, F2000! Thank you 🙂

        Dathurtz in reply to f2000. | February 6, 2022 at 8:24 pm

        If they didn’t want it to happen, then they wouldn’t do it. Or maybe they are just total fools. This isn’t exactly the first time this has happened.

          f2000 in reply to Dathurtz. | February 6, 2022 at 8:51 pm

          I have no statistics at hand, but I’d guess that this happens in a small enough percentage of cases that there’s a decimal and at least one following zero involved. That means it’s not something very likely to happen. But it is something that could happen, and the lethal consequences are permanent and tragic, and at least arguably, not worth the risk. Again, feel free to support your “they wanted it to happen” assertion if you can.

          Dathurtz in reply to Dathurtz. | February 6, 2022 at 8:57 pm

          Sure. I don’t want to create a situation where I have to kill somebody, so I do my best to avoid it. Ta-da! Just like every rational human.

          Now, how many life-threateningly dumb things did you do today? I’d bet zero. Just like most people. Because we all have that choice. Even people with a badge.

          henrybowman in reply to Dathurtz. | February 6, 2022 at 11:43 pm

          The cherry on top is that if this guy had aced one or two of the cops, he had a good chance of being legally exonerated. Of course, he’d be dead because they outnumbered him, but sometime, somewhere, some other jackboot might think twice.

        mbecker908 in reply to f2000. | February 7, 2022 at 3:08 pm

        Given the situation as we understand it now, the police had a legal warrant (that I disagree with but it’s still a legal warrant) to enter the premises on a no-knock basis. They came through the door, followed proper procedure (as I understand their procedure, I don’t have the manual), an unidentified male subject comes off the couch with a firearm and was shot by officers.

        This is what is commonly referred to as an “awful but lawful” shooting.

        That said, I’m sure Minneapolis is on the hook for another $30MM or so in a settlement with Crump, and I wouldn’t for a second be surprised if the police who fired the fatal shots aren’t prosecuted and convicted. It is Minneapolis, after all.

      This bothers me, too.

It really hasn’t though. The video proves that the officers announced four times before entering.

    CommoChief in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 6, 2022 at 8:28 pm

    LEO should have the ability request a no knock warrant under very narrow circumstances. That request should be reviewed by Department command level for interim approval and submission to the DA for approval before being submitted jointly to a Judge for final review and approval. The Judicial review must not be pro forma but rather a thorough independent analysis of the evidence submitted. detailing that the circumstances meet the criteria for approval.

    No knock warrants create the conditions for catastrophic failure. They introduce military tactics into what is supposed to be a law enforcement function. Their use should be restricted to extraordinary circumstances. Both LEO leadership and DAs have a responsibility to ensure they aren’t a matter of routine. The judiciary must exercise its duty to conduct an independent examination of the facts presented in the application and reject those which don’t meet stringent criteria.

      Dathurtz in reply to CommoChief. | February 6, 2022 at 8:38 pm

      Amen.

      Okay, Chief, I’m sold. Your last paragraph is extremely powerful. But how do we ensure that mission creep doesn’t lead to senseless deaths like this one? The judiciary isn’t the answer since 99% of judges just sign whatever and are so rarely held to account. Why did this judge [snipped for wrongness, all mine] sign TWO warrants, a regular one AND a no-knock for the same address? That is crazy to me.

        CommoChief in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 6, 2022 at 9:19 pm

        How about throwing the judiciary and the DA into the ring alongside the LEO? Did the request meet the stringent conditions required for its issuance? Did the DA help conceal exculpatory evidence? Did the Judge actually review the request or does the timeline suggest that he simply signed it at 0200 after being awakened at 0155?

        If we can civilian review boards for LEO we can have them for DA and Judges. Create a process for review when warrants go wrong to determine whether all I dotted and T crossed. Suspend the DA and Judge while review process is completed. If LEO can be suspended so can they. If LEO can be thrown under the bus, so can they. If LEO can be charged with civil rights violations so can they. As long as they didn’t deviate from the book the DA who submitted and the Judge who approved the warrant have nothing to worry about, just like LEO.

          theyeti in reply to CommoChief. | February 7, 2022 at 11:38 am

          This…The buck should not stop at the involved officers.

          I wholeheartedly agree with the article with the following exception: “…charges pursued against the officer/s involved.” In this case, the police are little more that trained dogs doing a job for their boss(es). The entire chain needs to be closely examined and facing consequences wherever appropriate. Complacent judge that signs whatever is placed in front of him? Police face physical risks in their jobs, perhaps if judges faced career, civil, & criminal risks as a result of their decisions they would take their jobs a bit more seriously. A police chief testifying against one of his officers at trial? All I hear is chief explaining details of his failed leadership. Overly ambitious DA that wants a newsworthy drug bust on April 20th? Should be political suicide with civil liability, there needs to be a downside for those involved to prevent taking of excessive risks. End qualified immunity.

          Lastly, note that I compare police to trained dogs in a very narrow metaphor and not to be offensive or demeaning, if you don’t understand that, I can’t explain it to you.

        I want to preface this by saying I appreciate all of the contributors on this site, one of the few places one can come and be able to read the truth. That being said, the Rittenhouse case was in kenosha co wisconsin, not minnesota. Not sure if this was mixed up with the floyd case?

        JohnSmith100 in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 7, 2022 at 2:38 am

        What bothers me is that we are taking Chump’s word that this is a senseless death, based on his past conduct, I see no reason to believe this.

          Fatkins in reply to JohnSmith100. | February 7, 2022 at 4:04 am

          You don’t need to know his past conduct, that’s not relevant at all. The relevant part is the fact that within circa 10 seconds a sleeping man was shot dead in his own home who wasn’t even the target of the warrant. As others have mentioned he lawfully possessed a firearm and was put in a situation where he was bound to react; I cant see an angle where it remotely could be justified. To say that his past conduct allowed the police to in effect have carte blanche to kill him seems like a massive overreach.

          Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

          JohnSmith100 in reply to JohnSmith100. | February 9, 2022 at 9:44 pm

          Ever since George Zimmerman we have seen a rather long list of bad players painted as saints, good college bound boys, and a long list of other lies. We have seen an endless stream of productive citizens demonized, and their lives destroyed. We have seen ambulance chasing shysters unjustly getting bit payouts.

          With that in mind, I am not jumping on the bandwagon that this case is somehow different, and while past crimes may not be introduced in a trail, the public has a right to look at such when judging rather or not to feel sorry for this guy.

          That said, I do think that middle of the night raids like this should ne limited to the worst players.

          .I also have big problems with forfeitures

          How many dead police? Too many, and you can bet that every police officer is well aware of which perps are the most dangerous

      donewiththis in reply to CommoChief. | February 6, 2022 at 9:42 pm

      “They introduce military tactics into what is supposed to be a law enforcement function.”

      +1.. As a former LEO I have been very concerned about the ever increasing militarization of our police departments. There is no reason for these police teams to be driving around in MRAPs, carrying full auto M-4s with night vision gear and kicking peoples doors in at 3:00 AM in the morning. The chance of the wrong person getting whacked is just too great.

      Remember, a simple typo on that warrant means that combat platoon is coming through *your* door. What are you going to do if someone breaks into your house at 3:00 AM? I know what I am going to do and someone is going to get hurt. Further, do you really want the government arming up the police with this stuff? The government already speaks about us as domestic terrorists for the simple fact that we disagree with him.

      Nah, give me Barney Fife, not Rambo.

        “”a simple typo on that warrant means that combat platoon is coming through *your* door.””

        They didn’t come through my door, but I was treated to the sight of two (one county mounty and one local cop outside of his jurisdiction) creeping through my car port late one night. If I had followed my first instinct and grabbed my handgun, which was close at hand, I’d be dead now and not pointing out that idiots with guns shouldn’t have the authority to enter any property at random, ESPECIALLY when it’s the wrong house number on the wrong street 30 miles from the address they were supposedly dispatched to.

      mbecker908 in reply to CommoChief. | February 7, 2022 at 3:16 pm

      How about eliminating immunity for all parties involved in the execution of the no-knock warrant. Including the DA, all LE, including direct chain of command for those executing it, and the judge who issues it. All can be held fully liable for both civil and criminal damages.

      Short of that, no to no-knock warrants.

      From everything I can find about this particular case, they didn’t even manage to arrest the murder suspect they were after. If that’s the case, everyone on the above list should be in prison.

      lichau in reply to CommoChief. | February 7, 2022 at 8:45 pm

      So-what would be those “extraordinary circumstances”? I very much dislike categoric statements, but have difficulty imagining circumstances that justify a no-knock warrant. I am NOT saying I cannot imagine no circumstances under which busting a door down is justifiable–you have some hostage situation, people are being killed or highly likely to be killed. Bust down the door, do whatever you need to. But no warrant is required.

    The video proves that the officers announced four times before entering

    Which doesn’t mean much seeing as the now dead occupant was asleep and didn’t hear them. For that matter, they may not have been audible even if the occupant was awake.

      txvet2 in reply to randian. | February 7, 2022 at 7:58 pm

      True. The two who showed up at my back door claimed to have knocked on my front door, but the TV was on and I couldn’t have heard them even if they did. I DO have a working doorbell, but that was apparently beyond their technological skills.

    TheAbidingDude in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 7:48 am

    The only way you can say that is if you don’t consider the area immediately past the front door to be part of the apartment.

    They didn’t bother clearing the door to the side, they just charged straight in.

    Finally, home invasion burglars frequently dress in SWAT overalls and shout “POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!” I guess you believe that voids any right of self-defense.

    JD: “The video proves that the officers announced four times before entering.” WRONG. It proves that they entered first, _then_ “announced” – if several men shouting different things at the same time can be called “announcing”. Even someone who wasn’t asleep when this started might not have been able to discern from this incoherent shouting that they were police within 10 seconds.

    With no information that their suspect was even in the apartment, they planned this raid to disorient and confuse _anyone_ inside the apartment, and they shot Locke because he was disoriented and confused. That sounds like manslaughter. But fascism-apologists like JD will keep lying about the facts to excuse the killers.

This is a very easy open and shut case. Amir Locke commited felony assault with a firearm. His felonious conducted was resonably and appropriately responded to.

Sec. 609.06 MN Statutes

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.

What the case HAS envigorated is a lot of very stupid people and the usual race hustlers suggesting that there is some sort of “legal right” for a person to pull a gun on officers serving a facially valid warrant if 1) the gun is allegedly lawfully owned 2) the person allegedly has a CCW permit 3) the person is allegedly not named in the warrant. Of course all of those assertions are nonsense and none of those talking points have any relevance at all to the question of justification.

    Dathurtz in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 6, 2022 at 8:17 pm

    How’s that boot taste, worm?

    What a load of nonsense. I don’t care that Amir is black, blue, or green and am most certainly not a “race hustler.” That race hustlers will undoubtedly latch onto this concerns me zero much.

    Right is right and wrong is wrong. No-knock warrants are wrong. Period. Not because race but because they are inherently unjust and undermine the foundational concepts of American jurisprudence.

    Here’s the thing, there are millions of Americans who sleep very close to their legally-owned firearm, and yes, if you are trained, the very first thing you will do upon being awakened by any noise at all (let alone by armed men entering your dwelling) is reach for that legally-owned firearm. It’s instinct for any gun owner. Given a couple of minutes to wake up and grasp what is going on, said gun owner would happily comply with law enforcement. But Locke was not given that chance. That is indefensible. Which is why you are resorting to burbling that my stance is “nonsense” blah blah.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it doesn’t matter that Locke legally owned a legal firearm for which he was permitted? Are you seriously suggesting that his not being named in the warrant is irrelevant? Apparently not since you are not actually making a case but are just Grr Arrghing while you tilt at windmills. Stompy foot says it’s not relevant! So there! Take that!

    Um, yeah. No.

      Juris Doctor in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 6, 2022 at 9:13 pm

      No they aren’t

      “Right is right and wrong is wrong. No-knock warrants are wrong. Period. “

      Juris Doctor in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 6, 2022 at 9:15 pm

      #FACT Knock and announce warrants are MORE DANGEROUS than no knock warrants because the knocking brings additional attention to the officers location and gives the suspects additional time to arm themselves.

        What a load of absolute crap. Sorry, if your police are this incompetent and useless, why would I care about them at all?

        Pretty much everyone in America is armed, so no matter what, any LEO is going into an armed situation. And has been for two centuries, so the hell what? Normies don’t kill police, and we certainly don’t draw on them . . . unless they show up in our bedroom in the dead of night and our instinct is to reach for our firearm. In which case we are dead, but hey, oops, we meant to no-knock the house next door. And stuff. Did we say “oops”? I hope so because we really really mean it.

        No-knock raids must be abolished. In all fifty states. Period.

        henrybowman in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 1:55 am

        Tough s*t. That’s the damn JOB they signed up for. If they can’t do it, let somebody else do it.

    CommoChief in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 6, 2022 at 8:53 pm

    You may not want to rely on the statute alone. For example, LEO announce presence but the occupant is hearing impaired. In that case the occupant has not had the opportunity to respond to the announcement. Same for someone on sleep meds or just a drunken stupor. The announcement isn’t a pretext after which LEO is automatically justified. Far from it. Did the occupant hear it? Hearing it did they fully process it? Upon hearing and processing it were they given time to respond and comply? Merely yelling police doesn’t mean the occupant heard or understood the announcement.

    You probably want to review MN case law not just the statute. Every person in every State can defend or attempt to defend themselves from intruders. Unless it can be proven that person knew they were facing LEO then that person would likely be justified in such a situation in almost every State. See B Taylor’s boyfriend who wasn’t charged when he fired and struck LEO under similar circumstances. He had a justified self defense claim because he didn’t understand it was LEO.

      Ten thumbs up here, Chief!

      rustyshamrock in reply to CommoChief. | February 6, 2022 at 10:11 pm

      I didn’t understand a single word the police were shouting as they entered. I’m sure if I had just been awakenedI would have understood even less. They were all shouting different things at the same time. Also, consider that just because somebody shouts “police” when they bust down the door, doesn’t mean they are necessarily real police officers. ANYBODY can shout “POLICE! DONT MOVE”

        I honestly couldn’t understand them, either. And frankly, if police expect their orders to be followed (and I am big proponent of following lawful police orders), it would probably help if they didn’t purposefully time their raids to ensure everyone was asleep. We can’t say, “follow LE Orders” and simultaneously storm in while people are sleeping and expect them to act rationally. FGS, I am an incoherent mess for at least 20 mins between waking up and getting my first jolt of java. And yeah, I would probably go for my glock if I heard someone in my house in the dead of night/wee hours of the morning, whenever. Who wouldn’t? This is freaking America, and we have the right to bear arms.

        Anybody can and does shout they are police. There are gangs that use these exact tactics to terrorize their victims, so how can I tell if the people screaming that they are police are actually police? I can’t. Well, you know, I could get a clue if the police actually contacted me rather than barged into my home in the dead of night. But hey, that’s crazy talk. Why would we call you when we can just force our way into your home and shoot you dead for reaching for your legal firearm?

        Well now, isn’t that the question for the age?

        henrybowman in reply to rustyshamrock. | February 6, 2022 at 11:49 pm

        “Also, consider that just because somebody shouts “police” when they bust down the door, doesn’t mean they are necessarily real police officers. ANYBODY can shout “POLICE! DONT MOVE”

        Amen. Prepare to budget significant time to read this list.

      Heck, a bunch of non-LEO thugs can bust into home yelling “POLICE.”

        They do this, Ira. And that is what makes this whole situation worse; though from the video, I think this poor man was just reacting instinctively by grabbing his gun (and who the heck wouldn’t go for their gun when awakened to find a bunch of men screaming at you?).

        They can scream they are police all day long, but who would believe them?

      mbecker908 in reply to CommoChief. | February 7, 2022 at 3:25 pm

      1. I don’t live in Minnesota, I live in the free world.
      2. I legally own a number of firearms and am proficient with them.
      3. I live in a very safe area.
      4. I have our home set up in a manner where someone will have to physically break down doors to enter.
      5. If people come through my door making lots of noise in the middle of the night they will discover that I have a tactical plan to deal with that situation.
      6. I probably won’t survive entry by half-dozen heavily armed people but three or four of them won’t survive it either.

      As you note, breaking down a door to enter my “highly defensible property” gives me the assumption that deadly force is being used against me and I have the legal right to use deadly force to stop it. I most certainly will.

      The fact that people forcibly entering my home happen to be yelling “police, warrant” is not a meaningful event to me. If I was a home invader that’s probably what I would do, just to catch the occupants off guard.

    Arminius in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 1:04 am

    Yes, this case has invigorated some very stupid people. Do you own any mirrors?

    You can cherry pick any statute you like, but had Amir R Locke, 22, of MN shot and killed police officers conducting this night time home invasion he could have still claimed self-defense and would have likely prevailed.

    Hell, had Amir M Locke, 36, your likely WI felon, shot and killed police officers conducting this night time home invasion he could have still claimed self-defense and would have likely prevailed.

    But since he is your likely the felon of the two Amir Lockes you’ve confused since he’s the long time resident of the state where the felonies were committed (in case math is difficult a 36 y.o. who actually lives in WISCONSIN also had more time to compile “a substantially felony record for cocaine trafficking and other serious felonies right next door in WISCONSIN” than a 22 y.o. who is not living in the state of WISCONSIN) he would have been charged as a felon in possession of a firearm.

    That’s the way the law works, even in MN. The SCOTUS has ruled that felons don’t lose their right of self-defense based solely on the fact that they are felons. They can even legally possess a firearm for that purpose while actively engaged in self-defense as long as they 1) made no prior scheme to have someone provide them with a firearm and 2) immediately surrender the firearm to whoever provided it to them when it is no longer needed for self-defense.

    https://news.yahoo.com/jury-acquits-gifford-man-claimed-195415308.html

    “VERO BEACH – A Gifford man who claimed he was defending himself and his girlfriend when he fired shots at deputies during an early-morning raid in 2017 was acquitted Friday of charges that carried a life prison term.

    A jury found Andrew “A.J.” Coffee IV, 27, not guilty of second-degree felony murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer by discharging a firearm and one count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile.

    In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.”

    alaskabob in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 5:56 am

    Juris Doctor without Juris Prudence….. So…no obligation by law enforcement to protect innocent life.? The police engaged him ..not the other way around. Years back a spat if no knock disasters occured…even one where the coppers executed (interesting term..no?) a no knock on wrong house…a U.S. marshall. I question your ESQ on this line of reas onong

    TheAbidingDude in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 7:51 am

    Mind explaining how Mr.. Locke would know that the search warrant was facially valid within nine seconds of having been awakened from a sound sleep?

    Explain to us again how Amir Locke committed a crime but without the circular logic of requiring his action to be a crime in order for his action to have been a crime.

The warrant wasn’t srved as a “no knock warrant” anyway and the talking point is a red herring.

No-Knock Warrant
Primary tabs
A no-knock warrant is a search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises. Such warrants are issued where an entry pursuant to the knock-and-announce rule (ie. an announcement prior to entry) would lead to the destruction of the objects for which the police are searching or would compromise the safety of the police or another individual.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/no-knock_warrant

The fact that the officers announced and stated the purpose for their entry FOUR TIMES nullifies the ridiculous “no knock” talking point.

    Yeah, but they didn’t bang on the door and give the people inside the chance to let them in first. Hence no-knock.

    If they’d given the guy 10 seconds to wake up before they charged in, there’s a good chance he’d have realized going for his gun was a bad plan.

      Dathurtz in reply to Dennis. | February 6, 2022 at 8:42 pm

      This scares me because it could happen to anybody. Hell, call me radical, but I don’t even want the cops to have to shoot a bad guy when it is easily avoidable.

      How many of you wouldn’t react almost exactly the same as this dead guy? I hope I wouldn’t, but I might. A lot of people that I love might. And understandably.

      The situation shouldn’t have existed. It sucks for the cop that had to kill a guy. It sucks for the dead guy and his loved ones. It might even suck for the taxpayer.

    Arminius in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 1:11 am

    No, it does not. Whatever the officers claim the video show Amir R Locke sound asleep. It was only the sound of the police breaking in that woke him up. So functionally it was a no-knock raid.

    Courts have repeatedly ruled that when police officers break down the door without giving the residents a meaningful chance to respond to the knock then there is no meaningful difference between an announced warrant service and a no-knock warrant service.

    TheAbidingDude in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 7:54 am

    They did not knock. They entered the front door AND THEN announced.

    This is America. One’s abode is one’s castle here.

    Please expatriate yourself to an authoritarian or totalitarian state of your choice.

Richard Aubrey | February 6, 2022 at 8:41 pm

If, as has been said before, the evidence is so slight it can be flushing down the toilet–and not get stuck–it’s not worth somebody’s life to retrieve it.

No officer’s life is in danger in waiting for the suspect to go out for coffee.

If the cowboys get fired, we won’t have the following:

https://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

    Or, the cops drop a trap/net down the nearest manhole immediately before knocking and sift through anything that emerges from upstream.

    donewiththis in reply to Richard Aubrey. | February 6, 2022 at 11:13 pm

    Exactly.

    Remember Waco and the Branch Davidians? They were pretty bad people, but all the ATF had to do was pick up that a-hole when he was in town unarmed. Instead they called CNN and ran an assault team up into the place and got many many people killed, including women, children, and feds. All over a photo op.

    There is no place in this country for our police officers to be running around acting like they are in Falluja. There are better ways to handle this stuff.

The Gentle Grizzly | February 6, 2022 at 8:52 pm

I’ll just wait for some web site or another to publish Jack Dunphey’s excuse-atorial.

The classic film treatment of this situation is Terry Gillian’s Brazil.

Not only is the person at the wrong address killed, but his widow is billed for the expenses of the raid.

Plot twist

Although it is true that Locke does not have a criminal record in MINNESOTA it does appear that he has a substantially felony record for cocaine trafficking and other serious felonies right next door in WISCONSIN. (Amir Locke is not a common name).

    Juris Doctor in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 12:01 am

    The reason this is important is that if true, that wipes out the “legally armed” narrative under 18 USC 922 (g).

      Arminius in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 12:25 am

      I forget which network perpetrated this idiocy, but remember the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes? They had a producer search on that name and found a local resident named James Holmes who was (shudder!!!) a Tea Party member. Too good to check it was! They rushed it onto the air.

      Wrong James Holmes. And here in less than a minute I can go to a people search engine and learn that there is in fact an Amir Locke in both WI and MN. Well, unfortunately now it appears there’s only one in WI, no more in MN. Entirely different middle initials, the one in WI 14 years older than the one in MN.

      Juris “too good to check” Doctor, If you’re not a cop who makes his living busting down the wrong door shooting the wrong people, have you ever worked in network news? You’d fit right in.

      mbecker908 in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 3:28 pm

      He was NOT on the warrant, asshole.

    Arminius in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 12:16 am

    Then how did he legally own a firearm? Not just own one, but he was licensed to carry it concealed. When you purchase a firearm from a dealer you have to be processed through NICS. Guess what the N in NICS stands for? National. When someone applies for a CCW, which according to current reports he had due to his concerns about getting robbed as a doordash driver, the issuing authority also does a national criminal records check.

    Oh, and just entering Amir Locke in one of my people search engines gets me an Amir M. Locke, 36, in WI and an Amir R. Locke, 22, in MN. The latter Amir R. Locke is the same age as the deceased in the above article.

    Congrats, genius. You’re attributing felonies committed in WI that no doubt were committed by, you know, the older Amir Locke who actually lives there to the wrong Amir Locke.

    What are you? A cop who busts into the wrong people’s apartments based on your sloppy “close enough for government work (Amir Locke is not a common name!!) attitude?

    Law enforcement agencies in one state have, guess what? Figured out there are other states.

    What is wrong with you? Have you thought this through? Even a tiny bit?

    I don’t care if Locke was bin Laden cum Chairman Mao with little splashes of Hitler; the video speaks for itself. He was asleep, not given any time at all to wake up and realize what was happening (I suppose that’s some small comfort to his grieving family), and shot to death for doing what pretty much everyone here would instinctively do in this situation, reaching for and grabbing his legally-owned firearm.

    I’m guessing that you don’t own a firearm, but what if a SWAT team entered your home and charged into your bedroom and shot you dead as you reached for your eyeglasses so you could see what the heck was happening? Well, lots of people don’t need eyeglasses, besides that Juris Doctor once said some pretty racist stuff and that glass case does look like a gun. Sort of, when you squint. I’m pretty sure he actually believes that masks don’t work against the coronavirus but can’t provide a link. I also think he may have been involved in various pervy things, not sure, but you know, I heard it. We’re all better off without that pervy JD who was also a Nazi. And stuff.

    All better now?

    henrybowman in reply to Juris Doctor. | February 7, 2022 at 1:58 am

    And you’re wrong, because there WERE two Amir Lockes.
    You seem to be the caliber of judge that we have signing no-knock warrants today.
    Forgive me if I continue to think you’re a damn problem.

Thanks for the report, Fuzzy Slippers.

Ever since I first heard of a no-knock warrant (perhaps described by a different name) about 45 years ago, my first thought was, “Are these folks ____ing crazy?!?!? That’s a prescription for getting cops and civilians killed.”

There is almost no reason whatsoever for a no-knock warrant. There already is well-developed law about the narrow, exigent circumstances when law enforcement can barge into a structure without any warrant. Aside from those narrow, exigent circumstances there is no reason for barging into a structure without absolute assurance that whoever is inside the structure knows that actual LEOs are attempting to gain entrance.

There is little or no risk of a suspect escaping if LEOs appropriately conduct a search of structure.

There is the issue of suspected criminals’ having opportunity to destroy evidence. The risk of destruction of evidence does not justify putting innocent lives of LEOs and civilians at risk.

In conclusion, I believe that issuing no-knock warrants is plain immoral and anyone involved in issuing or carrying out a no-knock warrant is a criminal. For those who might think I’m being extreme, remember I’ve already written that there is well-developed law about the narrow, exigent circumstances when law enforcement can barge into a structure without any warrant.

Anacleto Mitraglia | February 7, 2022 at 7:59 am

How comes this kind of incidents happen so often in Minnesota? It looks like in the “Police academy” comedy movies, minus the funny part.
Is is something in the air or in the water of the Twin cities, but not of the neighboring Dakotas?

    healthguyfsu in reply to Anacleto Mitraglia. | February 7, 2022 at 12:15 pm

    They keep having to scrape the bottom of the barrel for recruits. Wonder why that is…

    henrybowman in reply to Anacleto Mitraglia. | February 7, 2022 at 5:17 pm

    Ironically, A F Branco apparently lives in Minnesota, and the first time I hear about many of the idiocies happening there are when they appear in one of his cartoons. Otherwise, I wouldn’t hear about them at all (e.g., the drunk sheriff who piled his cruiser into a tree at 126MPH, then claimed to the responding officers that he wasn’t driving his own car, someone else was, but he had no idea who).

taurus the judge | February 7, 2022 at 8:35 am

There are numerous serious issues here that need to be reviewed in light and context of the facts ( which we may not fully know yet as its a safe bet to not trust everything in the media)

I have served my share of warrants and the “no-knock” has issues nd dangers associated with it that IMO it should be issued only in the most extreme of cases with a strict set of requirements beforehand. I have also “tactically entered” dwellings in combat so seen it from both views.

However, in this execution, its clear it was executed as a regular warrant ( they did announce albeit with questionable volume and response time) That begs a different question as to why that was changed and who did it. At thus juncture, I think the “no-knock” discussion is a red herring or deflection because the execution was as a standard warrant proper.

That video is hardly the best quality in terms of scene capture and detail but I am not seeing what I would have considered a legitimate use of deadly force in it based on the totality of the circumstances.

Yes purists will argue the law supports it ( as written in general terms) and the guy was armed ( legally and in his dwelling allegedly) and yes he raised it ( coming out of sleep) and was immediately shot. Those same “purists” don’t have a day in actual field service either.

Given the fact there were numerous officers at different angles- the firing officer had other options he could have safety taken based on my experience.

I would like to see other cam views and testimony of all present and even a room sketch of what cover was immediately available to the shooting officer. Based on what information is available at the moment (assuming its accurate), I view this use of deadly force as unwarranted and the officer should be punished as appropriate.

    henrybowman in reply to taurus the judge. | February 7, 2022 at 5:19 pm

    “Yes purists will argue the law supports it ( as written in general terms) and the guy was armed ( legally and in his dwelling allegedly) and yes he raised it ( coming out of sleep) and was immediately shot. Those same “purists” don’t have a day in actual field service either.”

    True. But we do have experience being innocent people asleep in our own houses, and would prefer not to be killed for doing it.

      taurus the judge in reply to henrybowman. | February 8, 2022 at 7:25 am

      A truly non sequitur statement that has no bearing on anything regarding this subject.

      That said, based on what I have seen ( with the understanding what has been released could be selectively edited and other information withheld)- this was an unwarranted use of deadly force and the officer should face severe punishment.

      I also concur with you that in this specific incident this individual was “innocent” of “everything” and did not deserve to be killed even based on his actions when taken in context with the event chain.

      I don’t see where we are that far apart in our take on this

taurus the judge | February 7, 2022 at 8:50 am

There is a legal ‘technicality” here that may require some hair splitting based on the exact wording of the specific state law and applicable case law.

I’m not going to make a decision other than a generic commentary because I don’t have all the facts and do not know this states law specifically.

A regular warrant is codified with a “knock” ( defined as an attention getting noise) followed by an official announcement with a “response time” ( based on a “reasonable” standard whatever that turns out to be)

The no-knock does not normally require the announcement or required response time. ( really the only difference)

Entry (in legal terms) is defined as when a threshold is crossed. ( breaking down a barrier in and of itself is normally not considered an “entry”)

“Technically” it could be argued that the officer “did” announce (even though it was during the entrance process) prior to physical entry and the breaking through the door could constitute “knocking” with the requirement of a “reasonable response time” as defined in the no-knock.

I am waiting to see if this point gets brought up and if so, how is it used.

    healthguyfsu in reply to taurus the judge. | February 7, 2022 at 12:21 pm

    Barging in and yelling police is not the same as a standard warrant.

    With a standard served warrant…the police have to knock, wait for the door to be answered, serve the warrant, and enter the premises. If someone flees or is seen in the dwelling, then they may have probable cause to enter.

    They do not get to enter first then announce in a standard warrant, and they aren’t typically served by a SWAT team….armed cops, yes, but not SWAT.

      taurus the judge in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 7, 2022 at 12:44 pm

      Respectfully, you should put your opinions aside and listen to those of us who have actually done these. You are fundamentally and factually incorrect on every part of your post.

        healthguyfsu in reply to taurus the judge. | February 7, 2022 at 6:06 pm

        Respectfully, I actually responded to the wrong person and meant to respond to “Juris Doctor” (a hilariously inaccurate moniker)

        That said, none of your posts have shown the expertise that you think they do.

        Since you say everything is incorrect, you now have the onus to give evidence of the following antitheticals:
        -Barging in and yelling police IS the same as a standard warrant
        -Police don’t need probable cause to enter a dwelling without permission (unless the warrant specifically grants it having been served with probable cause in prior encounters, which not all do)
        -Standard warrants are routinely issued by SWAT

          taurus the judge in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 8, 2022 at 7:16 am

          Ask and ye shall receive

          There is no such thing as a “standard” warrant service (or special)- just various qualifiers. The actual “process” doesn’t change. The operation is to enter and “secure” the (whatever) in the fastest safest way possible. There is no “legal” definition of “barging in”. That’s required in every instance except in a NKW, there is no “response time” allotted. There could be a department variance here and there but that’s basically universal. Announcing is a universal best practice but even then can be negated by tactical or safety expediency by the officer in charge.

          I’m not sure you understand probable cause or case law around it but its misapplied in this case. “PC” (and reasonable suspicion) and even “health and welfare” have been upheld as legitimate entrance grounds. The “warrant” IS the grounds to enter. Its a courtesy in most cases- not a mandate. ( Warrants do not require permission or consent thus the term “warrant”) Some conditions can apply in unique circumstances.

          SWAT is a catch all term in 2022 that means different things at different departments and jurisdictions so your point is too broad for a detailed answer. The “warrant” is issued to the requestor ( usually a DA or investigator) and its an internal matter on who ( individually or unit) actually serves it. Also, don’t mistake standard issue protective gear for an organized SWAT ( or SRT or whatever) team. Different departments have different ways these are executed.

It’s always so refreshing to see noncops offer enlightening opinions on tactics and procedures cops use to fight crime.

By the way, Amir Locke would be alive if Amir Locke didn’t spring out from under a cover with a gun. If the cops were actual criminals and Amir did the same thing he would still be dead, but the only difference is we wouldn’t know about it because we expect this kind of stuff with black on black crime.

    CommoChief in reply to chrisboltssr. | February 7, 2022 at 12:09 pm

    chrisboltssr

    Whenever I see someone make the argument that non LEO shouldn’t offer opinions about LEO policies, tactics, techniques and procedures I think crack to the movie Blade Runner where the Capt is trying to convince Decker to come back to LEO to find the replicants and he says:
    ‘ If you aren’t Cop then you are ….little people’.

    Your statement seems to suggest that the taxpaying citizens should have no input whatsoever as to how LEO perform their role. Nor do you leave much, if any, doubt as to which side of the line you are on when fascism and totalitarianism rear their ugly heads. Your statement encapsulates the badge and gun mentality that has become part of our over militarized policing.

      chrisboltssr in reply to CommoChief. | February 7, 2022 at 12:27 pm

      That’s not what I said at all. Everyone can have an opinion about everything under the sun, but it seems no one ever gives thought about why certain tactics ate used by cops in the first place. Have criminals gotten more dangerous, or less? Why do we have no knock warrants in the first place? Is the goal of cops to bring in criminals alive or dead? Is the goal of a cop to come home to his family or to become a criminal’s victim? What onus is on the individual to ensure he stays alive and doesn’t end up dead? Will our society become more safer if no knock warrants were completely eliminated? How does that stop criminals? And why is it we only have these conversations when a black man ends up dead? And why is it the police have become more militarized? Have criminals gotten less dangerous?

      These conversations always go in one direction, and that is the direction of the cops. It’s as if people instinctively side with criminals even while they proclaim themselves law-abiding. I am not pro-cop, but I am vehemently anti-criminal. If you instinctively side with criminals you are not law-abiding.

      And as I stated above, Amir Locke would be alive had he not popped out from under the cover with a gun. Being a legal gun owner doesn’t give you an excuse to do dumb things with a gun. The issue here isn’t a no knock warrant, it’s doing dumb things with a gun when others around you also have guns.

        taurus the judge in reply to chrisboltssr. | February 7, 2022 at 12:48 pm

        Just curious, how many years in uniform do you have?

        Warrants served?

        Arrests made?

        Line of fire actions?

        You state a lot of unfounded conclusions as if they were actually facts so I was wondering what bank of on-the-line experience you are drawing from?

          chrisboltssr in reply to taurus the judge. | February 7, 2022 at 1:19 pm

          I don’t think you understand what the words “unfounded conclusions” mean because if you did you would notice I didn’t make any conclusions other than the fact Amir Locke is responsible for his own death, not the cops.

          And I’ll give you my perspective from being caught up in the justice system, but not from a cop’s because I’m not one and don’t want to be one, especially today when they are treated more harshly than criminals: I’ve been arrested, served probation at a young age, did a little time in jail, and have had multiple run-ins with cops. In each of those contacts with cops, I was always respectful, though belligerent in some contacts, but I never threatened them with violence.

          But nice try to flip the script. Maybe have a conversation on what I wrote and not jump to unfounded conclusions on what I didn’t say, eh?

        CommoChief in reply to chrisboltssr. | February 7, 2022 at 1:22 pm

        chrisboltssr,

        So your first sentence, dripping with sarcasm but minus any /S sarcasm indicator, which clearly implies that only LEO have credible opinions about LEO is now withdrawn? K

        Should LEO be worried about the inherent danger of their profession? Sure. Should they worry that they might not be able to go home after a shift due to injury or worse their death? Sure they should.

        Now apply that same worry to a citizen on a couch already at home. Your follow up statement seems to disregard that aspect while pursuing a theme maximizing the danger to LEO. Where in your statements is any mention of the rights of citizens and the obligation of LEO not to trample those rights because it’s more convenient to do so? Just FYI my Father was a LEO, so was my Grandfather and my Father in law. I have as good an understanding of what LEO face as anyone not a LEO. They are mostly underpaid and unappreciated by many but certinly not by me.

        However, when I continue to see tactics employed similar to those used in combat I have concerns. America is not a battlefield environment and when LEO increasingly use tactics and equipment as a routine mater that’s a problem. I spent 26+ years in uniform on four continents and multiple combat deployments trading and using these tactics against our Nation’s enemies.

        It’s one thing for Soldiers to use breaching and kinetic/dynamic entry in a combat zone. It’s quite another for LEO using them to serve a warrant in the US. Keep in mind that everyone has the presumption of innocence in our Society. Even alleged criminals until they are tried and convicted by a jury.

        Summery execution by overwrought LEO of a person unconnected to any warrant due to lack of recognition of the circumstances by a sleeping citizen who is awakened to be confronted by armed invaders yelling in under ten seconds time, seems heavy handed to many of us because it is.

        Go and look at the US constitution and tell me what steps the LEO, DA and Judge involved in this affirmatively took to protect the rights, liberty and lives of the citizens involved. If your answer is that LEO safety is paramount and overrides our constitutional system, which you statement above implies, then please state that clearly.

          chrisboltssr in reply to CommoChief. | February 7, 2022 at 2:21 pm

          “So your first sentence, dripping with sarcasm but minus any /S sarcasm indicator, which clearly implies that only LEO have credible opinions about LEO is now withdrawn? K”

          I don’t do implications, but my statement was sarcastic. If I wanted to say “Only LEOs can comment on situations involving police officers” I would type such words. I was being sarcastic because the first thing the author blames for all of this is the no knock warrant. First of all, the cops didn’t execute a no knock warrant: They actually opened the door and announced themselves VERY LOUDLY before they kicked the couch, which in turn Amir Locke had sprung up from the covers with a gun. What should the cops have done in the scenario?

          The author also categorically says she wants no knock warrants abolished in the country. Now, unless you are going to offer a more meaningful, safe and effective tactic cops can use in their fight against criminals that is astonishingly stupid, gives criminals a leg up on law enforcement, and puts not just cops at risk but law-abiding citizens as well.

          People like you and other commenters in this thread act as though the “militarization” of police is something that is happening without a cause. What is the exact cause for police to become more “militarized”, whatever that means? Are criminals becoming more militarized, yes or no? If the criminals are becoming more militarized how should the cops respond to that? I still recall the two bank robbers, who were clad from head to toe in body armor, armed with complete automatic weaponry and they held the LAPD at bay for hours before the LAPD had to go to local gun dealers and get their weaponry because they were massively underpowered to deal with the threat. Now, that’s an extreme example of criminals becoming more militarized, but the police becoming more militarized is not happening in a vacuum.

          Again, I don’t do implication, I categorically state what I mean. I am not pro-cop, but I am vehemently anti-criminal. If you’re going to give additional ammunition to criminals, which you support if you’re against no knock warrants, then I’m against that. Amir Locke would be alive if Amir Locke didn’t have a gun in his possession at the time of this warrant being served. That outcome would be the same if it was a regular warrant, and then we would be talking about how the cops shouldn’t be knocking on the door at some ungodly hour because the homeowner was asleep or some other thing.

          “Keep in mind that everyone has the presumption of innocence in our Society. Even alleged criminals until they are tried and convicted by a jury.”

          Yes, and the best way to keep that going is to act innocent at all times, even under the height of scrutiny as a no knock warrant at 1 a.m. in the morning, or whatever time that warrant was served.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | February 7, 2022 at 3:43 pm

          The best way (to preserve Constitutional liberties requires that the citizen) act innocent at all times..’

          So you want citizens to remain supine to LEO? I don’t recall that from my Con law classes. In fact I seem to recall this whole Bill of Rights outlining the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms while remaining secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of their person, papers and effects. Bonus round is on the matter of cruel and unusual punishment and equality under the law.

          In sum you are advocating that LEO should not knock and present the warrant to the citizen but instead just come in either via breach or a passkey at 0 dark hour and we are all supposed to place responsibility solely upon the sleep deprived, groggy reactions of the citizen and ignore the Constitution?

          If that’s not a fair restatement of your argument please provide an alternative.

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to CommoChief. | February 7, 2022 at 12:43 pm

      His line of thinking goes right along with the idea that the people out in town are no longer the towns people. They are “civilians”. That tells me that the police now think of themselves or some sort of a military operation. It’s been along time since they were peace officers.

    TheAbidingDude in reply to chrisboltssr. | February 7, 2022 at 7:41 pm

    I expect better from cops than I do from criminals. Apparently, you don’t.

    He didn’t “spring” from under the covers.

    You deserve to be in the receiving end of a zero-dark-thirty visit by some trigger-happy cops.

taurus the judge | February 7, 2022 at 11:45 am

I would also like to see a certified true copy of this “search” warrant to see exactly what items were being searched for. I have some questions and something seems “amiss”.

If the media accounts are to be accepted as accurate, the LEO would have been searching for evidence (of an alleged homicide?) and possibly unaware if the location was inhabited by the victim or anyone.

What evidence would have justified a NKW for a crime already committed? ( assuming it was a homicide)

They did use a key so there was a degree of consultation with someone at the building and what type of pre service surveillance was conducted?

There is nothing inherently wrong with the principle behind a “no knock” warrant…particularly, if law enforcement has a justifiable need for the element of surprise (such as reasonable evidence that the targeted perpetrator is likely to hurt others in their vicinity if warned).

That said, the usage and practice of no-knock warrants is showing us that they have very limited usage and serious drawbacks in a 2nd amendment-loving society. It is perfectly reasonable for a citizen to draw and point a weapon when anyone breaks into your home. Unannounced police might as well be a violent, rampaging serial killer or whole gang of them for a few seconds of uncertainty and chaos.

The Gentle Grizzly | February 7, 2022 at 12:30 pm

One commonly used excuse by Law Enfarcemrnt Agencies is “we raided the wrong address”.

This brings up a point: I have noticed over the years that many places do not have a dress signs are clearly visible. Is your property clearly marked with its address? At my house it’s in large sans serif numbers on my mailbox, and, next to my front door.

Take a look, people. Is your address clearly marked? I’m the last one on the world to see the police are always right. But, I’m sure at least a few of them have made honest mistakes.

A few years ago, I read a comment (possibly here on LI) by a retired LEO. He wanted to know, “What happened to walking up to the door, knocking, and asking, ‘Is everything OK in here?’” He questioned the immediate, violent, and excessive use of SWAT for every little incident that might/maybe/could possibly expose officers to danger. (Isn’t that most of them?) Citizen to police – your tactics put us in danger, in direct conflict with the purpose of your existence and your mission – our protection.

It’s not the military hardware that we need to be afraid of – it’s the military tactics, employed inappropriately (and sometimes irresponsibly) in domestic law enforcement situations. All the military gear in the world presents no special threat to the public if appropriate tactics are employed in appropriate situations. Deputy Fife, with his gun and one round of ammunition, can cause a disaster with the use of inappropriate tactics, and the incorrect belief that his primary job is to go home safely at the end of his shift. The adversarial mindset coupled with the improper “officer safety first” attitude is too often fatal for innocent citizens. It’s time to (again) teach officers that their primary job is the protection of the citizens and the communities they serve, and that “officer safety” is a secondary consideration. When the two conflict, their duty, their policy, and their training should lead them to err on the side of the citizen’s safety, rather than their own. We don’t pay them to accidentally kill one of us now and then; we pay them to shield us with their bodies, if necessary. Modern police, who almost all wear, or have available to wear, body armor, are much better prepared to confront a violent attacker than ever before, yet they use tactics that are far more aggressive and violent themselves. Why? Because “officer safety” has taken a front seat, and “citizen safety” has been moved to the back of, and in some cases thrown under, the bus.

    CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 7, 2022 at 1:28 pm

    Very well stated!

    taurus the judge in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 8, 2022 at 7:37 am

    First, I agree with everything you say in principle but now comes reality.

    There are a culmination of things that have brought LE ( as a career field) to the point where it is. In no particular order……

    DA’s and politicians creating a permissive ( and almost encouraging) environment to bring force against LE that didn’t use to happen.

    Criminals are now better armed, equipped and organized as a resisting force as a whole

    The media/special interest encouraging violence and hatred of LE in general for political ends.

    “Equality” things that make sure standards of recruitment and promotion are lowered to give the “illusion” of quality and fairness.

    A trend for courts to punish officers administering political mob justice.

    We tend to hold officers to a standard man people simply refuse to support when the situation calls for it.

    Sure there are a few “bad” individual officers but the real problem with LE is “us’ and allowing our “officials” to weaponize the entire justice system against both the citizen and LE in favor of “whatever political agenda” needs serving today.

civisamericanus | February 7, 2022 at 2:12 pm

Isn’t Minneapolis run by the same people who keep telling us how much Black lives matter to them???

The police say they announced themselves when they broke in but I do not see that as an excuse. If it was an excuse, then any home invader who felt like it could yell “Police!” “Warrant!” “Hands!” to gain an advantage over the victims. Impersonation of police is of course a crime, and I think a misdemeanor punishable by a year in jail but, if you’re committing a violent home invasion punishable by perhaps 20 years, a 1 year concurrent sentence isn’t probably going to deter you.

A police officer was shot, and justifiably (the shooter was not convicted) in the Breonna Taylor incident because the shooter believed reasonably that he was firing on a home invader. The police believed reasonably in turn they were returning fire against drug dealers so nobody committed a crime but one innocent person died and another was wounded. These no-knock warrants are dangerous to everybody involved.

Richard Aubrey | February 7, 2022 at 9:03 pm

Some pretty good research here, so a different case. Ann Rylee, Wilmer, AL, maybe two years ago. A bunch of federal dimbulbs raided her place looking for a guy who was in jail.
She was shot five times, but lived. Anybody know how many of the feds got promoted? Who paid her medical bills?
She didn’t die, but I spent May of 71 at Valley Forge Army Hospital–non combat issue–which was full of guys who weren’t dead. You learned not to look at their parents’ faces.
Anybody know how she’s getting along?

Explain, if anybody can make it explicable, what kind of evidence warrants a no-knock, even if we allow it’s at the right address.

I’m just glad it’s been seen as a problem for lawmakers, rather than leaving an ambiguous situation for law enforcement and then punishing them for not dotting all the i’s in someone’s opinion. Not sure why cops are still willing to work in Mpls after recent verdicts against cops, actually.

isn’t the whole purpose for “no-knocks” surprise? excepting a couple of instances where death/severe bodily injury are possible (hostages/a bomber/terrorist) IN THE MOMENT, what harm could possibly come from waiting a bit for the suspect to come outside, go to the store, get coffee, whatever and THEN taking them into custody and conducting a search of their premises?

other than an imminent, in the moment threat to the occupant(s), simply cannot see how an effort to collect evidence, at base, supersedes the rights and (potentially) mortal safety of the occupant(s) let alone the serving officers

    taurus the judge in reply to texansamurai. | February 8, 2022 at 12:53 pm

    Yes, that’s basically the purpose for the NKW (preservation of evidence)

    As far as waiting, that answer is as long as it is heavy and there are legitimate examples that prove ( and disprove) every possible scenario one can find. There is no “perfect world” one size answer to this.

    There are certainly times waiting for an opportunity is the best course of action. There are times that waiting can result in a lost case or even worse- allow a person to commit a worse crime ( we cant predict what an individual may do)

    Sometimes LE is over zealous with caution (legitimately) and sometimes they simply were wrong.

    When executed properly, warrants mostly go without serious incident (measured as a whole number of warrants served versus serious issues). That said, we often then hear the media sensationalized and agenda driven version first ( taints the mind of many)

    “Rights and mortal safety” are like everything else. They are measured against the individual then against society at large. The law allows for disregarding rights in the face of cause.

    A lot of times its a tough and judgement call.

Sure, no-knock warrants need to be severely constrained, but a lot of this smells bad. Wtf was the guy dong with a gun in his hand? The police announced, several times if I’m not mistaken. I’m licensed to carry and I don’t sleep with a pistol within reach. Who does? James Bond? The danger of being carjacked while alseep in bed is very low.

    taurus the judge in reply to gsunder. | February 8, 2022 at 3:29 pm

    That doesn’t matter whether he chose to have a gun at arms reach or not. His property and his right to do as he saw fit. ( provided everything was legal and according to reports it was in his case)

    In no way does his decision create a legitimate environment for what happened to him.

Just for fun I searched some public records for an hour or so and I’ve been able to confirm 2 things. (1) I must be some kind of weirdo, because who does a public records search for fun. Actually, it was because Juris Doctor found that there’s an Amir Locke who has an extensive felony record in Wisconsin and assumed it was the same Amir Locke shot dead in Minneapolis MN. Which leads me to (2) Amir Marcello Locke, 36, of Milwaukee WI is a very different person from Amir Rahkale Locke, 22, of St. Paul MN (he was sleeping on the couch at the residence in Minneapolis because it wasn’t his place).

Amir Marcello Locke was booked into the Kenosha WI pre-trial detention facility on 11/26/2012 for a federal agency hold by the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Dept. Which as I understand it should mean the KCSD had reason to have contact with Locke and found the feds had a warrant out for him. I was notified that Amir M. Locke had an extensive criminal history (why else would the feds want him held as he is a U.S. citizen so it wasn’t an immigration issue) but I’d have to give the search engine my credit card info to see the full report and it just wasn’t important enough to me to find out exactly what Locke’s criminal history consisted of.

On the other hand Amir R. Locke, 22, had no criminal history that I could find. At least none of the search engines gave me the same notifications I received for Amir M. Locke of WI. I found that there were 4 court records (again, I didn’t submit my credit card info) relevant to him but that doesn’t indicate that he’s a criminal. They could well be civil or family court records.

So, it appears that the reports are accurate and that Amir R. Locke was a legal firearms owner.

Dear, precious, Ms. Slippers – Please share with me how I find the wonderful laboratory-controlled, world of moral/legal clarity in which you reside. What a comfort! In that world there is no such thing as a no-knock search. Moreover, when you have a Mr. Locke situation, a nice warm social-worker type would contact Mr. Locke and request that he contact the police station and schedule a time when they could come over, sit down for a little talk, and have a look around.

Respectfully yours,
an Earthling

    Here’s a thought experiment for you “Q,” precious, as you slide down your condescension into existential confusion: What do you think the signers of the Declaration of Independence would say about no-knock warrants? Think really hard because you are going to want to dismiss them as “not living in our complex time” and blah blah, but . . . wouldn’t that really mess up your whole world view? Or is your worldview already an anti- and unAmerican disaster? /Food for thought

      taurus the judge in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | February 10, 2022 at 8:45 am

      Well, in all honesty as a factual historical commentary with no slights toward anyone in any way, the Signers would most likely have heavily endorsed the NKW up to and even possibly the use of deadly force to serve one.

      Turn the clock back to the prevailing moral and social standards of the time. People had a much higher emphasis on honor, personal responsibility, honesty, integrity, self reliance and justice than exists today. We see this in frontier ‘justice” as well as military actions and even many judicial acts back then. ( not all of them in agreement with many modern standards but these standards were not in play back then)

      Its a good hypothetical exercise.

      Back then, a “crime” was really a “crime” so accordingly a warrant was more “justified” ( they didn’t place as much emphasis on feelings and all the fluff we do today).

      Its a debatable point but with historical actions as a precedent, its safe to say the Signers would have more likely than not been in full support of a NKW because the crime would have been serious enough to warrant it, and person present would be EXPECTED to comply (or shoot it out) and the officers would have a more justice focused mindset (to a degree)

I also have issues with “no knock” warrants. They generally don’t end up like this, but we have this example, Waco, or the Harding Street raid in Houston in 2019.

Ban them, by no means. But they should not be used for things like narcotics raids, and if you can achieve you mission without the raid, do that. Greatest example was Waco, where David Koresh went running 3 times a week off the property, went into town regularly, went out with his band often, and per the chief of police, would have come in for a conversation if he had called.

I’ll say, wait for the process to work out, let the investigation continue before we make judgement. Don’t need another “Hands up! Don’t Shoot!” lie.

And I’m a 24 year veteran of law enforcement. I’ve never been on a “no-knock,” but on multiple warrants.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode