Police officer shot dead serving no-knock warrant

[Irreverend IX]

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/aunt-says-frederick-was-protecting-himself-when-officer-was-shot

Aunt says Frederick was protecting himself when officer was shot

Ryan Frederick, the Chesapeake resident accused of killing a police officer, is a hard-working man who believed he was protecting himself the night the officer came to his door and tried to serve a search warrant, Frederick’s aunt said today.

“He’s not a killer,” said Sheryl Morales of Chesapeake. “He knew someone was in his house and he shot.’’

Frederick, 28, is being held in jail without bond for the shooting of police detective Jarrod Shivers.

Shivers, an eight-year veteran of the force and father of three, was shot Jan. 17 while executing the search warrant at 932 Redstart Ave. in the Portlock section of Chesapeake. Police have said Shivers was trying to enter the home when shots were fired from inside and hit him.

--

This is your 4th Amendment on drugs.

[Sanity Claws]

1. Terrible all around

Perhaps the police unions will step up and stop these no knock warrants because they endanger the officers.

[fenriswolf]

wtf is a no knock warrant? never heard of it.

[Rageneau]

3. It's been around ahwile. I remember "No-Knock" being a creation of the Nixon Admin.

He and his soon-to-be-convicted Atty Gen. John Mitchell were all gung ho for 'no-knock' warrants.

I recall a cartoon by the great Paul Conrad of the LA Times that featured Mitchell and Nixon as Keystone Cops, with Mitchell saying to Tricky Dick: "Let's just lock everybody up and let the good ones go."

[fenriswolf]

5. so instead of a cop

knocking on your door and handing you a warrant they sneak into your house so they can hand it to you in your living room?

[ManiacJoe]

13. They don't sneak. They break down the door

and rush in like home invaders. This technique is normally used against drug dealers to prevent the people inside from destroying evidence during the time it would take to politely serve the warrant.

Fortunately for the Good Guys, the courts have held that it is legal to treat (shoot) the cops as home invaders until the cops properly identify themselves. Unfortunately for the Good Guys, they don't always survive the process to point out the cops' mistake.

[tekisui]

2. Thugs kicking in doors should expect such a response.

[krispos42]

17. It happened in Minneapolis a few weeks ago

Wrong address, I believe. Minneapolis SWAT busts in. Father wakes up, grabs shotgun, fires through his bedroom door, hitting a couple of cops. Cops send a couple of dozen bullets back in response.

Nobody hurt; the cops all missed and the birdshot didn't penetrate the body armor. MPD was very apologetic, said no charges would be filed, etc., etc., etc.

It's getting old.

[jody]

4. It will be interesting to read the complete investigation of this incident. n/t

[madrchsod]

6. in texas he could not have been charged with a crime

[TexasProgresive]

9. Not so- they will enforce the law how they want to

It Texas it is permissible to use deadly force to protect life and property. However, the Branch Davidians had their dogs killed by the ATF as they attempted to execute a "no knock" warrant and yet the survivors were tried and convicted.

To my knowledge these people, while wacko in Waco, never really did anything illegal - it was kind of like Iraq's WMD.

[virginia mountainman]

14. Actually...the Branch Dravidian's, where all found not guilty

Of all CRIMINAL charges stemming from the gun battle (Murder and Conspiracy). But they have lost all the CIVIL cases, where they tried to sue the government.

[krispos42]

15. The Branch Davidians knew the raid was coming

A reporter looking to get to the compound and cover the raid asked a mailman for directions... and the mailman was Koresh's brother-in-law.

From Wikipedia:

The ATF mounted the raid on a Sunday morning, February 28, 1993. Any advantage of surprise was lost as a reporter, who had been tipped off on the raid, asked for directions from a U.S. Postal Service mail carrier who was Koresh's brother-in-law.<4> Koresh then confronted the ATF agent who had infiltrated the Branch Davidians and told him that they knew a raid was coming. Koresh and his male followers then began arming and taking up defensive positions, while the women and children were told to take cover in their rooms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege#The_initial_assault

So this wasn't a bunch of people being woken up out of a sound slumber by doors being kicked in. Yeah, there is dispute about who fired first and all that, but they did not have reasonable cause to believe armed burglars were kicking in their doors.



According to Wikipedia, 8 survivors were convicted of various crimes while in posession of a firearm. Appeals were made and the whole process gets rather tedious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege#Trial

[virginia mountainman]

16. Interesting,

I did not know they where tipped off.

After a jury trial lasting nearly two months, the jury acquitted four of the Davidians on all counts with which they were charged. Additionally, the jury acquitted all of the Davidians on the murder-related charges, but convicted five of them on the lesser-included offense of aiding and abetting the voluntary manslaughter of federal agents. Eight Davidians were convicted on firearms charges.

[Recursion]

18. And don't even get me started on Ruby Ridge...

Though it's fun to make Freepers' heads explode by reminding them that Ruby Ridge happened under GHWB.

[sabre73]

26. So not true

In Texas you will be arrested and charged with a crime. You will be arraigned within 48 hours and from there the charges "might" be dropped depending on any mitigating circumstances.

This is one of the biggest "Texas Law Myths" that I have had to deal with over the past ten years in Law enforcement in the Great state.

[SteveM]

7. The War on Drugs: a test-track for authoritarian politics.

[Vadem]

8. Officer Shivers was undercover and was trying to "breach" the ..

door to serve the warrant, from the reports I have read from the Daily Press. It appears that the defendant may have a case, from what I have read about this incident. Why would an undercover narcotic officer be trying to break down the door of a suspect to serve a warrant? It sounds very suspicious to me.

On edit, I am very sorry for the grief and heartache that the family and the children of Officer Shivers are facing, and also for what the defendant and his family will be facing in the courts over this incident. There has to be a better way to serve warrants.

[jody]

10. Agree. n/t

[Plague]

11. Missing pieces

There's a lot of empty space in this story. For example, they don't seem to make mention of whether the shooter stayed at the scene, or fled. This could easily be an indicator of intent. They make no mention of how many personnel were involved. From the sounds of it the officer might have been alone at the scene, which seems extremely unusual. There's no mention of how or why the warrant was issued. If a negligible amount of marijuana was found, what purpose would the shooter have in knowingly attempting to murder a police officer? What did he have to gain?

[AX10]

12. Sad.

This is all part of the sham drug war.

[Recursion]

19. No-knock warrants...

...are a declaration by the state the cops' and bystanders' lives are worth less to the state than drug forfeitures are.

[cgrindley]

20. He committed no crime I'd recognize if I were on his jury (nt)

[benEzra]

21. What's up with the no-knocks being served by PLAINCLOTHES officers?

If I see somebody not in uniform kicking my door in, am I supposed to assume they're a police officer???

IIRC, the elderly woman killed in Atlanta a while back was the victim of a raid by plainclothes officers as well, though I think they may have been wearing raid vests over their street clothes.

[Endangered Specie]

22. What is the justification for using no-knock warrants?

That the drug dealers can flush the drugs down the toilet if they wait to serve it properly?

In that case, shut off the water.

[Boomer 50]

23. Sad but not unexpected

No knock raids serve no purpose but to terrorize the public. The use of no knocks has emboldened home invader robbers to mimic police tactics and yell "Police" or other similar phrases in order to gain control over their victims easily.

Many people have made the decision (correct or not) to defend themselves and their family against anyone busting in their house no matter what the invader may be screaming. As more and more people come to this decision, expect to see more law enforcement being killed in these raids.

[benEzra]

24. Even the FBI says that no-knocks are generally a bad idea...

The tragic outcome of this case is precisely why the FBI has stated that no-knocks should ONLY be used in special circumstances, because their casual use would endanger both citizens and the police:

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/may976.htm

UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE

The Supreme Court has determined that "every householder, the good and the bad, the guilty and the innocent, is entitled to the protection designed to secure the common interest against unlawful invasion of the house."19 The knock and announce rule provides citizens with psychological security, knowing that one need not fear an unexpected intrusion. Privacy interests also are protected, avoiding unnecessary embarrassment, shock, or property damage resulting from an unannounced entry.

The (knock and announce) rule serves to protect both the individual citizen and the police from the risk of harm and the potential for violence that may occur as a result of an unannounced entry.20 Announcement protects officers by ensuring that they are not "mistaken for prowlers and shot down by a fearful householder."21 Innocent citizens also are protected from law enforcement officers who mistakenly might shoot armed occupants who merely are trying to defend themselves from who they preceive to be armed intruders.

[jody]

25. Excellent! n/t