Talk:No-knock warrant/Archive 1

Misleading?
This article says Kathryn Johnston "opened fire on the officers", but "None of the officers received life threatening injuries". To me, that makes it sound like she shot some cops. In fact, the Kathryn Johnston article says "Johnston only fired one shot, which did not hit any officers" and "Police injuries sustained in the raid were due to friendly fire and were not from Johnston's gun".

Does anybody else find this misleading? Can we rephrase it to sound more accurate?

Jan 7, 2008: Edited that section, should read more accurately now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehan60188 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is necessary to include the mention of people killed in no-knock warrants. The article should define what a no-knock warrant is and the scope of it. The article on knock and announce warrants does not have "no way near exhaustive list of those killed" section. I thought this was supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia, not another venue to bash law enforcement. ElChorizo (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't see where an article containing cited facts is bashing law enforcement. Yaf (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I don't see any sources for this list of innocent civilians killed by trigger happy cops. Second, why isn't there a list of criminals that have been successfully locked up due to no knock warrants? The list serves no purpose other than to try and show that police are too quick on the draw and are reckless with their actions. ElChorizo (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added 3 more examples of no-knocks-gone-wrong, along with accompanying sources. Feel free to add any notable examples of no-knocks-saving-christmas.  I would like to see a more fleshed out criticism section, detailing the argument that these warrants are unnecessary, unsafe, and unconstitutional.  I will try to get around to it, but if anyone else wants a crack at it, please do.  Messiahxi (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like nobody has changed it in a while, I imagine the neutrality of the article is no longer in dispute? --Jehan60188 (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

History
I was hoping to find in this article the history of no-knock warrants. Have they existed for the entire history of America, and just seen 15x times increase in use since 1981, or was it almost new in 1981? JoshNarins (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Marking for bias
Several passages, such as potential undue weight given to criticisms (taking up well over half the article), and a "see also" to "police state" have lead me to mark this article as potentially biased. I have no inherent political interest in the article or tactics discussed but it sees the material is strongly, if subtly biased. Ideally justification for hotlinking to police state should be given or the link removed and either the criticisms section pared down (or split off) and/or equal weight be given to the 'pro' side of the argument. 65.30.143.228 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the person above. I am going to remove the "See also" for police state at the very least. If someone can offer an argument as to why this cross-reference should remain in light of NPOV, we can revert back to the original.--Jrastro (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that the "Further reading" section only lists links to websites that are in my view activist websites. I won't delete this section since I may be jumping the gun, so to speak. I just wanted to put it out there for discussion.--Jrastro (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor removed the NPOV header from the article without addressing any of the concerns raised on the talk page. I reverted the edit.--Jrastro (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there was only one person who had concerns. His concerns were voiced over two years ago and were addressed. (See the "saving Christmas" comment) - Removing NPOV. (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.91.183 (talk)


 * Upon reading the article, bias seems only minimally removed. Consider adding section on potential benefits or endorsers of the topic, as much of the article is spent on the opponents and the "cons" of no-knock raids. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 20:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may: the article remains biased, as only two paragraphs are devoted to any potential benefits of such a tactic, while everything else until the "see also" section makes the case against such a tactic. Not many other highly controversial topics deal with a NPOV issue that lasts this long. Another section should be added for balance. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 02:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Paramilitary assault justification
Regarding the wording of this passage: "a no knock warrant is a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to conduct a paramilitary assault on a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell," usage of the word assault is justifiable by the core meaning of assault, regardless of the morality or legality of the assault. Phrasing as "Lawful forced entry" is simply a colorful euphemism removing the weight of the actions actually taking place, as men with guns are destructively entering an abode and detaining the inhabitants. Consider this, "on June 6th, 1944, under all auspices of international law and treaty between the United States and Germany as appropriate to their declaration of war, the United States conducted a lawful forced entry upon the beaches of Normandy." Likewise, usage of paramilitary is justified in that the assault is by all means of training, organization, equipment, and methods parallel to the military (via Merriam Webster's definition). Again, while the color of the word is negative, it is proper to pay respect to the weight of the actions and consequences by not deferring to euphemisms, especially with regards to the incredible rate at which these raids are occurring in the US. -- 67.83.205.76 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a number of ways to conduct a lawful forced entry, not all of them are all breathless excitement and firearms related. Execution of the warrant need not require an "assault" per se, although it's certainly one of the options.
 * And I think you need to understand what paramilitary means; it's related to organisation and Rule of Law, not black uniforms and smoke grenades.
 * ALR (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Berwyn Heights mayor as example?
Should the Berwyn Heights, Maryland mayor's residence drug raid be summarized and referenced in this article as an example? It appears to be pretty much a textbook case of a no-knock SWAT raid snafu. The only question is whether or not the raid was actually based on a no-knock warrant or not -- the section "Improper search warrant" indicates, albeit only with a single source, that the warrant was technically not a "no-knock" warrant, as they supposedly did not exist in that county. Wingman4l7 (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This article doesn't make sense
As written, the articles implies that authority for no knock warrants was created by a 1995 court case. But then it mentions that there were thousands of these warrants issued in 1981. There must be something missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:6700:342:6CF4:DAFF:9B82:95B9 (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is talking about a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled that the no-knock warrant did not require the suppression of evidence in the case that was before the court in 1995. Each state can have their own set of laws and the 1995 case dealt with a challenge of a no-knock warrant that the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled was not proper. Because each state could have their own law, there could be thousands of these types of warrants issued in previous years. The 1995 case simply looked at one challenge from one state. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)