Cory Maye, and the dangerous precedent of No-Knock raids

December 11, 2005

I don’t know a lot of the specifics about Cory Maye’s case, but I’ve been following it of late, via the Agitator. Aside from the distinct possibility of serving a warrant erroneously (which can obviously lead to similar consequences), the Agitator brings up some very good ancilliary questions:

And therein lies the problem with hyper-militarized, highly-weaponized drug raids. Citizens on the other end of these raids are expected to behave perfectly rationally. They’re supposed to be cognizant, alert, and aware that it is police, and not illegal intruders, who are storming their homes. At the same time, police typically justify the tactics used in no knocks — including raiding late at night or just before dawn, and deploying dangerous “flashbang” grenades designed to confuse and bewilder a house’s occupants — for the precise reason that they catch drug suspects off guard, and disorient them. How, then, can they turn around and say that the innocent victim of a no-knock who shoots back should have known better?

Now, I don’t want to go off on an extreme tangent, and I don’t want to paraphrase or regurgitate everything he’s already said about this case (see my last entry for the related links), but I do want to sound the alarm.

If it is the State’s position that ultimately, no-knock raids of this nature are acceptable in practice - I think we’re getting ready to go down a very, very slippery slope. Just a thought I had, but I think it’s ultimately a possibility, and it will become ever more likely if no-knock raids like this are continually carried out.

How long do you think it will take before actual, dangerous criminals decide to emulate this behavior? It won’t take much - bust in to the target residence with guns drawn and balaclavas covering your face, wearing black and/or fatigues, and yell out to your victims that you’re the police. In any such circumstance, the results will be disastrous: citizens afraid to defend their own homes against what they believe to be a clear and present danger, because someone is claiming to be the police.

Ex ante, if a warrant isn’t served to an individual, he has no way of knowing that the claims made by the boys in blue are legitimate. Yet, ex post, the resident is required to take them at their word, prior to being shown any evidence that corroborates the claim that the officers are in fact, officers of the law, and acting on official business with a warrant.

No-knock raids require that the person being served have perfect information when no such information can possibly be obtained.

I’d write my congressman if I thought he’d open the letter and give a shit.


Posted in: Potpourri

Comments

1 Comment so far

  1. doinkicarus December 11, 2005 11:33 pm

    Point of Clarification:

    What I mean here: “Ex ante, if a warrant isn’t served to an individual, he has no way of knowing that the claims made by the boys in blue are legitimate. . .”

    just because someone claims to be a police officer on official business should not, and rationally cannot be considered evidence to that effect.

Leave a Comment

If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments

Archives

Categories