digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at justicefortracy.com

An Innocent Victim of No-knock Warrants and the War on Drugs

justicefortracy.com — Tracy Ingle was asleep in his house when armed police using a no-knock warrant burst in. Unsure about what was happening, he reached for a non-functioning pistol, but began to drop it as soon as he realized who they were. The gesture was too late -- officers shot him 5 times.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • iceman0113, on 05/10/2008, -9/+170"Mercifully, he survived, but despite not finding any drugs in his house, Tracy is being charged with two felony counts of Aggravated Assault, drug paraphernalia and running a drug premises." After being shot, they charge him. Talk about kicking a man when he's down. ***** the War on Drugs and ***** the No-Knock warrants.
    • Osirus1156, on 05/11/2008, -4/+22I would try to use my time in court to get stupid ***** like "No-Knock" warrants banned. Only after I demanded they dropped the charges.
      • mxmj, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1That would be awesome; unfortunately, unless you got an amazing team of lawyers to work pro-bono, it would cost tens of thosands and would take months. This guy can't even afford the medical treatment he needs.
    • KiraDnote, on 05/11/2008, -22/+11Are you sure this story is credible? Maybe it's a scam. I don't know. Anyway, there's a lot more to this story than what was in the article, if indeed any of it is true.
      • toastgodsupreme, on 05/11/2008, -0/+12Did you read the story?

        http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.asp ...

        I was confused when I got to the main site until I saw the article links. After reading it, this is terrible.
      • Drahkar, on 05/11/2008, -0/+18Cause we all know the Government would never do anything to break the law or endanger it's citizens. Its made up of happy and honest people who never ever do a bad thing.

        Pardon me while I go look for the door back to reality...
    • dOOBiEx213, on 05/11/2008, -6/+20***** pigs.
    • ByteGuerilla, on 05/11/2008, -5/+37No-knock warrants are fundamentally undemocratic.
      • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -1/+15They're an immoral abuse of power.
        They're are only 'undemocratic' if the majority agrees.
        • Silentnite85, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8Who's the dumbass agreeing to having their house invaded? They are clearly in the minority regardless.
          • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1No one would agree to have HIS house invaded, but after 9/11 lots of people were more agreeable to gov't action in the name of 'security'.
            No matter, people don't vote on laws anyhow, which I think is often good, but the down-side you've got other idiots who do. Nobody they know will have this happen to them or at least no one they like.
        • shig, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Obviously the cops agree that no-knock warrants are justified, and having cops giving you a 9mm wake up call is just another element of the American Dream. They wouldn't lie to me on my own damn TV.
      • Stevanoski, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3Dugg down due to the "...undemocratic..." comment. Maybe unconstitutional, but has nothing to do with democracy, perhaps when you finish high school you will note the difference.
        • ByteGuerilla, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Oh. You again. Going for the high score on total digg downs still?
      • kilt42, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5i believe the correct term to describe no-knock warrants is "***** *****"
        • userperson, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Did my best to remember ... sorry for lacking the proper language.
    • gandhii, on 05/11/2008, -1/+25Whether or not a person has the right to vote has nothing to do with it. I think "unconstitutional" is the term you were looking for.
      • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4I like 'immoral' better, there are plenty of things which are Constitutional which are still evil and creepy.
        Even so Constitution's just a piece of paper, it can be ignored or 'interpreted' around, or changed.
        • Silentnite85, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5As evidenced by the last 8 years.
          • ChildeRoland420, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3"As evidenced by the last 140 years." There, I fixed it for you.
          • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Somebody "fixed it" for all of us.
            Only 140 though?
            I don't know when ... but I take the Whiskey Rebellion as the first symptom of a problem.
    • hcarlgolden, on 05/11/2008, -3/+12***** the Police I hope they get what should be coming to them.
      • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2I agree, but they won't.
      • wakananda, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Every road has it's turning.
        Hold on tight...
    • ElderBieler, on 05/11/2008, -25/+1You guys all say the 'f' word a lot. I won't lie; it makes you sound retarded and I can't take anything you say in proximity to that word seriously.
      • Enasni1212, on 05/11/2008, -0/+17It's a word, like any other word. I could take even more offense to your use of the word, "retarded." But I won't because I don't particularly care about words I see on the internet.

        ***** you.
        • ElderBieler, on 05/11/2008, -14/+1I love that arguement, "it's just a word," and to my usage of retarded, I wasn't using that as a tool to prove or illustrate a point. In fact, I purposefully used it as to not be taken serious as in the same vein as the rest of you 'retards.'
          With that said, stooping to the same vocabulary as trash and career criminals doesn't necessarily bode well for attempts at intelligence. Formulate your thoughts, you seriously sound so low class.
          Come tomorrow mom must be so proud of the trailer trash which has sprung from her loins. Congratulations on making the high mark in society.
          • Silentnite85, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Speaking of tools, gtfo. If you are offended by a word its your own problem. I could say Banana offends me and try to sue the Chicita Banana Company but everyone realizes its just a word and I add my own meaning to it. Grow up, stop sounding like a pretentious ***** and maybe someone might listen.
        • rhoffer21, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1I guess speaking in sentence fragments is a sign of ones class now? Interesting.
    • aidave, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Just like the Inquisition of old, the new Drug Inquisition punishes and tortures the "innocent", trying to scare confessions out. When will the madness end?
  • zombird, on 05/10/2008, -2/+57This happens more often than you think.
    http://www.drugwarrant.net/vigil/
  • lucidguru, on 05/10/2008, -6/+138This "War on Drugs" needs to end. By having a nanny state we are ensuring that multinational crime organizations can become filthy rich by selling illegal drugs. No-knock raids like this one are just the US government doing the dirty work of the criminal organizations. The are guaranteeing the profits of drug dealers by keeping drugs at an artificially high price. The same phenomenon happened when alcohol was illegal --> Gangsters became rich by selling moonshine.
    The solution is to legalize ALL drugs, and the free market will put the gangs and criminals out of business.
    There is nothing fundamentally wrong with adults choosing to use drugs. Granted many drugs are unsafe, but alcohol and tobacco are legal while also being unsafe. Our politicians believe that we need to put drug users in jail, but has show to be ineffective. People are going to use drugs no matter what (get over it religious right) so the smart thing is to make the drug use as safe as possible while also preventing crime.
    • changedmind, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14I agree. Dugg. BTW not all religious right think the same way.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Why are you, yourself, being bigoted? Not all people no matter their religion or political orientation think the same way.
    • billbert, on 05/11/2008, -13/+3well done, the first bit was great, then you took back every bit of intelligence you had. way to go...
      ALL drugs should be illegal?
      are you crazy? Heroin, Methamphetamine? Ludicrous...
      • wakananda, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Harm reduction should be the standard. The entire problem should be a medical question, not a judicial one. If all the money spent in the phoney, corrupt "war on drugs" were available for HONEST drug education and treatment, there would be no noticable drug problem.
    • marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Agreed and dugg. I too believe that all drugs should be legal. Allow adults to choose for themselves.
      • funkywood, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I'll add my bit again. Allow adults to choose for themselves UNTIL they, individually, abuse that priviledge. Then they get banned just as someone is banned from driving if they drive like a nutter.

        Be sensible. Some drugs must be controlled and regulated, but you can not control something that is in the hands of criminals. Prohibition is simply one strong form of deterrent, it won't stop someone if they want something. There are plenty of other possible deterrents, education for one.
        • marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I still say let *all* drugs be legal (as in not controlled). You said we allow adults to choose for themselves until they abuse that privilege and I agree with that. We already do that with alcohol. Show society you can't handle responsibility with alcohol by hurting parts of society (via violence, drunk driving, etc) and you are no longer allowed to have alcohol. Continue doing it and you end up in jail due to crimes that have victims (vs. victimless crimes). But I think that ALL drugs (prescription drugs as well as street drugs) should be able to be purchased OTC. A doctor can advise you to go purchase penicillin, but why do you need a prescription (which is basically another way of saying advice) to attain certain drugs?
    • ZubZerp, on 05/11/2008, -11/+3Yes, taking drugs are free choice, but addiction is not. Other drugs are extremely addictive and if they're commonplace, it will create a lot of public chaos. At least keeping them illegal keeps the majority of the population from using them.
      • Zempz, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7False, people who don't do drugs, make that choice. Also addiction rates are lower than propaganda has led american's to believe. Do you realize how often heroin is used in hospitals and how few people actually get addicted? Final point, i believe its holland that marijuana is legal, and the usage rate per capita is less than the United states, and many other countries who ban it. Drugs are like abortion, whether its legal or not people will do it, or choose not to. By illegilizing it, all that happens is that it becomes less safe.
      • marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3ZubZerp, no one goes into addictive drugs without knowing that there's a good chance of getting addicted. Keeping drugs illegal is not what keeps the majority of the population from using them. Knowledge of the consequences and a sense of self and social responsibility keeps the majority of people from using them. If you want to do something, it being illegal is a very minor roadblock. Consider teens and pot and then consider teens and drinking. Which do teens do more of? Which of them is illegal but very available on the black market and which of them is regulated in the open market?
      • Loonacy, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Let's bring back the Prohibition because some people are alcoholics!
  • tehbored, on 05/10/2008, -10/+56This is fascism and nothing less.
    • VIrus9, on 05/10/2008, -21/+7Sorry, but I had to bury your comment for poor use of the word "fascism". Fascism is a governmental system under which the state's purpose is to serve the corporate interest. While it is true that the United States has been a fascist republic since the early twentieth century, the tactics it employs are not exclusive to fascism.
      • tehbored, on 05/10/2008, -2/+15Fascism isn't necessarily that. That was just Mussolini's definition. The word Fascism isn't really a well defined word, but can generally be equated with an oppressive, overbearing government. Police raids like this occur under communist governments as well, so I guess the word choice could have been better. "Police state" perhaps.
        • ByteGuerilla, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13Authoritarian and undemocratic are two words that would be very accurate.
        • dagnome1984, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Not that democracy is any better. That is authoritarianism from the majority.
    • wakananda, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3When we're dragged away an stuffed into boxcars by Blackwater thugs, let's while away the tedious hours on the way to the extermination zone by quibbling about whether "fascism" or "totalitarianism" aptly describes our murder.
  • JimmySpaza, on 05/10/2008, -16/+53No one deserves to lose their life over drugs, no matter how horrible drugs are or how legitimate the need to regulate or ban them.

    For that matter, why do these raids at all? It's not like their shoving drugs into the bodies of innocent people? It's all a voluntary business deal, albeit illegal.

    I don't like drugs and would continue to ban much of them if I could. Nevertheless, this kind of police action by a government that is supposed to PROTECT us is downright stupid.

    Save the no-knock warrants and heavily armed raids for the murderers and violent offenders.
    • BlackBob, on 05/10/2008, -3/+20I don't understand why anyone is burying this comment... Oh, wait - it's JimmySpaza. Nevermind.
    • iceman0113, on 05/10/2008, -12/+1they're not their
    • notoneofus, on 05/11/2008, -1/+27Wow. I'm agreeing with JimmySpaza. What other 5 impossible things will happen before breakfast?
      • CryRightardCry, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Try again.
        You don't REALLY agree.
        He wants to CONTINUE the war on drugs, he said so just now.
        So he doesn't want this stuff to happen, but he would continue to do it?
        Typical rightard Spaza stupidity.
    • Divals, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6Wow. JimmySpaza said something that isn't laden with stupidity... Bravo, dood!
    • aidave, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Finally something conservatives/liberals can agree on. Police resources should be used going after terrorists/murders/etc, NOT drug users. It's a total waste and a tragedy.
      • Matri, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Going off on a tangent, the RIAA/MPAA wants us to believe that this is nothing compared to filesharing.
  • JD52, on 05/10/2008, -18/+5It is likely this guy will be compensated in the hundreds of millions.
    • mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -0/+9That should be plenty to get a proper drug cartel up and running!
      • chrisduser, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Who needs a drug cartel when you can live wealthy off the interest and any profitable investments made with the money.
    • citizen782, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13Actually it's more likely he won't and the officers involved will not even be reprimanded.
  • mciampa1214, on 05/10/2008, -7/+19Actually, after looking through the pictures on the site, the story seems a little suspicious. There are bullet holes all over the house (trailer?). I don't know that it really lines up with the cops shooting him while he was lying in bed. Even those rounds seemed to be at a strange angle.
    • smotpoker, on 05/10/2008, -4/+6How do you explain the multiple bullet holes at a downward angle being lodged into the top of a mattress? Considering the bedroom window is broken, it looks like they were probably firing from outside, too (probably saw him turn on his light from outside during the raid and flocked to it and opened fire as soon as they heard gunshots).

      I don't think too many people believe there should never be raids, just that police should act with more caution/restraint when executing them and not for purely drug-related charges. They seem to have no problem endangering suspects or anyone around them as long as they manage to bust them. Even with regular search warrants they often don't give people time to answer the door before kicking it in and this was a no-knock which are basically "provoke a reason to shoot/beat suspect(s)" warrant, IMO.
      • crossmr, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2the bullet holes in the mattress are consistent, but cops in other rooms are trained not to just blindly open fire. Bullet holes in the outside door? Doesn't make sense.
        • crimsonwolf870, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7yes and cops are suppose to be trained to do the right thing but silencing a eye witness is not right either
          • crossmr, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1but unnecessary bullet holes in other rooms would only put suspicion on the cops. If they walked in and he has a gun and they put some bullets in him, makes sense. They fill the other empty rooms up with bullets? Thats internal affairs getting ready to kick some ass.
          • TrevaLVF, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Thin walls?
        • smotpoker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2The outside door? It is only displayed to show where it was kicked in.

          There are a couple of other doors pictured, they could be separate entrances to the same room but I think one is a closet door. The entrance could have swung [partially] closed while they were firing. The other door could have been hit by those firing into the room (whether it is a closet door or not) considering we can't tell from the photos which side of the doors the room is on for sure.

          Also bear in mind that bullets are known to sometimes fly through walls/doors and impact objects in other rooms sometimes
      • waynetheman, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6"I don't think too many people believe there should never be raids"

        I'm not sure I see the need for them. Can you give me one example where it's NECESSARY for the police to break through the door and rush in, rather than announcing their presence and, if need be, surrounding the place to prevent escape?

        And as for cases like this... personally, I think, at the very least, every cop whose weapon was discharged should be fired and barred from ever working for any government ever again. And those involved with setting up this raid need the same treatment. Yeah, that's fair, considering had the guy accidentally killed an officer, but somehow managed to not get struck by a bullet himself, he'd most likely be facing murder charges. (Excuse me, murder OF A POLICE OFFICER, since that's so much worse than regular ol' murder.)
        • smotpoker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I agree with that for the most part, however there are some circumstances you haven't considered - primarily hostage situations or situations in which there is a threat of destroying or tampering with evidence. Also remember Waco? I don't think the FBI was justified in opening fire but 40+ days guarding a residence (or compound) can be rather costly.

          Those are all compelling circumstances in which patiently waiting outside for compliance is not ideal. I firmly believe all raids should be announced and most could be avoided altogether by staking out a few hrs and catching people as they enter or leave a premises but I also know that isn't *always* the case
    • ryodoan, on 05/11/2008, -6/+5Yeah, check out this picture. Unless the cops layed down on the floor and then shot up into the bed, I dont see how this can happen: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26410111@N02/24767435 ...

      Also, there is a severe lack of blood on the bed.
      • DJNephilim, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6How do you know which direction the bullet came from in that picture?
        • Scaryclouds, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2The sticks show the direction. I must admit it seems a bit weird as the hots are either perpendicular or parallel with the bed. I would of expected something more along the lines of 30-60 degree.

          If this story is true, I truly feel sorry for this man and what happened to him, however, the only source of this story if the website and they are asking for money. Unfortunately too many people these days prey upon helpful people by creating sites like this and taking their money. I just don't know I would have to see a secondary source.

          EDIT:
          Never mind it looks like there are other sources supporting this story.
        • rhoffer21, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2The sticks dont tell you which way the bullet came from though. If the gunman was on the far side of the mattress then the bullet hole looks good to me.
          • mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1The article seemed to say that he 'dropped his gun' when he noticed it was the cops. That would lead me to believe he didn't fire any shots. That means the cops were either lying on the floor shooting up at him, or he actually did get off two rounds that went through the mattress.
      • smotpoker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I noticed the lack of blood too, that is the only thing that is really too suspicious which could be explained by him jumping out of bed immediately or him falling out after getting shot.

        I attributed the low trajectories to crouching positions police/soldiers/etc often assume to make room for others when entering a room when clearing or covering a room with potentially armed enemies
        • mciampa1214, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I still don't think the angle makes sense though. I thought the same thing at first, but the bed wasn't too high, they would have had to been quite close, and at that point it seems ridiculous that they would shoot directly into the foot board.
  • SilenceGold, on 05/10/2008, -12/+10I own few handguns....if someone busts in without knocking...I'm going to use the rambo style (note the new John Rambo movie on the old boat scene). It's legal at least here in AR.
    • jerrycurley, on 05/11/2008, -4/+17OK, internet tough guy.
    • crossmr, on 05/11/2008, -3/+13Sure you are internet toughguy.
    • notoneofus, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8Sure it's legal...unless it's the cops who bust in, as in this case.
      • Badandy127, on 05/11/2008, -3/+6They didn't knock and they didn't identify themselves. It would probably still be legal
        • chrisduser, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10However, the cops will be justified in wasting the gun wielding citizen. How else will they protect themselves and serve their paycheck?
          • Badandy127, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5The citizen wouldn't have been wielding a gun (we hope not) had the officers said they were the police when busting through his door.

            But something doesn't add up, I doubt we're getting the whole story. There was perephenelia (sp) found among other things...
          • shady8x, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Yes because plastic baggies are some uncommon, why they aren't even sold in every grocery store... Since they are so evil I will stop carrying my sandwiches to work in them, I'll just use my pockets...

            As for the scale, it was apparently stored in the house and was from his sisters old job.
          • fanclerks, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4@Badandy127

            The paraphernalia was a digital scale and plastic baggies that his sister has already said were hers that she used for making jewelry. Everything that has been done so far has been to cover for the cops. They even intimidated the neighbor into lying and refuses to talk to media or anyone. Honestly, I think this is just another example of how corrupt our justice system has become. They've militarized the police force and are now coming up with any excuse they can to justify their paychecks.
          • Loonacy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Now I know what to do when busting into someone's house: Claim I'm the police. And then waste the poor fool for being able to identify me.
  • 1oneWON, on 05/10/2008, -3/+20I'm glad the guy didn't die, but this entire story is a shame. Crazy lack of coverage too. I think it's essentially our duty to bring these kinds of stories to light. If people want to really feel the power of social news gathering, this is one way to help.
    • fpaudon, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5There's not enough time for coverage when the media's obsessed about anti-Chinese crap
  • jerrycurley, on 05/11/2008, -8/+18No bias in this article! Therefore, I have no reason not to believe that their version is EXACTLY the way it happened!
  • socivitus, on 05/11/2008, -4/+24And of course the police who did this will walk away without a slap on the wrist.
    • chrisduser, on 05/11/2008, -4/+4But... but they are just doing their job...
    • pinguwin, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5I doubt they will even get a slap on the wrist.
    • Marmeladov, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3This is America. Of course that's what's going to happen.
  • Picaroon, on 05/11/2008, -5/+51I'm immediately suspicious. They charged him without evidence, eh? He needs money, so use this PayPal link? Give me a break.
    I'm against the war on drugs but this is fishy.
    • NWAfellows, on 05/11/2008, -5/+19Read the Arkansas Times article linked on the page - it's legit:
      http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.asp ...
      And the Arkansas Times isn't a fly-by-night sensationalist blogging site, it's a very professional and respected publication. They wouldn't publish it if there wasn't merit to the story.
      I realize it's "cool" and "hip" to be skeptical on the Internet, but a little bit of research would have shown that the fishy smell here is coming from the police involved.
    • jguy584, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Yea it seems to me that there is more to this story then what is posted.
      He could of been running a drug op out of his house and had nothing on him at the time, except the paraphernalia. Then in order to save face he denied the whole thing and made it out to be a police error.
  • rileyhallwood, on 05/11/2008, -18/+7'holy ***** ***** the police, ***** the war!!!!!! ***** bush omg omg omg omg'
    people need to know the facts before jumping to the conclusion that the police were in the wrong. it is clearly a bias website and i'm willing to bet none of the people above know what really happened. nor do i, yet you cant just say everythings a big conspiracy and '***** the dea'.
  • ayyyyy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3I was about to check out the website for the North Little Rock PD, but it's down currently. Hopefully it's the digg effect, but I'm not so sure.
  • chrisduser, on 05/11/2008, -2/+30Drugs are dangerous to a person and some drugs are deadly. If we criminalize things because they are dangerous, then there are thousands more things that must be made illegal. Contact sports, vehicle sports, motor and motorless vehicles, co-habitation, socialization, dating, horse-play, betting, child birth, walking across the street, being a parent, declaring orientation. I could go on and on.

    We adults can partake in dangerous activities because we accept the responsibilities of our actions. If I think I can get coked up without harming myself or anyone else, let me. If I violate a law while willfully impaired, then prosecute me for violating that law and prosecute me for violating that law while being willfully impaired.
  • KiraDnote, on 05/11/2008, -15/+7Buried as a potential scam.
  • Smokalot, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2Walk on you tiptoes,don't tie no bows
    You better stay away from those who hang around the firehose.
    Keep a clean nose,watch the plainclothes
    You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. B.D.
  • rongometz, on 05/11/2008, -6/+8There's two sides to every story. I would like to hear the evidence or probable cause that led to the no knock warrant. It's highly unlikely that he is completely innocent.
    • NWAfellows, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Here's what an article linked on the site says:
      "Given that it's a case that has yet to be prosecuted, it should be noted that the North Little Rock Police Department says it is limited in what it can say about Ingle's case at this point. There are obvious questions. In the warrant obtained to search the house at 400 E. 21st St., a copy of which was obtained by the Arkansas Times, police say they believe the house in question contained “crack cocaine.” That description has been carefully scribbled out, with “methamphetamine” written in above and initialed by Judge Randy Morley. According to an affidavit signed by NLRPD narcotics investigator Mickey Schuetzle, narcotics had been sold from the residence. In that document, Schuetzle doesn't elaborate on who sold him the narcotics, what was sold, or when."
    • ayyyyy, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2of course he's not innocent, he assaulted the police with his broken gun.
    • sancho, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4But there are two issues here, too.

      One issue is whether or not the war on drugs is reasonable. The other issue is whether or not no-knock warrants are. No-knock warrants cause more harm than good, since failing to identify yourself as an officer is more likely to get you shot. And once someone's shooting at you, you're pretty much going to want to shoot back.

      This guy could have been the biggest drug dealer in the world, a child rapist, and a terrorist, and the issue of the police shooting him for reaching for a gun after they failed to identify themselves in a no-knock warrant would still be a problem.
      • rongometz, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3I absolutely agree with you here. I guess what pisses me off is the usual "digger" that believes what they read... he's so innocent. BS. I highly doubt that.
        • TrevaLVF, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1"Presumed innocent until proven guilty." It's in the Constitution.
    • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3People like to blame the victim to rationalize why bad things couldn't have/ won't happen to them.
    • mabhatter, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2The point of knock and announce warrants is that you have to give a man a chance to come clean and reasonably answer to the officers. No-Knocks put the police in mortal danger, and that's the point, to justify using para-military personnel for routine violations because of fear. Police are more than capable of surrounding a small residence and allowing the man to wake up, gather his wits and answer the door for a routine search. Surprising people in the middle of the night is the hallmark point of every scary regime out there. It's what the Nazi's did, what the Communists did in the Eastern Block, what China does, what goes on in Iraq. FEAR is why they do this! The police are using this tactic because they know what it means, it's not fear-mongering. The whole point of middle-of-the-night raids is that the police KNOW what is publicly unacceptable and choose to do it anyway.

      The biggest thing I want to see is these guys to be wrong... serve the wrong address and kill somebody and go to jail on open murder, or have an officer killed and the homeowner get away with it as justified self defense. That will be the quickest way to get this to end.
  • homah, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14I've never heard of a no-knock warrant and am saddened that such a thing is legal.
  • dizilbdog, on 05/11/2008, -6/+36Just to let you know Obama won't be ending this "War On Drugs" I think the only person with the balls to do that would have been Ron Paul.
    • HappyScrappy, on 05/11/2008, -10/+5Obama never said he would.
      • dizilbdog, on 05/11/2008, -3/+9No but he should if he did I bet he would get alot more support.
        • HappyScrappy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3On Digg.

          Parents are a huge voting block. And most are anti-drug. Even though the drug war is ineffective.
        • fanclerks, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4@HappyScrappy

          You can thank brainwashing for that one. Media and the government repeatedly saying that drugs are bad has caused them to be anti-drug.
    • execute85, on 05/11/2008, -1/+13Kusinich would have ended the War on Some Drugs.
      • TrevaLVF, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Kucinich would have. Mike Gravel would have, too.
    • dizilbdog, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10I think any sane politician would end the War on Drugs oh wait that's right we don't have sane politicians except for a few. Barney Frank Ron Paul Kusinich, and I can't name any more that is sad.
      • raysaagar, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1you forgot ralph nadar.. unless he's insane as well
      • TrevaLVF, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Mike Gravel is another one that would end the war on drugs.
  • HappyScrappy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5no-knock warrants are complete BS. But this story is awfully fishy.

    Still, even if this guy wasn't an innocent victim, there will be more and more of them if no-knock warrants continue to be allowed.
  • citizen782, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8Potential for a no knock warrant at your residence? Booby trap the yard and porches.
    • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4They'll charge you for booby trapping too then. It's a sad state of affairs.
    • Culebras, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Not if you keep some pet grizzlies in the yard.
      • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Strict liability if they can prove you intentionally keep them as pets.
        e.g. Like stupid celebs who keep tigers in their mansions' backyards.

        So maybe, maybe not, usually when you go up against a gov't it's a losing proposition. They stand for truth, justice, and the American way, even if they're lying, being unjust, and using fascist tactics, Not to mention they make their own rules.

        After all if you weaken the powers of such authority then people might get away with dastardly deeds, never mind what gov't gets away with.
  • jjreg, on 05/11/2008, -12/+2Yeah, poor innocent criminal victim. He was just minding his own business, in bed knitting a sweater, when SWAT busted in a beat him with a crippled kitten. Some people will believe anything, as long as it makes them feel cool and anti-establishment.
    • justok, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Really? Is that true?
    • wakananda, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Congratulations, you're a snot-nosed, mindless herd-animal. No-knock warrants and civil asset forfeiture (cops stealing and liquidating homes, cars, boats, bank accounts - before their mark has even been convicted) have ruined countless American lives. ***** you, for your willfull ignorance and arrogance.
  • utahnkid, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2If you're ready to believe this without so much as a shred of evidence other then his personal account then I'm sure it won't be the first time you get scammed.
    • rhoffer21, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I guess the arkansas times doesnt count either?
    • buckrogers1965, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Presumption of innocence.
      Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

      These things matter a lot and it took a long long time to get protections. Shame to just throw it all away.
  • JakeyG14, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5He fought the law, and the law won.
    • marx2k, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1But was he Breaking the law, breaking the law?
    • raysaagar, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0but that was only 1 battle... of the war...
    • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Dude he didn't 'fight' so much as wake up in a panic.
    • wakananda, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution of the United States of America, the Fourth Amendment of which guarantees that every American be secure in their persons, papers and effects, and that no one's home may be invaded without a warrant, signed by a judge, stating exactly what is being sought out and what is to be seized. That has degenerated into a lawless, ***** free-for-all; nothing but total piracy. The degenerate state of the USA, and the glib ignorance of it's simian cheerleaders makes me want to vomit.
  • wrzhydr, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.asp ...

    Some more clarification. I'm interested in the "shady characters coming and going" part.
    • TrevaLVF, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1That could have been a fabrication. The shady characters might have been some guys with long hair, some black dudes, and these "shady characters" may have been musicians and blue collar workers that didn't do much more than smoke a little weed now and then.
  • JasonCox, on 05/11/2008, -13/+6War on Drugs: Good
    Breaking into a man's home and then shooting him when he reaches for a gun, the same thing that an Officer would do if someone broke into his home: Unacceptable.
  • llamaguy132, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4call me naive, but would you even need a lawyer for this? just sit there and point out the obvious: no drugs were found, he lowered his weapon and did not fire, and he received no notification of any charges against him.
    Furthermore, how ludicrous would it be for a judge to deny him full medical coverages, as it was the gov't that caused the injuries, the gov't must pay more it.
    • DutchGuilder, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3You are naive. It is easier to charge him than to admit liability. From the original article (link below):

      Charged with operating a drug premises, possession of drug paraphernalia (a digital scale and plastic baggies that belonged to his sister, both Ingle and Forrester say — the baggies leftovers from Forrester's jewelry-making hobby, the scale a freebie from the animal testing lab where she once worked), and two counts of aggravated assault, for making the officers who shot him fear for their lives, Ingle was brought before a judge whose name he doesn't recall for a bond hearing on Sunday. According to Ingle, the judge told him that because he'd had a shootout with police, he was setting his bond at $250,000.

      http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.asp ...
    • userperson, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2The cops say he didn't lower his weapon... in his own home, in the middle of the night (i.e. irrelevant).
    • shady8x, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3You are naive.

      This is not how the system works.

      as to your points, the prosecutor will say:
      "no drugs were found"
      but plastic bags for sandwiches and a scale from his sisters old job were found and are illegal by federal law...
      "he lowered his weapon"
      That is not what victim one and two, the good wholesome police officers said, are you gonna believe this dirty rotten crook selling poison to your children rather then the people that protect you????
      "and did not fire"
      the gun was broken so he couldn't fire
      ", and he received no notification of any charges against him."
      Actually they aren't required to notify him until they actually charge him...

      In a time of war normal rules don't apply. Isn't awesome that we have been at war for 70 years with all them rules being long forgotten by now, except on fictional tv shows that is?

      To get off without spending the rest of his life in prison, he will need to get VERY VERY expensive lawyers or plead guilty under some sort of deal...
  • crapmatic, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I would not hesitate to Paypal some money, but I'd like to know exactly why a lawsuit isn't delivering the goods here. This is a classic case where lawyers should be fighting amongst one another to sue the authorities on his behalf. Something isn't adding up.
    • jjreg, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1Why aren't lawyers scrambling to take the case? Because that website isn't telling the entire truth. It's difficult to get a warrant like that. There must have been some pretty strong evidence against him. And just because there were no drugs found, that doesn't mean he's innocent. People manage to flush drugs all the time before cops get to them. Keep in mind that paraphernalia was found. You think people have that for decoration? As long as the equation comes out to "cops bad", people will believe anything.
      • shady8x, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Actually the no-knock warrants have been used more and more frequently with a very tiny portion of them finding drug dealers, many find users, many find nothing... Since more then half of Americans have used illegal drugs, it isn't hard to find those dirty rotten criminals(majority of American citizens)

        The only thing that concerns me is the scale, which is apparently his sister's from her old job...
        The plastic baggies don't concern me, I have plenty of them ziplock bags, how is that drug related???

        HE was asleep, how the hell would he get to the bathroom, sleepwalking???

        I don't think cops are bad, even though they shot a friend of mine while his back was turned to them and he was in a phone booth not even knowing there were cops near him... those cops were also found innocent... apparently they were scared to death of the phone he was holding in a phone booth...

        Cops aren't bad, the system is, cops just try to do their job within a very very flawed system... oh and cops who think the system is great ARE bad.
  • hcarlgolden, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3http://www.infowars.com/?p=2024
  • coffee200am, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10 "Earlier that evening, he'd had an argument with his sometime girlfriend, Sandra Melby. She'd gone to her friend's house in Greenbrier for the night."

    Sounds like girlfriend called the cops....
    • Frostek, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1If that's the case, why is this the cops fault according to most posters? Do they make the laws? No! They have to follow the procedures laid down for them.
      If she did set the cops loose on the guy, she should be the one brought up on charges...
    • mabhatter, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1again, the police may have had a valid reason, but this is why no-knocks are so bad... she could have been planning them to take him out by using the police. If they didn't react so predictably over the top she couldn't have counted on them.
  • dunyasi, on 05/11/2008, -2/+11There is a reason why Firefighters get more respect from society versus the Police.

    Firefighters: When a Firefighter kicks your door down, its usually to save it at the expense of his own at times.

    the Police: When a police officer kicks your door down, its usually to take your life(by either shooting you or throwing you in jail) while covering his own.
  • j0keR, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10The government is far more dangerous than all drugs and all gangs profiting from prohibition put together.
    • Frostek, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1You're right! Better start that rebellion now. Once you get done posting on the internet...
  • Notyavgkat, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2knock knock, Who's there, Oh get down on the fuc#%^ ground u don't get a knock knock!!
  • Nerys, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4When are people going to start building there houses "no knock warrant" proof. When I build my own house nothing short of driving a car into it will open that door/window/wall. Then I can casually get out of bed and tell them to screw off from inside as I call the REAL police and my lawyer. I do not recognize no knock warrants as legal and I consider anyone trying to serve one to be a criminal. I would NEVER threaten a cop. Thats just asking to be shot or worse. But standing up for what is right and moral is something people NEED to start doing no matter how much it hurts at first.
    • jwoulf, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It's easy, a large steel "Cage" right inside your door, It keeps them from getting too far, and they don't know it's there until they run into it, scares the sh1t out of them at first when they walk into it and "pile up" from the force of the guys in the back still walking/running forward.
  • OmegaWolf, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3info@littlerock.org

    I already sent a not-so-nice tirade their way. The police email. Let "Little Rock's Finest" have a piece of your minds!
    • Frostek, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2They only follow the procedures drawn out for them. Aim your ire at the people who legislate if you disagree with this policy.
      Do you actually think the police make the laws they follow?
      • shady8x, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2They select how the go about enforcing the laws...

        Since 1/3 of Americans have guns, almost half of the houses they break into will have armed civilians ready to shoot at a home intruder...

        The cops could choose to enforce the law without putting civilians in the line of fire or themselves for that matter...
  • Midtowner, on 05/11/2008, -10/+5Police use no-knock warrants because of the fact that those who possess drugs would simply destroy the evidence given the opportunity to do so. This is why drugs are often found in the bathroom (near the toilet). Police also do this for their own protection. If police knock, they're giving suspects the opportunity to prepare an armed defense. More often than not, these sorts of searches are safer for both the suspects and the police. This is the exception, not the rule.

    In this case, drug paraphernalia was found in the home. The defendant is lucky he didn't happen to have drugs at the time. The aggravated assault charges are probably for leverage in the eventual plea deal.

    You can't blame the cops for enforcing the law. The law is on the books -- blame the politicians for that. The cops are just doing their job -- using every means at their disposal to fight crime.

    But yeah, you guys can dig me down. I agree with most of you that the war on drugs is crap, but it's the law. Police enforce the laws. Complaining about their methods is not the way to fight this.
    • Razormane11, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7First of all, not quite sure how having baggies and a scale in your house automatically qualifies as running a drug enterprise. *****, you know how many people probably have a scale and baggies in their house? I know plenty of people that have scales and don't do drugs of any kind. Plus, I would bet that damn near every house/apartment in this country has baggies. So it's basically if you have a scale you're a drug dealer. Get real.
      No-knock warrants do not protect police more or the public more. If the cops were more interested in keeping everybody safe instead of flexing their muscle all the time it wouldn't be a problem. There is plenty of different ways this guy could have been arrested without incident. They had the warrant for three weeks. How about they just sit two cops outside his house and wait for him to come out and arrest him without incident. Why barge into his house without identifying yourself in the dark of night where you suspect hes armed? That's about one of the dumbest plans you can get a human brain to produce.
      All the cops are interested in is getting their rocks off by busting down doors in the dark of night with assault weapons. Putting themselves at risk, him at risk, and people in the neighborhood at risk. Then when something does go wrong they charge the victim to cover their asses. NOBODY in the judicial system is gonna believe anybody over a team of cops. Period. So the victim is always left on ***** row. If they actually cared about safety and integrity cops could go about this type of stuff in about 10 different ways with better results. And maybe it would improve their public image a little.
      I respect cops and understand they have a hard job, but this type of action is just unnecessary. I am all for cops using force, even deadly force, when necessary. Situations like these are so easy to avoid it's a joke. Seems too often cops wanna assert their authority instead of keeping their true aim in mind, protect everybody. On a side note I love how when a guilty guy is jailed cops can't talk enough about the situation, but when anything fishy might be going on it's always an ongoing investigation and they can't talk about it. Bless all cops, but damn use a little caution and your brain and situations like these would never happen.
      • jwoulf, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It is BECAUSE everyone has baggies, and many people have a scale, that they consider it drug paraphernalia. It gives them a "blank check" of sorts.
    • mousky, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3"Police enforce the laws". Really? I think you meant to say "Police selectively enforce the laws".
  • username484767, on 05/11/2008, -4/+4Someone needs to kill those cops.
    • Frostek, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1You lack the courage of your convictions... Also your logic is flawed. Cops do not make the laws.
    • mabhatter, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2every cop should be subject to a no-knock search of their residence... unplanned with their wives and children in attendance!!!! Perhaps a group of concerned citizens could provide this service to the police to help them out!!
  • elmuerte17, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6gotta say, what the hell do they expect? no-knock warrants and a country where it's legal and encouraged for every homeowner to have a gun? someone kicks down my door, first thing i think is definitely NOT going to be, "that must be the police."
  • microchp, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Am I the only one that arms the doors with frag grenades these days?
    • Frostek, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3No, I'm sure many nutjobs do.
      • microchp, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Dugg for recognizing a true nutjob when you see one. :-)
    • jwoulf, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Yes, many people are "survivalist" types, and take extra precautions.
      But I'm never in one place long enough to feel unsafe. I haven't slept at my own home almost a year now.
      I've never been involved with drugs or anything else of the sort, I just don't trust the government.
      • microchp, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Moving so much I would think increases the chances that one day you move in to some place that someone they are looking for just moved out of. Just sayin'. :-) I only do it for my safety. People are robbed, raped, murdered all the time and I would rather paint the walls with my would-be attacker then put their head on a pole in front of a police department with a sign that says "broke into the wrong place" and let the media see if first so other would-be muggers, rapists and thieves may enjoy it. I also like the idea of leaving high-theft-profile vehicles around town armed with flourescent acidic pink paint frags so everyone can quickly spot the car theives. I haven't tried that one yet but I have found a source for flourescent acidic pink paint.
  • rdebath, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Another link for this:
    http://www.drugs-forum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php? ...

    Sure looks like the police ***** up big time.
  • wakananda, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3This illegal, unconstitutional home invasion is piracy. It should be dealt with by decent and courageous people, in terms that pirates understand. Stripping away the (thin) veneer of legitimacy by informing people of the facts about no-knock home invasion and civil asset forfeiture (theft of targeted assets under presumption of guilt) is a start. But once people figure out what this thuggish transformation of their police signifies, there is the work of making sure this ENDS, and can never happen again.
  • jwoulf, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It's times like this that make me wish for another Marvin Heemeyer type to show up in an armored bulldozer and get justice for the "little guy".
  • jaybone62, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Michael Badnarik talked about this on his radio show last Friday, May 16th.
    He references a report by the Cato Institute about the militarization of police, it is rather frightening.
    http://mp3.wtprn.com/Badnarik08.html

    I'm upgrading all my doors with steel jambs.
  • humppy, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0I wished one of these days, pigs like that will be greeted with a hail of gun fire, and the person that is responsiable will be aquited as well as win a rather large lawsuit against them !!!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.