Police Union To State Lawmakers: Don’t Mess With No-Knock Warrants
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 11 months ago
ATLANTA (CBS46) –
Carrie Mills is a retired Atlanta Police officer with 30 years on the job – primarily in APD’s drug unit.
Mills is now a union rep for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. She considers herself an expert on search warrants, particularly no knock warrants, which allows officers to enter a structure without knocking first.
Mills says no-knock warrants helped close a lot of cases while she was an officer.
“If we knock and announced, all evidence is going to be destroyed,” Mills said.
State Sen. Vincent Fort, (D-39), has announced plans to introduce a bill that would make it harder to get no-knock warrants.
Fort says he was moved to introduce his bill after 19-month-old Bounkham “Bou Bou” Phonesavanh was seriously injured when a flash grenade exploded near his face during a botched drug raid involving a no-knock warrant in Habersham County.
“We are saying there should be restrictions on them and we think the situation in the recent past where they have been abused warrants that,” Fort said.
But Mills doesn’t agree.
“I don’t think any changes are needed because it is not easy now,” Mills said.
Mills says law makers should be careful what they ask for.
“You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both,” Mills said.
This is a picture of a soulless individual, intent on doing the state’s bidding, regardless of the human cost. Quite literally, Ms. Mills says, she doesn’t believe that even the most modest of controls should be put in place. Consider what the lawmakers intend to do.
Bou-Bou’s law, named after Bou-Bou Phonesavanh, the toddler who was severely injured during a botched no-knock drug raid, would require that police show someone’s life would be in danger, or evidence could be destroyed without a no-knock warrant.
The bill also would create penalties for officers and agencies that lie to a judge to get a no-knock warrant.
The bill exempts situations where evidence would be lost, and it shouldn’t. Nonetheless, Ms. Mills believes that the police should be able to throw grenades into the cribs of sleeping babies and mar and maim them for life, if not kill them, in order to return to their own families safely at the end of their shift. And she believes above all else that evidence is supreme – it is more important than your imaginary right to live in a crime-free world.
She is also confessing to the world that the police are too stupid or lazy to perform complex investigative work, where detectives learn the patterns of life of a suspect, learn the safe times to arrest that suspect, and figure out how to retain evidence without shooting people or blowing them up. Or in other words, she is saying “We the police are knuckle-dragging morons who couldn’t survive in a world without government handouts if we had to.” It’s amazing that other police don’t see that and shut her up. Other police don’t shut her up because they agree with her, apparently. Finally, she is saying that the police she represents no longer believe in anything except themselves – and the state. The constitution is all but forgotten.
It’s a sad state of affairs for post-modern America, ruled by children of the enlightenment.*
* See for additional reading Carl L. Becker, “The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophers,” Lectures at Yale University, which I purchased for $1 from the Rock Hill library in South Carolina in a book sale by some government idiot who didn’t know what they had.
|
|
On January 23, 2015 at 10:03 am, St Bernard said:
It would be a big help if 1. Hire cops smart enough to find the correct address. 2. Hire cops that aren’t scared of their own shadow. 3. Properly punish cops that can’t comply with 1&2.
On January 23, 2015 at 10:27 am, gamegetter II said:
The problem is those who are smart enough don’t want to be cops,because they see the horsepucky that’s going on with the ever expanding police state,and want no part of it.
Which eliminates your #2,because no one who’s smart enough to not become a cop will be part of any law enforcement agency-which leaves the dumb,scared idiots,and grown up schoolyard bullies and/or those who had their lunch money taken from them by said bullies as the only cops.
That leaves us with #3-since we’re left with a bunch of dumb asses,idiots on power trips,and those so scared that they’re going to get the snot beat out of them that they shoot 3# dogs and old ladies-we need to re-train all cops and re-educate them on what “to protect and serve” means.
Sounds like a plan to me anyhow.
That and get rid of thousands of absurd laws and .gov inc. regulations,which would reduce the need for so many cops.
On January 23, 2015 at 10:39 am, Herschel Smith said:
The one good thing in the proposed legislation would be the mandatory wearing of cameras. This comports with what Ned Weatherby calls Herschel’s law.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2014/03/30/virginia-abc-agents-assault-innocent-girl/
I’m sure this is one objectionable feature of the bill.
On January 23, 2015 at 11:27 am, Ned Weatherby said:
Can’t have anything that puts chinks the Blue Wall of Silence, can we?
On January 23, 2015 at 3:18 pm, lineman said:
Only problem with that would be is who is in control of the content of those cameras and if they had the ability to turn them off at will…
On January 23, 2015 at 10:53 am, Anson said:
She is a MORON. Where is it written that citizens have a RIGHT to a crime free environment. Sure that is on everyones list of wishes, but it is not a right and further, it is an impossibility. Since Eve ate the apple, mankind has had free will to choose good or bad. That free will always leads some to evil acts. Mankind, and believe it or not, inclusive of LE will never be able to create a crime free environment. True rights granted by GOD and, fortunately for Americans, affirmed by the Bill of Rights to the U.S.Constitution can’t guarantee crime free environment as long as man has free will. Some in the LE community would have you think that they can prevent all crime if only they could circumvent the rights of all in certain situations. NOT gonna happen. The rights of the innocent should ALWAYS trump the rights of those who would violate them including LE. f
Find another way…We used to.
On January 23, 2015 at 11:09 am, Herschel Smith said:
And hence my citing of Carl Becker’s work (He performed a great service in the study of the 18th century philosophers who worked to set up utopia on earth without regard to what you’re saying – and our rulers believe everything they learned from the enlightenment). Recognize what’s happening. They are trying to set up the “heavenly city” viz. enlightenment philosophy. It’s foreign to you and me because it’s foreign to our constitution and heritage. It isn’t foreign to them because they have learned it all in Marxist insitutions while taking degrees in liberal arts. They imbibed it. They bathed in it. They ate it and drank it. It’s who they are.
On January 23, 2015 at 3:20 pm, lineman said:
Notice how they want to always be at the top and in control… Kind of like those that are for abortion have already been born…
On January 23, 2015 at 11:30 am, Ned Weatherby said:
Whether or not she actually believe the BS about a crime-free environment, it’s not about that. It is simply about control, and police being able to continue to act with impunity.
On January 23, 2015 at 7:08 pm, Archer said:
Nice comment, but you missed a point.
She’s not saying the citizens have a right to a crime-free environment; she’s saying the community has the right to a crime-free environment.
“Collective rights”, anyone?
How it is still so hard for people like Ms. Mills to grasp that rights belong to individuals, and not communities, groups, organizations, or any other gathering of people? (Rhetorical question: you already answered it with your first sentence.)
On January 23, 2015 at 11:45 am, L O said:
“You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy
and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t
have them both,” Mills said.
********************************************************************************************************************
“You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy
and you right to live in a community free from the Abuse of police in their attempt at making it safe for themselves. You can’t
have them both,” Mills said.
There yu go Mills, Fixed it for yu
On January 23, 2015 at 12:04 pm, Russell Smith said:
You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both,” Mills said.
This person is a total waste of oxygen, and needs to be banned from any connection with law enforcement forever. YES idiot cop, you can and do deserve to have both! because your unnecessary “war” on everything from drugs to poverty to crime have victimized every single American in this country and the only thing it has accomplished is to strip us of our rights and freedoms and to militarize our police departments around this country. You kill us, brutalize us and then dare to tell us how safe we are? how DARE YOU! You need to be imprisoned for the rest of your natural life for the things you believe and thy to defend!
On January 23, 2015 at 1:17 pm, Archer said:
“This person is a total waste of oxygen…”, and she’s a police union rep.
But there’s no sense in repeating ourselves.
On January 23, 2015 at 12:04 pm, dan said:
Under Our CONSTITUTION…our society is NOT guaranteed a right to a crime free environment …therefore we the people do NOT need any more police tactics that erode OUR RIGHT to be free in our homes and persons….imho
On January 23, 2015 at 1:42 pm, Archer said:
Ms. Carrie Mills: “You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community’s right to live in a crime-free environment. You can’t have them both.”
When the police become the more egregious violators of our rights and properties than the criminals, that “line” has been well and truly crossed, trampled, picked up, and thrown out.
More to the point, though: Yes, I can have them both. It’s a simple matter of treating criminals like criminals (including the ones wearing pretty blue uniforms) and law-abiding citizens like law-abiding citizens. Under the terms of this Republic, communities don’t have rights; individuals do. (For context, see the debate about the 2nd Amendment being a collective right applicable only to State-recognized militia groups, and then review the McDonald v. Chicago [2010] decision.) Turn-about being fair play, Ms. Mills will “have to draw a line between your right as an officer to raid private homes, seize private property, and go home at the end of your shift; and the union’s and department’s right to exist in harmony and trust with the community they serve. You can’t have them both.”
However, if Ms. Mills wants me to draw a line:
———————————————————————-
There it is. All of my rights are on this side. Cross it at your own peril.
On January 23, 2015 at 5:41 pm, Bill Daigle said:
LOL…wanted to add something but can’t, all the air head over acheiver state elitist corporate cop remarks are made. What a dink….I say wire all house pets to explode if shot. Take the offending JBT’s out with ’em…In all truth though, these warrants have been the source of so much misery they should be completely off the table.
Take this idea…each city take a group of volunteers and give them the unservable warrants such as the one for David Koresh…let the citizens serve the warrants with common sense and planning, something the cops are unfamiliar with.
On January 23, 2015 at 8:01 pm, Ned Weatherby said:
If you check out Police State USA on the web, they now post so much stuff per week one can’t keep up. it’s incredible how fast it’s gotten worse. Just a short time ago, they would post maybe one or two times a week.
I know I know – it’s just “a few bad apples.”
On January 23, 2015 at 8:29 pm, gyrwan said:
“This is a picture of a soulless individual, intent on doing the state’s bidding,”
Au contraire, Mr. Smith.
If she were merely “intent on doing the state’s bidding,” she would have no opinion on what that state bids. That is, she’d keep her s***-s*****g yapper shut!
Here she intends to persuade the state to allow her and her cohorts to violate whatever and whoever they wish for whatever reason they wish … having nothing to do with the “state” or the law, or rights, or morality, or basic human decency.
She is not an automaton lacking a soul. She HAS a soul. The problem is that it’s black as pitch.
On January 25, 2015 at 4:32 am, Daniel Barger said:
Carrie Mills needs to be introduced to a rope and a tree…..that is the only way to solve the problem
of power mad apparatchiks.
On January 27, 2015 at 8:58 am, Kevin said:
I think she put it perfectly. We have the right to privacy within our homes. There is NO right to “live in a crime free environment”. I guess we then know that the right to privacy is indeed more important than a non-existent right.