rfenst wrote:Legally, a warrant is only as good as the info available and relied upon at the time it was issued. Whatever occurs afterwards is irrelevant, in terms of warrant legitimacy. You cannot reference anything that occurs after the issuance of the warrant to reach "back" and validate the warrant. I want to see the warrant and underlying evidence allegedly relied upon. Having said that, I do think the guy had the right to defend himself and the home regardless whether the warrant was no knock or knock and announce, based on what I know of so far.
WTFBBQ???
Police had a search warrant signed off by a Judge and you think the guy has the right to defend himself against the police when they serve the warrant? Am I understanding you correctly? I mean, defend youself with Ben crump, sure, but with a gun? Hell no.
I have been on the serving side of many warrants. anyone has issues with the probable cause in my warrant can absolutely take it up with a judge after I serve the warrant. Shoot at me though, and you are taking a dirt nap.
The only thing I have an issue with in this case is the indiscriminate firing by the officers (even their chief was like WTF). You can't just lay down suppressive fire in a civilian law enforcement environment and not expect to hit bystanders.
My sole question regarding this incident is" Would we be having this discussion at all if the boyfriend had died and BT had not been hit?"