Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ZacPetkanas t1_j2yowtl wrote

> On Dec. 23, Rep. Rep. Kristina Schultz (D), Rep. Matthew Santonastaso (R), and Rep. Glenn Bailey (R) prefiled House Bill 135 (HB135) for introduction in the 2023 legislative session. The legislation would ban New Hampshire law enforcement officers from seeking, executing, or participating in “no-knock” warrant.

Good, they should be ended.

No knocks are a coping mechanism for lazy police work.

235

kodiakbear_ t1_j2zapfk wrote

Not to mention unconstitutional

69

AuthorSnow OP t1_j2zhhre wrote

Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t SCOTUS say they were constitutional? Don’t get wrong, I think this is incorrect but isn’t that the ruling nonetheless?

6

GreatGrandaddyPurp t1_j3191ei wrote

The SCOTUS has frequently ruled that the constitution is made of toilet paper

15

FrostGamezzTV t1_j34ec8i wrote

Oh so they're the last to have a say in what the constitution means.

2

Alex_2259 t1_j31i2cu wrote

Except when it benefits the people you expect it to, think Citizens divided (Citizens United ruling)

0

lendluke t1_j31ggyt wrote

Also, SCOTUS is never granted the power to rule on constitutionality in the constitution (not that I think it has been a net negative to have some body rule on constitutionality, even watered down version).

−2

NHBikerHiker t1_j30hrfw wrote

Late 90s court case — yes, no knock warrants are constitutional. It was a unanimous decision, btw.

1

Boats_are_fun t1_j2ytzq2 wrote

We need to demilitarize the police.

101

Tai9ch t1_j2zb3cq wrote

Gear? Who cares.

Training? Yes.

More important is liability. There's no excuse for government employees to be able to willfully hurt people and destroy (or even outright steal) their property and then be immune to lawsuits.

36

owwwwwo t1_j2zdsg1 wrote

Gear sends a message. When you equip a person for war, it puts their mind in a war-like mentality.

Now I'm not saying don't let them have guns and kevlar under their shirts.

But we need to get away from BDUs with Tactical vests being the "norm". We're not in Afghanistan.

Say what you will about Troopers, I actually like their normal uniforms. Except that one dude in the Black surburban, again, that is dressed like he's in the ARMY.

68

Tai9ch t1_j2zf86f wrote

That's a reasonable argument.

23

Playingwithmyrod t1_j2zg0n0 wrote

Liability is the real issue. Do I care if the police have an armoured car and swat gear? Not really.

But whether they use that or a standard issue handgun...if they wrongfully kill a baby I want someone in jail.

15

anarchir t1_j30dsa3 wrote

I would care less that they had armored cars if they were honest about why they bought them and if we were allowed to have one too.

2

bestryanever t1_j30etp4 wrote

You should care, your tax dollars pay for the insurance premiums and maintenance on that stuff, and it’s ridiculously expensive. If they don’t need it they shouldn’t have it

16

NathanVfromPlus t1_j30jjme wrote

If they shouldn't have military training, then why would taxpayers need to equip them with military gear?

10

Tai9ch t1_j321o8i wrote

Military training isn't really broadly the problem. The military explicitly trains to never shoot the wrong people, to not shoot first, and that civilians are not to be treated as enemy combatants by default.

1

NathanVfromPlus t1_j32dye6 wrote

But that still doesn't explain why taxpayers should pay cops to be trained (edit: and equipped) to treat them as militant enemy combatants.

2

TreePointOhhhhh t1_j2zr0tl wrote

Agreed. They can have whatever gear they want. But we should also be able to have whatever gear they have.

5

Tai9ch t1_j2zvmkg wrote

> But we should also be able to have whatever gear they have.

I'd go a step further and say that they shouldn't be buying anything (or accepting it from the feds) unless it will be auctioned to the public after a reasonable service life.

6

Mynewuseraccountname t1_j31afux wrote

Cops don't need tanks. Period. Sure as hell don't need equipment they aren't trained or qualified to use.

1

NathanVfromPlus t1_j30k835 wrote

That'd be a respectable first step, yeah. We need to do a hell of a lot more than just that, but that's a good start.

4

Longjumping_Ad_9520 t1_j2z57pm wrote

This and reducing/eliminating civil forfeiture is a net positive.

35

mail4youtoo t1_j2yqh6f wrote

Curious as to how many “No-Knock” warrants were issued in NH over the years

27

Boats_are_fun t1_j2ytx19 wrote

Manchester swat team runs about 400 raids a year.

25

[deleted] t1_j2zyftx wrote

[deleted]

4

anarchir t1_j30e3ly wrote

I think I'm going to believe the comment from the other guy, because we all know the police lie.

2

NathanVfromPlus t1_j30ltjw wrote

It's funny. Whenever I mention anything too critical of police to my dad, he's always like, "huh, you should talk to my friend, the police chief, and see what he has to say about that. Surely, his perspective on the matter should be valuable!"

Umm... no. That's really not how that works.

−1

Maldonian t1_j32me2j wrote

Yet we entertain people who think that we should listen to teachers when they say how much (more) money should be shoveled into the government schools.

Let's at least try to be consistent.

4

NathanVfromPlus t1_j32p6he wrote

Because State workers are killing our children, and that is equally as heinous as State workers educating our children. It would be inconsistent to not treat these two atrocities as moral equivalents.

0

Maldonian t1_j32vqph wrote

I’m not sure what killings you’re talking about. And the state does a pretty mediocre job of educating children. You notice how many dumb people are around? Most of them went to public schools, you know.

1

NathanVfromPlus t1_j332hb3 wrote

> I’m not sure what killings you’re talking about.

Sorry, having two similar conversations at the same time, and got my wires a bit crossed. This was in reference to that Gilford kid.

> And the state does a pretty mediocre job of educating children.

Maybe because... they're not getting enough funds to do the job right? Just a thought.

> You notice how many dumb people are around?

Oh come on, you're making this one way too fucking easy. The bait is just too obvious, here.

1

Maldonian t1_j34jzmp wrote

The majority of the government schools are billing the taxpayer more than many private schools. Last thing they need is more money.

1

[deleted] t1_j32qh64 wrote

[deleted]

1

NathanVfromPlus t1_j32vgh8 wrote

> “You should listen to all perspectives of stakeholders directly impacted by the issues you mention, it might help you learn and developed a more balanced world view”

If you sincerely believe this to be reasonable without exception, then you'd be listening to the teachers who are directly impacted by the issues you're mentioning. Let's at least try to be consistent.

0

[deleted] t1_j32xjm6 wrote

[deleted]

1

NathanVfromPlus t1_j331vkl wrote

Yep, my bad. Similar arguments at the same time, getting my wires a bit crossed. Sorry about that.

To what you said: no, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that, regardless of authority or expertise, I don't have to listen to anyone representing a group that's known to be dishonest. My comment was in response to someone else saying that cops lie. I agree with that person: yes, they do, and I have no reason to trust them to represent themselves honestly.

1

[deleted] t1_j334per wrote

[deleted]

1

NathanVfromPlus t1_j33cs2p wrote

> But you can’t make the conclusion that they lie if you don’t listen to them.

Sure I can. I can listen to and evaluate reliable outside sources.

> Listen, evaluate, determine. Three basic tenants that are required for critical thinking.

Sure, absolutely. But I don't need to do that with every possible source. I can listen to lawyers, activists, and cons/ex-cons all agree that cops can and will lie, evaluate the consistency of the claims over multiple sources, and determine that cops are an unreliable source of information. Once I've determined, through critical evaluation, that cops aren't reliable, then there's no point in me asking a cop if cops lie. Obviously the cop is going to say no, regardless of whether or not that's actually true.

> If you can’t even do those three basics, then there’s no legitimate basis to your beliefs.

Fortunately for me, I can.

0

Granite-moose t1_j30ouy1 wrote

> My buddy's roommate is on Manchester SWAT

A swat officer who can't afford his own place? Seems suspicious

0

ilikedrifting t1_j30dlzd wrote

Here’s one that comes to mind https://www.fosters.com/story/news/2012/12/15/raid-that-killed-greenland-police/48959135007/

1

GreatGrandaddyPurp t1_j319klm wrote

"Mutrie eventually killed himself and shot Tibbetts dead in the midst of a lengthy standoff with police."

I've never heard of someone shooting their girlfriend dead after they killed themselves. Was this a revenge killing by the police or just poor wording by the journalist?

2

dft-salt-pasta t1_j30qebp wrote

With all their fuck ups you wonder if they even identified themselves or just kicked in the guys door, who thinks it’s someone robbing him so he starts shooting and once you shoot a cop you can’t stop as your most likely already dead and if you’re not dead your about to be. No knocks just seem dangerous for everyone involved.

−1

Old_man_Hopposai t1_j2zfvyp wrote

No knock warrants are no fun. Especially when they show up to the wrong address. Nothing like being woken up to crashing doors and guns in your face for no reason.

20

ZacPetkanas t1_j31dady wrote

> Especially when they show up to the wrong address. Nothing like being woken up to crashing doors and guns in your face for no reason.

Or when they toss a flash-bang into a baby's crib. Helluva job there, officer.

Lazy police in Georgia

10

Menckenlover t1_j2zck6c wrote

Finally, an issue that this Reddit community can unite behind! Let's do this.

18

AuthorSnow OP t1_j2zgvtf wrote

I think everyone is behind this…good indeed

6

lendluke t1_j31h2zq wrote

I can immediately think of the arguement from (hopefully) the minority. They'll argue this will reduce the effectiveness of police. Criminals will have time to flush down evidence, get the warning in order to strike back against police at the front door and therefore NH will become less safe like many big cities that remove the teeth from their police.

−2

asuds t1_j31jfgl wrote

if they can flush their drugs then they didn’t have very much. And if they are heavily armed it doesn’t make a lot of sense to attack their fortified headquarters. Just nab them on their way to buy some lottery tickets and beef jerky!

7

lendluke t1_j31nkd3 wrote

I agree. Also I don't think getting shot is a reasonable escalation of force for having drugs.

3

NckMcC t1_j31lfok wrote

Your position is that having more flushed drugs makes people less safe? Do you hear yourself ?

−1

lendluke t1_j31ndpa wrote

...no, I was guessing what opponents of this bill would say.

3

Viking603 t1_j31tzzf wrote

Dogs appreciate this bill.

6

ShawnPln t1_j32it4s wrote

Most people don't react well to their door getting kicked in. I would absolutely grab my gun off my hip or table and work my way down to the door while getting shot for defending my house against some asshole who was kicking it in.

6

No_Cattle_8059 t1_j2zbdhd wrote

This is great news . Hopefully they can get it through. Will probably include some exceptions…

5

AR1776 t1_j31zito wrote

I recently finished reading "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko. Great read for anyone interested in this topic.

3

FrostGamezzTV t1_j34e5ql wrote

Nothing is more dangerous to law enforcement, the victim/suspect, and bystanders than a sudden breach into one's home. No identification or warning, and the person on the other side will go into fight for flight. It's only human nature.

2

icedcornholio t1_j2zmk17 wrote

Thinking about all those NH no-knock warrants…

I don’t think Manchester SWAT with a tank is a “no-knock”. I mean good that they should be banned, but is this a NH problem? It may be, I just hadn’t heard of it.

−12

warlordcs t1_j32u8d4 wrote

Sometimes it's just nice when the government is actually proactive about something.

Stop it before it becomes a problem.

1

dj_narwhal t1_j2yvcf9 wrote

I don't trust this source, do you have anything from something more reputable like Project Veritas?

−15

scapeblock t1_j2z6js9 wrote

Is this sarcastic? I can’t tell.

11

dj_narwhal t1_j2zhgy6 wrote

Lol yea OP was arguing about some bullshit a while back and posted a project veritas video. I think it was proof that there are litter boxes in schools for kids who identify as cats or some other far right nonsense. I tagged them to make sure I never take any of their posts serious.

7

stickers-motivate-me t1_j30ejcj wrote

But I heard they have LITTER BOXES in bathrooms for FURRIES!!! Joe Rogan said it so it must be true. Plus, drag queens are reading books to kids in libraries to teach them to be gay furries who shit in litter boxes in school bathrooms. Can’t you see that it’s all connected???

4

DerekPDX t1_j30eixb wrote

Also, you shouldn't be down voted for wanting a better source. Always distrust then verify unfamiliar sources.

2

phantompenis2 t1_j31qb11 wrote

i mean, there's a link to the bill in the article. commenter is just ragging on op

1