Smith Sights banner ad

ATF Agent Shot

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    chipbennett

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,975
    113
    Avon
    Route 45 said:


    www.kark.com

    ATF agent injured in early Tuesday morning shootout at home of Clinton National Airport executive director in west Little Rock

    Federal agents said they were involved in a shootout Tuesday morning while attempting to serve a search warrant in west Little Rock at the home of the head of the Clinton National Airport.
    www.kark.com www.kark.com
    Click to expand...

    Haven't read anything in the 12 pages. My take: no-knock pre-dawn raids are dangerous and unconstitutional. No-knock pre-dawn raids for search warrant service on someone for whom there is no reason to believe will be dangerous are absolutely uncalled for (and dangerous, and unconstitutional). The ATF put the homeowner in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

    So: good shoot.

    Abolish ATF.
     
    chipbennett

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,975
    113
    Avon
    HoughMade said:
    Seems like there's a fair amount of prejudgment of the "rest of the story" going on.

    First, let's find out what the warrant was based upon, what went on before the shooting and where everyone was when the shooting started, then go from there.
    Click to expand...
    Does even a "dangerous" person forfeit constitutionally protected rights? No-knock, pre-dawn raids are inherently unconstitutional.
     
    chipbennett

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,975
    113
    Avon
    bobzilla said:
    No details. One article did mention they used a ram to knock the door down. A house that size, are you going to hear someone knocking on the front door from a master bedroom likely upstairs with a door closed? Someone beating down your front door you would, and if coming out of a sleep state, defending yourself from that type of a violent entry is going to be tough, and will depend on the person. Different people react different ways.
    Click to expand...
    If one sincerely wishes a homeowner to hear and answer a friendly door knock, perhaps one should attempt that knock at an hour at which the homeowner or occupants would reasonably be expected to be awake? If one chooses to conduct that door knock at an hour at which the homeowner or occupants would reasonably be expected to be asleep, it is likely that a different conclusion must be drawn regarding the sincerity of the intent/desire for the friendly knock to be heard and answered.
     
    chipbennett

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,975
    113
    Avon
    Cameramonkey said:
    Yep. if you are doing a no knock its because you want to surprise them so they cant destroy evidence.

    So like you said, raid the empty house at 10am and simultaneously appear with 4 officers at his office to either serve him with notice or arrest him.
    Click to expand...
    I don't recall a "so they can't destroy evidence" exception to 4th amendment-protected rights.
     
    chipbennett

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,975
    113
    Avon
    JAL said:
    I just watched this in its entirety . . . as Jared read the entire meat of the warrant outlining the rationale for it. He's a former law enforcement officer that had a supervisory position (Sergeant), so he knew a lot of the warrant boilerplate, and how it was structured. As I had suspected, it was all about Malinowski buying and selling firearms without being an FFL. If what was in the warrant is accurate and true, they had him six ways from Sunday for many, many years in prison. Documented multiple transactions in detail, often within a very short time between when he made the purchase and when he sold it to someone else. Used gun shows to sell to others. From his activities alleged in the warrant he was also making "straw" purchases. Also alleged that he had table(s) at the gun shows, operating them solo, and never asked for ID, and never did any transfers via an FFL; all cash and carry.

    Expect the "Gun Show Loophole" crowd to go crazy over this one as it has enormous visibility on the all the major national media outlets. I have to seriously wonder about the tactics used to serve the warrant. Plenty of opportunity to do a nonviolent takedown a block from his home when he left for work -- and then close in on the home itself simultaneously.

    I'll wait to see what spills out in the aftermath from family, family spokesman, etc., regarding the takedown, but would bet BIG the case against him made by ATF leading up to it was Rock of Gibraltar solid.

    Also wonder if they're going to charge his wife now as an accomplice or co-conspirator. That may come after they pore through all the electronic devices, but from the warrant, it appears he was running solo.
    Click to expand...
    So, what in any of that justifies the manner of warrant service?
     
    Route 45

    Route 45

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Dec 5, 2015
    15,086
    113
    Indy
    chipbennett said:
    I don't recall a "so they can't destroy evidence" exception to 4th amendment-protected rights.
    Click to expand...
    The Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the warrant requirement rule, including immediate loss of evidence under the exigent circumstances rule. Not saying that this fits this particular situation, I don't feel that it does. But that rule is a thing.
     
    Cameramonkey

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,948
    77
    Camby area
    Route 45 said:
    The Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the warrant requirement rule, including immediate loss of evidence under the exigent circumstances rule. Not saying that this fits this particular situation, I don't feel that it does. But that rule is a thing.
    Click to expand...
    yeah, kinda hard to flush a bunch of paperwork and guns down the toilet. LOL
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Latest posts

    Staff online

    Members online

    ... and 171 more.
    Total: 1,776 (members: 221, guests: 1,555)

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    525,575
    Messages
    9,820,602
    Members
    53,878
    Latest member
    rodentcnc
    Bear Creek Arsenal Ad
    Top Bottom