THE 'NO-KNOCK' LAW PROVED ITS WORTH IN CASE OF DEAD TROOPER

Should police have the authority to kick in your door and serve you with a
search warrant? Should they be able to arrive in unmarked cars, and not be
dressed in uniforms when they approach your house fully armed?

Those are some good questions we think -- and some that ought to be
re-asked in light of a hung jury the other day in a 1999 shooting death of
a state trooper who was doing exactly that. The defense of the man who
killed the trooper was that he was defending his home.

This is, after all, a state which allows concealed weapons and is darn
sensitive about the rights of citizens to own guns.

We think that State Sen. Frank Shurden, D-Henryetta, has got it right on
"no knock" warrants." Sen. Shurden was skeptical of no-knock warrants at
the time the current law was passed in 1999 and still expresses concern
that the law not only broadened law enforcement authority to break into
people's homes unannounced, but also increased the danger for police and
citizens if raids are conducted on the wrong house.

Can't happen, you say?

It happens a lot, including an extraordinary case in California where
police not only broke into the wrong home, they killed a blind, disabled
man whom they thought was brandishing a gun (in his own home need we mention).

The law is pretty simple -- citizens have the right to defend themselves
against unlawful activities but cannot fire on a police officer. But if the
officer arrives in an unmarked car, and is not in uniform, and breaks into
your house and is armed, aren't you going to shoot back?

There's nothing safe about the jobs we ask our police to do, and "no knock
warrants" give the police the opportunity to surprise the bad guys.

That's good.

But if the police are the ones who get surprised -- as can easily happen --
then good officers can die as happened in 1999.

No knock is bad law for both the citizens and the police.

- -- The Grove Daily Sun