When can do away with "no knock" warrants?

[GMDino]

How people have to be killed, who weren't even the target of the warrant, because they had a gun when strangers bust into their homes?

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/02/02/bca-on-the-scene-after-minneapolis-police-shoot-person

Quote:Minneapolis police kill man while serving search warrant
Tim Nelson
Minneapolis
February 2, 2022 10:40 AM
ListenMan killed by Minneapolis police during search warrant

The apartment building where a man was shot and killed by police during the execution of an arrest warrant on Wednesday.

Tim Evans for MPR News

Share
[/url][url=http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/02/02/bca-on-the-scene-after-minneapolis-police-shoot-person&text=Minneapolis%20police%20kill%20man%20while%20serving%20search%20warrantsharer]
Updated: Feb. 3, 8:23 a.m. | Posted: Feb. 2, 10:40 a.m.

Minneapolis police officers serving a search warrant Wednesday morning encountered a man with a handgun as they entered a downtown high-rise apartment, and one of the officers shot and killed him, the city’s interim police chief said.

Amelia Huffman offered only limited details about the circumstances, but said SWAT officers gained entry to the seventh-floor apartment using a key fob and loudly and repeatedly called out police “search warrant” as they entered.

About nine seconds in, officers encountered the man, who was holding a handgun, and “shots were fired,” Huffman said. She didn’t say how many shots, or if the man who was killed fired his gun. A statement by the city Wednesday afternoon said the gun was pointed at police.

Documents released by the city of Minneapolis late in the day offered new, key details. Among them:

• The warrant was at one point considered a “high risk entry” and the entry involved “no noise expected,” according to dispatch data;
• A city fire department report said the man killed suffered two gunshot wounds to his chest and one to his wrist;
• The city identified the officer involved in the shooting as Mark Hanneman.
  

The warrant was tied to an ongoing investigation by St. Paul police into the Jan. 10 killing of a 38-year-old St. Paul man in the Midway neighborhood. Law enforcement sources said the apartment was one of three in the building that officers had targeted.

Minneapolis police kill man while serving search warrant

Investigators recovered a 5.7 mm weapon at the scene, Huffman said, adding that she had seen body camera video recorded at the time. She did not say if it had captured the entry or gunfire. No one else was reported hurt in the incident. 


Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension agents worked the scene near Marquette Avenue and 12th Street in Minneapolis. The BCA is typically called in when police officers shoot someone on duty.


7 of 7

An investigator enters a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension mobile van in downtown Minneapolis as authorities investigate the police killing of a man.
Tim Evans for MPR News

1 of 7

Interim Minneapolis police chief Amelia Huffman speaks at a press conference regarding an officer shooting and killing a man earlier on Wednesday.
Screenshot via livestream

2 of 7

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey at the Wednesday press conference.
Screenshot via livestream



‘Absolute shock’
Neighbors in the building described the morning as quiet, and said they didn’t hear any commotion or or any gunfire at all.

Keri Coquemont lives on the same floor, and was walking her dog shortly after the shooting. She said there were a number of officers still in the hallway and outside a nearby apartment, hours after the incident. 

“I’m actually in shock. Absolute shock,” she said, adding that the building had been becoming “less safe,” and said she was assaulted in the elevator last weekend. 

Minneapolis police had announced in November 2020 that they were limiting use of so-called “no knock” warrants, either for searches or arrests, in which officers don't ask for entry into a target location or announce their intentions before going in.

Police accountability activists held a press conference at the scene of the shooting Wednesday evening.

Nekima Levy Armstrong of the Racial Justice Network says she and others have questions about exactly what happened Wednesday morning.
“Who orchestrated this within the Minneapolis Police Department, who authorized it and why? Why was this the priority?"

Levy Armstrong says the family of the deceased told her they believed he had a permit to carry a firearm and that he was not named on the warrant. MPR News has not been able to independently confirm those details.

Mayor Jacob Frey also spoke briefly about the shooting Wednesday.

"Any loss of life is tragic," Frey said. "Truth and transparency, as is always the case, will be the guiding principals as the investigation itself is conducted. The investigation is already underway with the BCA and we will be offering updates and facts as quickly as possible."

He did not say if he was going to release video of the incident immediately, as has happened in other shootings involving police in the area.
MPR News reporter Matt Sepic contributed to this report.

Watch the brief press conference by interim chief Amelia Huffman on the shooting:

Here is the police video of the shooting.  Warning: Graphic.

And the officers are only reacting to a heightened situation. They respond to what they see, a gun pointed in their direction, the same as the innocent man did. I'd like to believe this can be avoided for the most part.

[basballguy]

(02-04-2022, 12:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: How people have to be killed, who weren't even the target of the warrant, because they had a gun when strangers bust into their homes?

And the officers are only reacting to a heightened situation.  They respond to what they see, a gun pointed in their direction, the same as the innocent man did.  I'd like to believe this can be avoided for the most part.

This is really unfortunate.  I get both sides...it's a homicide warrant so the police are already on alert....dude is crashing on a friends couch and waking up to people screaming so he might not be completely coherent when they come busting in.  The warrant was served at 7am so it's quite possible he'd only been asleep for a couple hours.  

Although it's likely a moot point, I am curious as to why he was sleeping with a gun at a friends place...maybe someone with a concealed license to carry can answer.  Is it common to take your weapon with you when you're traveling/visiting overnight?  (I'm pro 2A, just don't own any)

[GMDino]

(02-04-2022, 01:03 PM)basballguy Wrote: This is really unfortunate.  I get both sides...it's a homicide warrant so the police are already on alert....dude is crashing on a friends couch and waking up to people screaming so he might not be completely coherent when they come busting in.  The warrant was served at 7am so it's quite possible he'd only been asleep for a couple hours.  

Although it's likely a moot point, I am curious as to why he was sleeping with a gun at a friends place...maybe someone with a concealed license to carry can answer.  Is it common to take your weapon with you when you're traveling/visiting overnight?  (I'm pro 2A, just don't own any)

Maybe a bad neighborhood?  Maybe he was a "bad guy" too who just wasn't wanted for this particular warrant?

It's just so bad.  We, as a country in general, say you have a right to bear arms and have the right to protect yourself.  Then we have the police serving these no knock warrants and it's a huge mess with both sides pulling weapons to protect themselves.

I'm with you that I get the police needing to be vigilant and alert but I just don't like these kinds of situations.  It puts everyone in a bad spot.  ESPECIALLY if they break into the wrong place, or have bad information or innocent people are there also.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

This post is for the benefit of others reading this thread. A "no knock" warrant is only executed when the risk of announcing yourself before the breach would likely make the situation far more dangerous. Given armed and violent criminals extra time to prepare, e.g. grab a long gun, set up a barricade or other cover, will only serve to increase the risk of a violent confrontation for everyone involved. They are usually served in the early morning, as this was, because your standard criminal tends to keep late hours and doesn't get up early for work (yes, the last bit was sarcasm). A sleeping criminal is far less likely to react violently.

Now it can, as it did here, happen that someone is awake and they may react with understandable confusion. This can, of course, include arming themselves against what they perceive as a threat. As an aside, a no knock always includes the announcing of law enforcement as the ones entering, but I understand this will not always be quickly processed by those in the home. So, yes, there is always a chance that a no knock can result in exactly what happened here, but far, far, more often it achieves its exact goal, which is surprise and a relatively uneventful outcome.

Law enforcement policies and procedures are not produced in a vacuum or created from whole cloth. There is a lot of experience and empirical data that goes into crafting them, along with constant input from local counsel. No knock warrants prevent far more violence than they cause, but you will only hear about the ones that go south. For every story like this or Breanna Taylor you'll have literally thousands that go off without a hitch. However, this thread does serve an excellent, albeit unintended, purpose. It perfectly illustrates how the opinions and perceptions of people with zero knowledge of the profession can have an enormous impact on LEO procedure.

Imagine OP is an elected official trying to score points with the woke crowd by condemning no knock warrants and attempting to eliminate them, based on this incident. In the long run you will actually create far more violence then you prevent because those decisions, or more accurately political grandstanding, are grounded in an utterly imperfect understanding of the issue. You're seeing this everywhere with left leaning politicians, they make laws based on public outcry and imperfect perception and end up causing far more damage by hindering law enforcement's ability to operate properly. One need look no further than Washington state to see a perfect example of this.

https://www.kuow.org/stories/wa-lawmakers-may-restore-police-power-to-use-for

https://apnews.com/article/health-police-seattle-washington-mental-health-77fd27ab9fa27ec036ad02458db2569b

Note, I am not saying you have to put blind trust in law enforcement agencies or their policies. Policy can, and should, change to reflect new data. It's completely OK, IMO necessary, to ask questions and discuss alternatives. What is not OK, and is horrible for any area that implements it, is knee jerk decision making based on a lack of understanding and to appease a vocal mob. Unless what you want is law enforcement's hand's tied and a rising crime rate. Which is exactly what many urban areas have received over the past few years.

[CKwi88]

Imagine being an innocent person getting gunned down after getting startled out of your sleep and it's a "ah shucks, these usually work out" deal

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2022, 05:35 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Imagine getting gunned down after getting startled out of your sleep and it's a "ah shucks, these usually work out" deal

If that's what you got from my post then I'm legitimately concerned about your comprehension of the English language.

[treee]

You can't tell people they have the right to be armed and defend their home and turn around and execute them for doing just that. If you believe in gun ownership and you believe in the right to protect your property, then no knock warrants in their current state should be against your beliefs. There is a pattern of innocent people being executed in no knock warrants.

There has to be a better alternative because "oops it just happens sometimes" is not acceptable (edit: not attributing this to you SSF, but it is a prevailing sentiment in certain segments of the population)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2022, 05:38 PM)treee Wrote: You can't tell people they have the right to be armed and defend their home and turn around and execute them for doing just that. If you believe in gun ownership and you believe in the right to protect your property, then no knock warrants in their current state should be against your beliefs. There is a pattern of innocent people being executed in no knock warrants.

You're ignoring some very salient points.  No knocks are almost always executed for high risk, violent, felons.  Those people have lost their 2nd amendment rights.  As stated in my post, law enforcement announces themselves as they breach.  You want a policy that they have to politely knock, wait five minutes and then knock again?  I already explained why this is a horrible idea.  There is no "pattern" there are occasions in which things go badly, which can, and does, happen in every profession.  Have you been in a car accident?  If you have then you should never drive a car again, as you've proven driving is unsafe.  Or, alternatively, you can view the accident as an aberration, an unlikely occurrence that you will strive to avoid repeating.  It seems you guys want law enforcement to be the only profession in the world in which perfection is constantly, and consistently required or things have to be done differently.

Quote:There has to be a better alternative because "oops it just happens sometimes" is not acceptable (edit: not attributing this to you SSF,  but it is a prevailing sentiment in certain segments of the population)

I appreciate the disclaimer.  However, it doesn't change the point being made.  Law enforcement is a messy business.  We deal with irrational, unhinged and mentally ill people on a daily basis.  You've probably never interacted with a murderer in your entire life, I've interacted with hundreds.  Again, I welcome discussions on how to make things better.  Question policies, but do so from a position of logic and empirical foundation.  Something that happens less than .01% of the time is not demonstrative of a dysfunctional or dangerous policy.  Medical doctors are put on a pedestal, especially of late, but they kill over a 100,000 people a year via medical malpractice.  The mistakes of law enforcement kill well under a thousand annually.  Get some perspective

[treee]

(02-04-2022, 06:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is no "pattern" there are occasions in which things go badly, which can, and does, happen in every profession.   

Speaking broadly, there is patterns with everything. I guarantee you there are some set of common factors when innocent people being killed in their homes by no knock warrants. A simple one of the top of my head seems to be a distinct lack of information about the situation or even incorrect information. I'm sure there are many subsets of just the informational aspect alone.

Quote:Or, alternatively, you can view the accident as an aberration, an unlikely occurrence that you will strive to avoid repeating.  

How are they striving to prevent this from happening? Communicating those attempts better with the public would go a long way.

Quote: Medical doctors are put on a pedestal, especially of late, but they kill over a 100,000 people a year via medical malpractice.  The mistakes of law enforcement kill well under a thousand annually.  

I don't think this is a compelling comparison. Knowing that you doctor could mess up your surgery is a lot different than knowing that your door could be kicked down and yourself accidentally shot to death.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2022, 07:59 PM)treee Wrote: Speaking broadly, there is patterns with everything. I guarantee you there are some set of common factors when innocent people being killed in their homes by no knock warrants. A simple one of the top of my head seems to be a distinct lack of information about the situation or even incorrect information. I'm sure there are many subsets of just the informational aspect alone.

Of course inaccurate information, or just a simple mistake, can lead to catastrophic consequences.  That doesn't invalidate the concept or the reason behind it.

Quote:How are they striving to prevent this from happening? Communicating those attempts better with the public would go a long way.

How to prevent?  By doing your job properly, as happens in the overwhelmingly vast majority of these circumstances.  As for communicating with the public, please.  Bashing law enforcement is a pastime for many, it would be received as excuse making.  I've attempted to explain here in this thread and have gotten pushback on basic concepts.  It's hard, but not impossible to understand the job if you haven't done it.  It is impossible when the "other side" isn't even trying to hear your argument.

Quote:I don't think this is a compelling comparison. Knowing that you doctor could mess up your surgery is a lot different than knowing that your door could be kicked down and yourself accidentally shot to death.

You're right, but only in the sense that you are much more likely to be killed by your doctor than you are by law enforcement.  If you're a law abiding citizen, which most people are, your risk of being harmed, much less killed, by law enforcement is close to zero.  This doesn't mean that avoidable deaths should not be prevented if at all possible, but it does shine the light on the extreme rarity of innocent people being kill by law enforcement.  In a country of 330,000,000 people around 100 are killed by law enforcement per year that should not have been. This includes no knock warrants.  While any preventable death is certainly a tragedy, why are the 100,000 plus killed by medical malpractice less important than the ~100 killed by law enforcement mistakes?  Bottom line, this is not the problem that it's being purported to be.

[basballguy]

I feel like some of the people participating in this thread didn't actually read the article.

[NATI BENGALS]

I don't think you can ever do away with them. You can't just eliminate the best option for nabbing serious criminals other than when they are caught in the act.

It's not an easy task. Somebody has to apprehend the bad guys. And sometimes dealing with bad guys gets messy.

[basballguy]

(02-04-2022, 08:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're right, but only in the sense that you are much more likely to be killed by your doctor than you are by law enforcement.  If you're a law abiding citizen, which most people are, your risk of being harmed, much less killed, by law enforcement is close to zero.  This doesn't mean that avoidable deaths should not be prevented if at all possible, but it does shine the light on the extreme rarity of innocent people being kill by law enforcement.  In a country of 330,000,000 people around 100 are killed by law enforcement per year that should not have been. This includes no knock warrants.  While any preventable death is certainly a tragedy, why are the 100,000 plus killed by medical malpractice less important than the ~100 killed by law enforcement mistakes?  Bottom line, this is not the problem that it's being purported to be.

It's like I tell my daughter, it's all about risk level.  Is she a good driver?  For the most part.  But if she's gonna go out driving at 2am, in the rain, on the highway, and then text....well then her risk for an accident is increased.  

For this gentleman.  Is he a good guy?  He probably was.  Deciding to go crash at his friends place who's connected to the investigation of a homicide and to take his gun with him in the process?  Probably not the best decision.  

That doesn't mean he deserved to be shot (he didn't) but we should all learn to manage risks.  If there's a lot of yellow flags then it's really a red flag.  

[basballguy]

(02-04-2022, 05:38 PM)treee Wrote: You can't tell people they have the right to be armed and defend their home and turn around and execute them for doing just that. If you believe in gun ownership and you believe in the right to protect your property, then no knock warrants in their current state should be against your beliefs. There is a pattern of innocent people being executed in no knock warrants.

There has to be a better alternative because "oops it just happens sometimes" is not acceptable (edit: not attributing this to you SSF,  but it is a prevailing sentiment in certain segments of the population)

Honest question to those that know the answer:

Does Castle Doctrine apply if you aren't in your own home?

[Benton]

No knock warrants should cease.

It's kind of absurd. Even in today's world, what potential threat never leaves their homes? The drug dealer they serve a no-knock warrant on at 5 am? He was probably leaving in 6-7 hours anyway to get food. The accused murderer they raided at 4 am? Even he has to go out at some point to.... if nothing else murder... do stuff. The guy with a 9-5 job they accidentally shoot? He was getting up at 7 a.m. anyway.

It's just a scheduling issue for police. You've got X amount of guys at Y time... raid somebody and hope it pans out.

Crime doesn't happen on a time clock. Stop infringing on people's rights and potentially making things catastrophic to fit into n overtime schedule.

[Benton]

(02-06-2022, 03:45 PM)basballguy Wrote: Honest question to those that know the answer:

Does Castle Doctrine apply if you aren't in your own home?

Depends on the state. Stand-your-ground laws apply in like 11 states; Castle Doctrine applies in several others, some of which extend the Castle Doctrine to be any property.

[Belsnickel]

(02-04-2022, 01:03 PM)basballguy Wrote: Although it's likely a moot point, I am curious as to why he was sleeping with a gun at a friends place...maybe someone with a concealed license to carry can answer.  Is it common to take your weapon with you when you're traveling/visiting overnight?  (I'm pro 2A, just don't own any)

If you carry you likely carry everywhere it is legal to do so, and to be honest some places it isn't.

In all seriousness, I'm a pretty run-of-the-mill carry guy. I cannot carry at work as I work on a campus that has prohibited firearms (though none of our campus cops would care if I carried). If I have to go to the courthouse, a church, or a school, then I don't carry. I also don't carry at most Scouting functions. I say most because there are times where it is appropriate. This is because of the BSA policies regarding the carrying of firearms. Otherwise, though, I carry just about everywhere else.

If someone asks me not to carry somewhere then I won't be a dick about it. I'll usually lock it up. I have been known to carry in places where there are posted signs saying not to, though. Often that is just because I am running in and out and really they do not have the weight of law behind them. They could ask me to leave like anyone else, but that's it. On days when I am not on campus I have a firearm on me the vast majority of the time but I also have a way to secure my firearm in my vehicle if I need to run in somewhere that I can't carry it.

Being a responsible concealed carry license holder takes a lot more forethought than a lot of people realize, I think. The main thing I try to keep in mind is just not to be a dick about it. Yeah, I'm carrying to protect me and you, but that doesn't mean I have the right to be an asshole about it to you.

So the tl;dr for your question really is that it would not be uncommon to have it while sleeping on a friend's couch.

(02-06-2022, 03:45 PM)basballguy Wrote: Honest question to those that know the answer:

Does Castle Doctrine apply if you aren't in your own home?

This is less about castle doctrine and more about just self-defense. You have a right to self-defense anywhere you are. Castle Doctrine is more about the idea that you can defend your home whereas self-defense is about your person. If I have someone coming towards me with a gun drawn I have a right to self-defense anywhere I am.

[Belsnickel]

So, this is an interesting situation for me. I am not certain where I stand to be quite honest. This was a tragedy, of that I am certain. While I am a lefty, I'm a systems guy. The court shave held that no-knocks are valid and constitutional if they pass the test established in Richards. I'm not going to lie, the situation based on my reading justifies the use of a no-knock warrant. It's unfortunate that Amir Locke reacted a she did, and it was also not unreasonable for him to react in that way. It is human nature. Nothing the officers did was unreasonable or outside of proper policy from my view.

This is the unfortunate reality. When everything goes right, things can still go wrong. Now, I could get into an even longer winded post about how things go wrong like this more often in communities of color and then get into the systemic racism and continued slavery in the criminal justice system, yadda yadda. Y'all have seen me write up a ton about that stuff on here. What it boils down to for me are that there are societal issues that led to Amir Locke being in that position in the first place that are the problem. The issuance and execution of the warrant and the behavior of the officers, though, was not at issue.

That's just my opinion on the matter. Take it for what it is.

Additions: After some more browsing and seeing responses from folks online, I think I have discovered my issue with the current thoughts on this issue from the non-NRA firearms community. Amir Locke had a right to self-defense. I have no problems with that argument. Where I think the failure lies in the current conversations surrounding this incident is they tend to take an angle on the event and try to look at it through that vacuum. I mean, I get why the tankies are saying what they are saying, and I understand that groups like FPC focus on 2A issues, but in the end there are a number of moving parts to this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2022, 09:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, this is an interesting situation for me. I am not certain where I stand to be quite honest. This was a tragedy, of that I am certain. While I am a lefty, I'm a systems guy. The court shave held that no-knocks are valid and constitutional if they pass the test established in Richards. I'm not going to lie, the situation based on my reading justifies the use of a no-knock warrant. It's unfortunate that Amir Locke reacted a she did, and it was also not unreasonable for him to react in that way. It is human nature. Nothing the officers did was unreasonable or outside of proper policy from my view.

Another issue is there's no way to show how many lives are saved, injuries prevented or convictions secured, from performing them.  I can tell you that going in hot in the early morning absolutely lowers the risk of anything violent occurring.  The instant matter is certainly an example of how such a scenario can go wrong, but, as I stated before, they achieve their desired goal in the vast, vast majority of instances.

Quote:This is the unfortunate reality. When everything goes right, things can still go wrong. Now, I could get into an even longer winded post about how things go wrong like this more often in communities of color and then get into the systemic racism and continued slavery in the criminal justice system, yadda yadda. Y'all have seen me write up a ton about that stuff on here. What it boils down to for me are that there are societal issues that led to Amir Locke being in that position in the first place that are the problem. The issuance and execution of the warrant and the behavior of the officers, though, was not at issue.

That's just my opinion on the matter. Take it for what it is.

One of the biggest issues that isn't talked about is who a person chooses to associate with.  I tell younger people all the time, if you choose to hang out with bad people then bad things are much more likely to happen.  I don't know this kid, and honestly his past doesn't affect my opinion on this incident.  But choosing to associate with known criminals, and spend the night at their house, absolutely increases your risk of being caught up in a situation like this.  Note, this is not blaming the guy in question for what happened that morning, as you stated I don't think either party is in the wrong here.  

Quote:Additions: After some more browsing and seeing responses from folks online, I think I have discovered my issue with the current thoughts on this issue from the non-NRA firearms community. Amir Locke had a right to self-defense. I have no problems with that argument. Where I think the failure lies in the current conversations surrounding this incident is they tend to take an angle on the event and try to look at it through that vacuum. I mean, I get why the tankies are saying what they are saying, and I understand that groups like FPC focus on 2A issues, but in the end there are a number of moving parts to this.

I almost totally agree with you.  I will say that you do not have the right of self defense against a law enforcement officer who is engaged in their lawful duty.  But, as we both agree, it is highly likely, if not almost certain, that Locke did not realize the apartment was being raided by law enforcement.  

[Belsnickel]

(02-08-2022, 07:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of the biggest issues that isn't talked about is who a person chooses to associate with.  I tell younger people all the time, if you choose to hang out with bad people then bad things are much more likely to happen.  I don't know this kid, and honestly his past doesn't affect my opinion on this incident.  But choosing to associate with known criminals, and spend the night at their house, absolutely increases your risk of being caught up in a situation like this.  Note, this is not blaming the guy in question for what happened that morning, as you stated I don't think either party is in the wrong here.  

This is what I was thinking about with all the societal issues. I was very fortunate in my younger years because I hung around with the wrong people. However, I also hung around with the right people. One of my friends from family connections and Scouting who is a few years older than me is the current Captain for our PD that oversees Special Operations and Criminal Investigations. I've known many other officers over the years through school connections, Scouts, etc. They knew me and knew that while I was a little shit I wasn't doing the same things some of the people I hung around with were doing. But it was that knowledge of how things worked that allowed me to distance myself from the worst of the folks in my area.

"Oh, hey, we're going over to so-and-so's house to catch a buzz and play Halo. Want to come along?" I would base my decision on a lot of things, and some of that would be just how much criminal activity that person took place in. Did I want to get high and play Halo? **** yeah, that was a great time. But what wouldn't be a great time was some drug deal gone wrong while we were there or something else like that. But my friends would still go, and they would go because it was their cousin, or brother, or childhood best friend, or whatever. None of them were into meth, but that person sure sold it along with the weed my buddies would be smoking (not in it, just as well as).

I did a lot of trimming of people in my life, and that's because I was able to. I think the biggest problem for some folks is, though, that the people that can drag them down are the safety net they have in life. I know that is the case for many people that used to be in my circle of friends. And I know a lot of those people that drag them down are part of a cycle that has been going on for generations. I know their families. I know their parents, I know their children, I grew up in their neighborhood. This is how I can look at situations like this with a more nuanced take than a lot of people are able to give it.