Drug Policy

Reason.tv Replay: Lindy "No Knock Raid"—a Song About the Drug War's Deadliest Tactic

|

Original release date: June 15, 2011

Note: This video contains graphic images of violence and mature language. Viewer discretion is advised. 

"No Knock Raid," written and performed by Toronto-based musician Lindy, is a searing indictment of one of the most aggressive, ubiquitous, and mistaken tactics in the War on Drugs.

Consider only the most recent raid to cause a national outrage: On May 5, 2011, 26-year-old Jose Guerena, who survived two tours in the Iraq War, was shot and killed during a raid on his house by a Pima County, Arizona SWAT team that fired dozens of bullets through his front door. Guerena, married and a father of two, had just finished a 12-hour shift at a local mine. Law enforcement sources claim he was involved in narco-trafficking but have yet to produce any evidence supporting that claim. Officers involved in the death have been cleared of wrongdoing.

Guerena's death is not an isolated incident. As USA Today reports, an astonishing 70,000 to 80,000 militarized police raids take place on a annual basis in America, many of them on mistaken suspects and many of them ending with injury or death for police and citizens alike.

As Reason Contributing Editor Radley Balko and others have documented, the militarization of standard police practice is a direct consequence of the modern-day War on Drugs, started 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon—and perpetuated by every administration since. (For a comprehensive report on the failure of the drug war to achieve any of its stated goals, read "Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred," by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.)

"No Knock Raid" written and performed by Lindy.

Produced and directed by Hawk Jensen.

Performance footage directed by Victor Tavares and Zachary Koski.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos. And subscribe to our YouTube channel to get automatic notification when new material goes live.

Advertisement

NEXT: Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie in the Wall Street Journal, Talking Independents

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The squirrels have struck again! This time they duplicate entire posts!

  2. This video makes me want to get fucked up on drugs, shoot myself, and then compulsively lie about it.

    FUCK THE DRUG WAR!

    1. shoot myself

      Please do.

  3. He looks like Meatloaf in that still shot

    1. i prefer skinny elvis, but otoh fat meatloaf was better. skinny meatloaf just didn’t belt it out the same way

  4. Wow. Even the people on ArfCom are mostly in favor of this video’s overall sentiment. This video must actually get its point across quite well.

  5. Are we supposed to comment on the quality of the video, the song, the philosophy? OK. Here goes.

    Is it a protest song?
    C+.
    Hackneyed themes, comical grab-bag rhymes, competent guitar work, bonus points for being sung in-key throughout.

    Video
    B-
    Somewhat compelling, but a tenuous-at-best philosophical tie-in to the (implied but vague because it’s a pop tune, and most musicians are not philosophers) anti-drug war message.

    Performance
    B+
    He seems to know his chords.

    1. THE RACE TO ERASE – Manifest Destiny Erasing Palestine

      THE RACE TO ERASE ? Manifest Destiny Erasing Palestine

      [Manifest Destiny]

      Now, both (www.aljazeera.net/english) in an article entitled Netanyahu: Erasing the Green Line, and (http://rt.com/), Russia Today, Cross Talk with Peter Levelle, Palestate! Are covering the upcoming political maneuverings, going on concerning the upcoming speech to be given by Israeli Prime Minister [BiBi] The gift from God, Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress of the American- Israeli Military Industrial Complex ? the [EMPIRE], the tail wagging the dog, in an effort to shore up the [SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP] for the crisis ahead, as the September vote of the United Nations General Assembly [150] by all accounts aye/yes vote granting statehood to Palestine, approaches with or without the [EMPIRE], a vote that Israel’s Alan Elsner of the Israel Project located in Washington, D. C. [District of Clown], has stated means nothing, and will only give the Palestinians only a [5 min.] statehood status, while arguing that a General Vote of the [UN] United Nations, is not the vote that would count but a vote only of the [UN] Security Council would be the only legitimate vote of course one in which the [EMPIRE] could and would Veto, a Palestinian State, setting up an Israeli challenge to the vote in the future, while at the same time rejecting the [UN] having any authority too establish a state when Israel itself was established by a vote of the [UN]. The other move to de-legitimatize, a Palestinian State is simply to Erase it before it is even voted upon, the race to erase the state. This is now being done by the Erasure of the so called Green Line, which leaves only one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and that is the State of Israel without a [UN] vote or sanction, a pre-vote unilateral action that BiBi will have blessed by the [EMPIRE] on the [24th] of May. The idea being that if the former United States of America now the [EMPIRE] could and did create its [EMPIRE] from sea to shining sea, under the mandate of Manifest Destiny, placing the native inhabitants upon reservations, that exist to this day, which is an act of apartheid, and today Israeli makes the same claims of Manifest Destiny. That Israel could and will set up a bureau of Palestinian Affairs much as the United States of America had set up a Bureau of Indian Affairs which grants or denies different privileges to various native American tribes upon its own reservations, and BiBi’s will in his speech bring the [EMPIRE] politicians, policy-makers, lobbyist and campaigners, up to date with the true reality of the new Israel.

      [Gaza the new Oklahoma]

      BiBi, has put the [EMPIRE] into a box, a government can not say one thing and do another, but of course that has never applied to the [EMPIRE] which is the prime of example of a Plutocracy of Hypocrisy, talking out of both sides of its corrupt system at the same time, but what now, can it now just abolish its own system of apartheid, close its bureau of Indian Affairs, over one day sovereign nations, within its territory, and the next day declare itself a now moral nation within the community of nations, don’t think so. So, where does this leave the [EMPIRE], up the creek without a paddle, it must and will provide cover for the only true Democracy in the middle east of course, a clone copy of itself, right down to apartheid, bureaus of native affairs and grants rights and privileges, no native’s running across the Canadian Boarder and no right of return for Palestinians. Gaza will become the new Israeli version of Oklahoma, the treaty was in effect as long as the water flowed, the grass grew, and the buffalo roamed, well pretty much under the laws of Manifest Destiny they turned off the water, the grass died and the buffalo no more roamed, followed by the land rush to open the Indian Territories up for settlement, with all those natives put on Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, and provided for by the U.S. Army and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Israeli version is the Gaza Open Air Concentration Camp, they will turn off the water and allow the Palestinians to either die or roam to other lands say Canada, just as long as its out of Israel, the Israeli version of Cowboys and Indians, the Indians and Palestinians both loose.

      Bono

      1. did Herc change his name?

        1. He’s writing material for the next album.

      2. ***THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPLY.***

        ***OUR SPECIALLY TRAINED RESPONSE TEAM IS STANDING BY.***

        ***PLEASE HOLD FOR OUR NEXT AVAILABLE REPRESENTATIVE.***

        ***YOUR INTEREST IS PARAMOUNT.***

        ***PLEASE STAND BY***

      3. Actually Netanyahu said he would vote for the Palestinian state as long as the UN kept them from militarizing and Israel gets to keep Jerusalem. But then again, you’re more interested in sensational fiction than real understanding.

    2. all you need are three chords,a guitar, and the truth

      1. ummm… a RED guitar, three chords and the truth, no?

        1. Old age and cataracts, now I can’t discern red from green, so it doesn’t matter!

    3. Several years ago, I suggested that a way to get the “message” to a wider audience would be to dramatize these “isolated incidents” into short films.

      My reasoning was that short videos would reach a wider audience and convey the terror of the Police State more than any blog post ever could.

      Although I wrote several scripts, the one person I know with a film studio and the resources to do this was too pro-police, and didn’t want to risk losing any government contracts.

      While Lindy’s is an admirable effort, I have to agree with Critic Tater’s review of this as a protest song.

    4. Lindy is a great musician and songwriter who took time out of his regular work to write a song highlighting the dangers of the war on drugs. Nice to see you use that express your obvious bitterness at being nothing more than an internet troll. I give your comment an F+.

      1. Protest songs are great for preaching to the choir.

  6. Another wonderful thing about the drug-warrior mentality is the clueless sarcastic attitude that “Using [insert drug of choice] must be really great in order to risk all that goes with its illegality.”

  7. Clarence Clemons dies.

    Cue simpering eulogies, featuring “broke down racial barriers”, choruses of “If I Had a Hammer”, and ridiculously exaggerated claims of his significance…

      1. Performed in the backing band behind Bruce Springsteen, one of the most overrated singers of the last 30 years.

    1. He only got the job because of affirmative action.

    2. A human being died. And you’re trying to make points off his death. Kudos!

      1. Whambulance!

    3. Go away, fascist. We don’t want you here.

    4. Hey everyone look at MEEEEEEEE

    5. Hey, he was in Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure!

      1. He couldn’t have been that old. RIP.

    6. Some decent riffs and solos to his credit, unfortunately you would have to endure Springsteen’s out of tune and rhythm caterwauling to hear them.

      1. he does work in other places. he plays on a recent lady gaga single of all places. and then there was that duet with jackson browne

  8. We do NOT approve of this message.

  9. we’ll shoot your dog in front of your kids…..

    1. Or not.
      If there’s no video, does it not happen?

      1. Or does it?

      2. That’s the kinda thinking that caused us to sell-out.

  10. Note: This video contains graphic images of violence and mature language. Viewer discretion is advised.

    Ha ha ha ha ha!
    [wipes away laughter tear]

    Oh! That warning is engineered to compel me to watch anyway.

    Clever marketers! Fool me fifty-thousand times…

  11. has anyone yet mentioned the other ‘no knock’ song written a long time ago?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKJziJGrASo

    1. When they kick out your front door
      How you gonna come?
      With your hands on your head
      Or on the trigger of your gun

      When the law break in
      How you gonna go?
      Shot down on the pavement
      Or waiting in death row

      –The Clash, Guns of Brixton

  12. These raids make me so f’ing upset I can’t even watch a music video about it. I’m actually afraid it will ruin my night of drugs and drinking.

    80,000 of these per year? If so we don’t live where we think we do. Now back to the drugs and drink.

  13. Nothing like an amateurish tune to delegitimize a serious subject.

    /pessimism

  14. I met a guy through one of our mutual friends who was a spec-ops operative in the Army — he was saying that if anything like this were to happen to him, the cops would all go home in body bags. Now that would be fucking awesome.

    1. I forgot about statist Tony. Fuck. Gonna have to change my handle.

      1. Fuck. Gonna have to change my handle.

        That doesn’t seem to be a big problem for you…

    2. Tony is gay. Before I realized you are not that Tony, it sounded like he was talking about an old boyfriend. Actually the thought of Tony getting in on with some rightwing pro self defense special ops guy is pretty damned funny. No question who the wife in that relationship would be.

    3. “I met a guy through one of our mutual friends who was a spec-ops operative in the Army”

      ‘Spec-ops’ guys don’t talk about how they’re ‘spec-ops’. FWIW

      1. According to something I read years ago, there’s a 90% chance someone is lying if they tell you they’re special forces.

      2. ‘Spec-ops’ guys don’t talk about how they don’t talk about how they’re ‘spec-ops’

      3. It depends. If it’s some guy in a bar or on the internet, eh, who knows. The US army Ranger and Special Forces soldiers wear a tab on their uniforms and either green or tan berets. They don’t really hide their unit or accomplishments when they’re outside a combat zone.

        Worse comes to worse, ask them the color of the boathouse at Hereford…

  15. Look at the person next to you. If you think they have the right to marry whomever they want but don’t have a right to control what they put in their body, you are not a social liberal. You are a social conservative.

  16. I actually agree with you John, if you are for the right to marry regardless of sex you should be for the right of someone to control what they put in their own body.

    Tell you what, I’ll continue to work on the 23% of liberals that oppose legalization if you work on the 68% of conservatives who oppose it.

    http://www.albany.edu/sourcebo…..212010.pdf

    1. Odd that so many liberals oppose it, yet the politicians they elect continue the drug war just like the Republicans. If they oppose it, they sure don’t vote on the issue, so it really doesn’t matter much does it?

      And let me add a couple of other things, if you don’t think that guy should be able to buy a Happy Meal for his kid or put whatever light bulb he wants in his lamp, you are not a social liberal. You are a social conservative.

      Freedom means just that. And most people hate it.

    2. And I will take you up on that MNG. I am actually surprised 32% of conservatives want legalization. That is more than I thought.

      But you also have to work on liberals obsession with controling every other aspect of people’s lives down to how they dispose of their garbage, what light bulbs they use, what goes into the food they eat at restaurants, what car they drive and how they pay for their health care.

      1. 32% isn’t that hard to believe. From many conservatives that I know, they view it from a constitutional perspective and that a government big enough to tell you what you can’t put in your body is a government that can do anything it wants. Then again, you have the older ‘conservative’s that will always associate drug-users with the hippies of the 60’s and 70’s.

        1. Honestly, I think the conservative love affair with cops is coming to an end. More and more conservatives I know have no use for them or their unions. It is a slow process and they are still in the minority. But there are a lot more of them than their used to be.

          1. The cops in many conservative states don’t even have unions.

            1. As it should be.

              1. Power to the Police Chiefs!

      2. “But you also have to work on liberals obsession with controling every other aspect of people’s lives down to how they dispose of their garbage, what light bulbs they use, what goes into the food they eat at restaurants, what car they drive and how they pay for their health care.”

        I’ll take you up on that. That’s certainly the most loathesome aspects of liberals today imo.

        1. When “public health liberals” cross the line between informing consumers to help them make choices to actually restricting those choices once made they become moral nannyists often worse than social conservatives imo.

      3. it’s probably more, dude. I remember driving across nebraska and tuning into a conservative talk radio where all of the commentators agreed that the drug war was an overreach of federal power, all of them thought that pot should be legal for medical purposes, half of them thought it should be totally legalized.

  17. The SCOTUS totally opened the door for more egregious no-knock violations when the conservative justices + Kennedy overruled the liberal justices 5-4 in Hudson b. Michigan that the exclusionary rule does not apply in violations of the no-knock rule. To be honest, with all my dissapointments with Obama (Obamacare, wasteful spending, lying about the WOT & WOD and the wars) this is why I will likely vote Democrat in 12, the appointment of SCOTUS justices is important and I don’t want any more GOP cop/prosecutor loving justices than we already have.

    1. Wow, you plan to vote for Obama in 2012. Never would have guessed that.

      1. Actually, it occurs to me that given that MD will go for him overwhelmingly I will be free to vote for some third party candidate. I guess I should have said if my vote somehow mattered and the election were close between Obama and Mitt Romney (whom you are on record as saying should not be supported for dogcatcher) I guess I’d hold my nose and vote for Obama.

    2. At this point MNG, is there anything Obama could possibly do that would cause him to lose your vote? Think hard and tell us what Obama could have possibly done over the last two years that would cause you not to vote for him. I am really interested to see what that is.

      1. Voting often involves voting for the lesser of two evils. I certainly think Obama has done a terrible job, I just think whoever the GOP puts against him will be a greater evil.

        If I had my druthers we would replace Obama with Cuomo and then I would not have to hold my nose so much.

        1. “Voting often involves voting for the lesser of two evils”

          That’s what I’m sayin’!

        2. I just think whoever the GOP puts against him will be a greater evil.

          What about David Vitter?

        3. MNG by voting for the lesser of two evils, you are voting for evil. (I first heard this on Penn Jillette’s old radio show)

          Why not just leave the presidential race blank? Vote for any candidate who you think is worthy, but leave blank any race you think is between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with a hair in it.

          1. I was just thinking about that story about the japanese guy and his shit burgers and realized I’m going to have to come up with a new analogy.

            Mmmmm, shit sandwiches!

          2. I’ve finally reached that conclusion. I’ll vote on local issues and I’ll continue to vote against rep. Adam “No, not that one” Smith until he leaves office, but otherwise, I’m done with voting for president. Whoever I pick is going to do exactly what I don’t want, so fuck ’em all.

        4. there is really no way the worst of the Republican pukes could be very much worse than Obama — he is worse than I imagined he could be in almost every way. Plus the Big Media would have the spotlight on every little detail, every killer drone, every body bag, every scandalous under-the-table payoff, whereas Nobel-Award-Winning Obama still gets a pass on a lot of things…..

          Coumo is a minor league jerkoff, an imaginary candidate with as much chance as Sarah Palin: zero. Then again, Obama was a minor league jerkoff, too…..

        5. I certainly think Obama has done a terrible job, I just think whoever the GOP puts against him will be a greater evil.

          For Team Red\Blue partisanship:

          Headdesk. Apply directly to the forehead.
          Headdesk. Apply directly to the forehead.
          Headdesk. Apply directly to the forehead.
          Headdesk. Apply directly to the forehead.
          Headdesk. Apply directly to the forehead.

        6. Voting often involves voting for the lesser of two evils.

          Your vote will not make the difference, so why make a principled stand and vote for someone who’s not evil?

          1. why not

    3. What if the ATF under his watch did a poltically motivated under cover scheme that caused a bunch of people to get killed in Mexico. Would that cause you not to vote for him?

      Oh wait that already happened.

      What if he got us into another war and didnt’ even bother to ask for Congressional authorization?

      Oh that already happened too.

      What if he quadrupled the deficit and ran up more debt in two years than Bush did in 8?

      Or what if he pissed the country off so bad that the Democrats had their worst election since reconnstruction in the mid terms?

      Or what if continued all of Bush’s anti-terror policies and actually expanded them to include putting hits out on American citizens?

      What if we wasted 800 billion dollars on a stimulus that everyone now admits did nothing and we still had 9+% unemployment two and a half years into his term and all of his economic team had quit?

      Would any of that change your mind? You are barrell of laughs sometime MNG.

      1. Other than Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, who I don’t think will be on the ballot, I don’t see the GOP candidate being any better on any of those issues. The GOP have proven they can initiate wars, constitution-raping anti-terror programs, major spending programs and heavy handed law enforcement just as bad. So I let the SCOTUS justices tip it for me. As someone who detests gun control and affirmative action I even have to hold my nose there, but the GOP appointees prosecutor/cop love tips the balance.

        1. I wish I could live in your world where I was dellusional enough to think that either side is any better on law enforcement. The worst law enforcement abuses in the country are in blue states where the public employee unions run the government.

          It is funny you are so anti-cop, but you will go to the mattresses to make sure those cops have unions that ensure that those guilty of the worst abuses are never held accountable.

          Law and order issues matter at the state level much more than they do at the federal level. Yet, you ignore them at the state level and seem to have become a single issue voter for them at the federal level.

          It is come down to the fact that Democrats are so awful that even you can’t defend them anymore. But you would never consider not voting for them. The idea that maybe some time in the wilderness might help them never occurs to you because the idea of not voting Democrat never occurs to you.

          And yeah, Obama has been worse than Bush and certainly worse than McCain would have been on every one of those issues. McCain for all of his faults, would have never done the stimulus. He was always good on spending. And he couldn’t have done any worse on the wars. And probably would have done better since he would have had a real opposition.

          Did it ever occur to you that the reason why Obama is do bad on those issues is because he knows people like you don’t mean what you say and will vote for him no matter what?

          1. “I wish I could live in your world where I was dellusional enough to think that either side is any better on law enforcement.”

            I don’t know what to tell you John, just read your own conservative magazines and journals that bitch about the liberal activist judges favoring the bad ol’ accused over the noble law enforcers. Hell, your side plainly admits my side is better on this issue, they just think that is a bad thing!

            “And he couldn’t have done any worse on the wars.”

            I dunno, bomb, bomb Iran wasn’t very reassuring.

            “It is come down to the fact that Democrats are so awful that even you can’t defend them anymore. But you would never consider not voting for them.”

            Well, because the other side is so awful.

            1. Just ignore that elefant sitting over there with the SEIU Loves Police jacket on.

              Law and order is primarily a state and local issue. And police unions and over zealous big city DAs (who are nearly all Democrats) are the biggest problem. They do a lot more damage than the conservative magazines in your head.

              1. The biggest problem in law enforcement are the terrible laws pushed by conservatives and the terrible rulings made by terrible SCOTUS justices. I imagine police in NYC are as criminal and corrupt as police in Hazard County, no more, no less, but what is terrible is not having any legal recourse because SCOTUS keeps whittling down remedies.

                1. And the fact that it is impossible to fire a cop for anything has nothing to do with that. I love how all problems and failings are really the other side’s fault in your world. The fact that Democratic run cities have horrible police departments goes right over your head. It is somehow still the Republican’s fault New York sucks even though they have no power there.

                  1. I love how all problems and failings are really the other side’s fault in your world.

                2. The police in Hazard County don’t stop random minority youths on the street and search them without any cause whatsoever at the behest of the brass.

            2. …that the liberal-progressives discovered “Tough On Crime.”

          2. I did what I could about Obama last time. I voted against him in the primary. I gave money and time to other potential nominees (Richardson and Warner). I spoke out regularly that he was inexperienced and from a corrupt, urban machine background.

            And he’s proven as awful as I predicted, heck, worse. But as you said yourself Mitt Romney shouldn’t even be dogcatcher. That and the SCOTUS appointments will make me choose Obama over Mitt.

            1. I would stay home rather than vote for Romeny. The reason being that nominating him would show that the Republicans just don’t care and need more time in the wilderness. And honestly, if Obama wins another term, there may not be a country much less a Democratic Party left when he is done. I can’t imagine how bad a second Obama terms would be since second terms of even successful Presidents were never that good. We have never had a really bad President get a second term except for Nixon. And you saw how that turned out. I would rather see Obama crash and burn and discredit every liberal in America with him than elect Romney to put a bipartisan stamp on the disaster.

              1. “We have never had a really bad President get a second term except for Nixon.”

                W?

                1. obama would give his left nut to have an economy as good as it was in 2004 and have the Libya or AFghanistan going as well as Iraq and Afghanistan were in 2004.

                2. obama would give his left nut to have an economy as good as it was in 2004 and have the Libya or AFghanistan going as well as Iraq and Afghanistan were in 2004.

                3. “We have never had a really bad President get a second term except for Nixon.”

                  I didn’t realize John voted for Clinton.

                  1. You have to be a pretty big partisan to describe Clinton as a bad President. He could have been a lot worse and is downright statesmanlike compared to Obama.

                4. W.

            2. Sotomayer and Kagan? — Mitt did not appoint them.

    4. Given Obama’s thorough hostility to civil liberties, his appointment of pro-prosecution Sotomayor, I am a little surprised that you would vote for Obama in 2012 if the 4th amendment were your biggest issue.

      Assuming everyone who believed as you did cast their ballot for Obama, what message do you think he’s going to get? That he should start respecting the 4th ammendment?

      I would think that the message you would send is that ii’s OK to remove the protections from government abuse since people like you evidently will vote for him anyway.

      Politicians only defend liberty when they fear that opposing it will cause their supporters to stay home or vote for the other guy.

      People like you would have far more of an impact if you were to vote for the collodial-silver-stained-guy and then write letters to the editor or inform exit pollsters that you would normally vote for a Democrat, but when they are indistinguisahable for Republicans on your critical issue, you aren’t going to vote for them.

      1. “his appointment of pro-prosecution Sotomayor”

        I think she’s certainly ruled better on 4th Amendment issues than any of the conservatives.

        So while he’s terrible and I’d like to have a primary opponent to support against him I prefer him to Mitt Romney. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement.

      2. I am a little surprised that you would vote for Obama in 2012 if the 4th amendment were your biggest issue.

        My friend, the 4th amendment is dead. That’s not hyperbole. When the cops can kick in your door on their say-so of the suspicion that you are destroying evidence, your right to be secure in your papers and personal effects is pretty well shot.

        1. Not to mention the border patrol’s ability to gang-rape anyone within 100 air miles of the border, and flagrantly disregard private property within 25 miles of the border…

          Stick a fork in it, the 4th is done.

          1. not to mention that they’ve had that authority for loooooooooong before the internet even existed. the case law for border searches is (depending on which case you reference) over a century old

        2. When the cops can kick in your door on their say-so of the suspicion that you are destroying evidence, your right to be secure in your papers and personal effects is pretty well shot.

          Me, too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.