[quote]doogie wrote:
Sure, knock on the drug dealer’s door, wait for him to flush everything down the toilet, put on his body armor and get out his AK-47 with the armor piercing rounds before you politely introduce yourself as a police officer. That makes all kinds of fucking sense.[/quote]
and then
[quote]doogie wrote:
I believe in waiting for all the facts to come in before I convict someone. I’m funny that way.
[/quote]
Would that be “Funny- Ha Ha” or “Funny… Hmm”?
Victims of the drug war. It’s just senseless. Too many cops and bystanders lose their lives in a fight against voluntary drug usage. Why risk officers and bystanders in the first place? To keep consenting adults from using a drug voluntarily? I don’t understand the logic in that. The drug war spawns criminals. And, it leads to tragic events, like this.
Anyway, as an afterthought, I’ll share this link. It’s an interactive map of botched “Paramilitary” style police raids.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Victims of the drug war. It’s just senseless. Too many cops and bystanders lose their lives in a fight against voluntary drug usage. Why risk officers and bystanders in the first place? To keep consenting adults from using a drug voluntarily? I don’t understand the logic in that. The drug war spawns criminals. And, it leads to tragic events, like this.
Anyway, as an afterthought, I’ll share this link. It’s an interactive map of botched “Paramilitary” style police raids.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/[/quote]
Radley Balko is a fringe nut. For some reason, he is very against the SWAT concept and rails against it any time he can. I know of a couple of officers who have tried to engage him on the internet and he always runs away.
SWAT saves lives. The high degree of training, selection and equipping that goes into SWAT officers makes them very good at their jobs.
If you didnt have SWAT, who would handle
the hostage and barricade situations that go on all over the country? How about raids on violent felons?
Now, you specifically mentioned the war on drugs. I believe that is ultimately Balko’s beef and that is why he picked up this ludicrous argument against the SWAT concept.(SWAT often serves warrants on drug houses in dangerous areas or if the home contains violent felons). I think the argument about the war on drugs is a valid one to have at this point.
If SWAT had conducted this raid in Georgia, there is a good chance there may have been a more positive ending. The author’s statement that SWAT encourages resistance on the part of criminals is absurd.
My issue was with the guy who authored
the link in your post. Balko cuts off his nose to spite his face.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Victims of the drug war. It’s just senseless. Too many cops and bystanders lose their lives in a fight against voluntary drug usage. Why risk officers and bystanders in the first place? To keep consenting adults from using a drug voluntarily? I don’t understand the logic in that. The drug war spawns criminals. And, it leads to tragic events, like this.
[/quote]
I agree, wholeheartedly.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
SWAT saves lives. The high degree of training, selection and equipping that goes into SWAT officers makes them very good at their jobs.
[/quote]
SWAT is military operations against United States citizens. There is a time and a place for that. If the federal government weren’t so insistent on trying to control what they are not Constitutionally empowered to, we would have a lot less need for these kinds of tactics.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Victims of the drug war. It’s just senseless. Too many cops and bystanders lose their lives in a fight against voluntary drug usage. Why risk officers and bystanders in the first place? To keep consenting adults from using a drug voluntarily? I don’t understand the logic in that. The drug war spawns criminals. And, it leads to tragic events, like this.
Anyway, as an afterthought, I’ll share this link. It’s an interactive map of botched “Paramilitary” style police raids.
Radley Balko is a fringe nut. For some reason, he is very against the SWAT concept and rails against it any time he can. I know of a couple of officers who have tried to engage him on the internet and he always runs away.
SWAT saves lives. The high degree of training, selection and equipping that goes into SWAT officers makes them very good at their jobs.
If you didnt have SWAT, who would handle
the hostage and barricade situations that go on all over the country? How about raids on violent felons?
Now, you specifically mentioned the war on drugs. I believe that is ultimately Balko’s beef and that is why he picked up this ludicrous argument against the SWAT concept.(SWAT often serves warrants on drug houses in dangerous areas or if the home contains violent felons). I think the argument about the war on drugs is a valid one to have at this point.
If SWAT had conducted this raid in Georgia, there is a good chance there may have been a more positive ending. The author’s statement that SWAT encourages resistance on the part of criminals is absurd.
My issue was with the guy who authored
the link in your post. Balko cuts off his nose to spite his face. [/quote]
Just to be clear, I do understand the need for police “raids” and SWAT. It’s their use in the drug war that I have a problem with. Actually, I have a problem with the drug war, period. Drug prohibition forces confrontations that should never exist.
Before anybody says “Oh should we legalize kidnapping and hostage taking!” In that specific case, another’s rights are directly infringed upon. The risks may be neccessary to protect the victim.
However, ultimately the drug user consents to buy, and the drug dealer sales to them. It’s a victimless crime. Why even risk innocent lives on such crimes? Heck, why risk the lives of the officers?
Now, I can’t blame the officers for firing back. They want to go home to their families alive, regardless of the shooter’s age. The question is, why the hell did this even go down? It looks like the informant tip was an ass covering story. So why did they want in the house so bad, they’d lie about what led them there? Shooting back is self defense, when carrying out one’s duty.
However, if the reasoning for a “no knock” warrant is based on a deliberate lie, one they couldn’t obtain the warrant without, than why wouldn’t this be breaking and entering? In that case, self defense or not, how can they be protected from murder charges?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
JD430 wrote:
SWAT saves lives. The high degree of training, selection and equipping that goes into SWAT officers makes them very good at their jobs.
SWAT is military operations against United States citizens. There is a time and a place for that. If the federal government weren’t so insistent on trying to control what they are not Constitutionally empowered to, we would have a lot less need for these kinds of tactics.[/quote]
Spot on.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, I can’t blame the officers for firing back. They want to go home to their families alive, regardless of the shooter’s age. The question is, why the hell did this even go down?[/quote]
The same reason that Cops shot and killed that guy in NY who was about to be married.
They are overzealous and some are drunk with power. It makes me sick.
The poor old bat was 88, not 92. She’s a damn good shot apparentely. I don’t blame the officers for firing back, but they should never have been there in the first place not only for bad intelligence, but this war on drugs is a debotchery.
End the “war” on drugs and this will never happen agian. Let people get as high as they want and if they die, so what, it was thier choice. It’s cheaper to pick up the body then it is to constantly fight a losing battle.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
JD430 wrote:
SWAT saves lives. The high degree of training, selection and equipping that goes into SWAT officers makes them very good at their jobs.
SWAT is military operations against United States citizens. There is a time and a place for that. If the federal government weren’t so insistent on trying to control what they are not Constitutionally empowered to, we would have a lot less need for these kinds of tactics.[/quote]
Largely, I agree.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
JD430 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Victims of the drug war. It’s just senseless. Too many cops and bystanders lose their lives in a fight against voluntary drug usage. Why risk officers and bystanders in the first place? To keep consenting adults from using a drug voluntarily? I don’t understand the logic in that. The drug war spawns criminals. And, it leads to tragic events, like this.
Anyway, as an afterthought, I’ll share this link. It’s an interactive map of botched “Paramilitary” style police raids.
Radley Balko is a fringe nut. For some reason, he is very against the SWAT concept and rails against it any time he can. I know of a couple of officers who have tried to engage him on the internet and he always runs away.
SWAT saves lives. The high degree of training, selection and equipping that goes into SWAT officers makes them very good at their jobs.
If you didnt have SWAT, who would handle
the hostage and barricade situations that go on all over the country? How about raids on violent felons?
Now, you specifically mentioned the war on drugs. I believe that is ultimately Balko’s beef and that is why he picked up this ludicrous argument against the SWAT concept.(SWAT often serves warrants on drug houses in dangerous areas or if the home contains violent felons). I think the argument about the war on drugs is a valid one to have at this point.
If SWAT had conducted this raid in Georgia, there is a good chance there may have been a more positive ending. The author’s statement that SWAT encourages resistance on the part of criminals is absurd.
My issue was with the guy who authored
the link in your post. Balko cuts off his nose to spite his face.
Just to be clear, I do understand the need for police “raids” and SWAT. It’s their use in the drug war that I have a problem with. Actually, I have a problem with the drug war, period. Drug prohibition forces confrontations that should never exist.
Before anybody says “Oh should we legalize kidnapping and hostage taking!” In that specific case, another’s rights are directly infringed upon. The risks may be neccessary to protect the victim.
However, ultimately the drug user consents to buy, and the drug dealer sales to them. It’s a victimless crime. Why even risk innocent lives on such crimes? Heck, why risk the lives of the officers?
[/quote]
I just wanted to make the point about SWAT because of the author you cited, who is a total fanatic against SWAT(suicidal viewpoint if you ask me).
On to your drug war comments…
Maybe I have an interesting perspective as a law enforcement officer who happens to be pretty libertarian about personal freedom(a good number of us are believe it or not). One side of me says that if you want to put the shit in your body, be my guest.
Who am I to tell you otherwise. The flip side of that becomes the question of societal cost(that is who the victim of drug use is … society, or at least the theory goes). Are we ready for heroin cafes? Im not so sure.
My .02, for what its worth, is give up the war on drugs with the following caveats. Don’t expect society to treat you when the drug damages your health or kills you. If you have health insurance or the money to pay for medical care when you OD, fine.
But most people addicted to drugs are not going to be in that situation. So they should be on their own if they choose to use drugs. With personal freedom should come personal responsibility.
Also, if you commit a crime while on drugs or for the purpose of furthering drug use in some way, the criminal justice system should ram heavy mandatory sentences up your ass.
I would guess most of you guys have not dealt with many real users at the street level. Many of them, heroin especially,
would slit their mother’s throat to get the next fix. Increasing the ease of procurement can only serve to increase the need for crimes to feed the growing number of addicts.
If that is going to be the case, the penalties and enforcement for drug related crimes(not possession, Im talking about things like burglary to further a drug habit) need to be maxed through the roof.
Once all of the responsibility is thrown on the user would I consider supporting the legalization of drug possession.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Edders wrote:
The cops have no excuse. You just don’t make mistakes like that.
It wasn’t a mistake. They had the right house where drugs were sold from earlier in the day.
I am going to take the 92 year old woman’s side here because it is stated that they they basically said, “We’re police!!” and then kicked her door down while not in uniform. This is the same issue I have with cops in those new unmarked cars handing out speeding tickets. Why should someone believe (especially in certain neighborhoods where the risk of house invasion is very real) that a cop out of uniform is really a cop?
They kicked her door down. How many of you would simply assume it was cops who were breaking into your house no matter what they said if there were no uniforms?[/quote]
I am not taking any side.
I think its a tragic where both sides had little choice.
It’s getting harder to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
This is a nation wide problem.
Arrests of officers on rise
The Associated Press
At least 17 police officers in Mississippi have been arrested since July, with charges ranging from possession of narcotics to the fatal beating of an inmate at the Harrison County Jail.
TUCSON, Ariz. - A dozen Army and Marine recruiters who visited high schools were among the personnel caught in a major FBI cocaine investigation, and some were allowed to keep working while under suspicion, a newspaper reported Sunday.
None of the recruiters was accused of providing drugs to students.
The recruiters, who worked in the Tucson area, were targets of a federal sting called Operation Lively Green, which ran from 2001 to 2004 and was revealed last year. So far, 69 members of the military, prison guards, law enforcement employees and other public employees have been convicted of accepting bribes to help smuggle cocaine.
[quote]luburic wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Edders wrote:
The cops have no excuse. You just don’t make mistakes like that.
It wasn’t a mistake. They had the right house where drugs were sold from earlier in the day.
I am going to take the 92 year old woman’s side here because it is stated that they they basically said, “We’re police!!” and then kicked her door down while not in uniform. This is the same issue I have with cops in those new unmarked cars handing out speeding tickets. Why should someone believe (especially in certain neighborhoods where the risk of house invasion is very real) that a cop out of uniform is really a cop?
They kicked her door down. How many of you would simply assume it was cops who were breaking into your house no matter what they said if there were no uniforms?
I am not taking any side.
I think its a tragic where both sides had little choice.
[/quote]
I am just now reading this. Both sides had little choice? One side had the HUGE choice of accepting a forced statement from an UNRELIABLE SOURCE that LIED about where he got drugs from. One side then made the HUGE choice to use this info to rush into the home of an old woman who then protected herself from invasion after her door was forced open. How the hell did both sides have little choice?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
luburic wrote:
Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Edders wrote:
The cops have no excuse. You just don’t make mistakes like that.
It wasn’t a mistake. They had the right house where drugs were sold from earlier in the day.
I am going to take the 92 year old woman’s side here because it is stated that they they basically said, “We’re police!!” and then kicked her door down while not in uniform. This is the same issue I have with cops in those new unmarked cars handing out speeding tickets. Why should someone believe (especially in certain neighborhoods where the risk of house invasion is very real) that a cop out of uniform is really a cop?
They kicked her door down. How many of you would simply assume it was cops who were breaking into your house no matter what they said if there were no uniforms?
I am not taking any side.
I think its a tragic where both sides had little choice.
I am just now reading this. Both sides had little choice? One side had the HUGE choice of accepting a forced statement from an UNRELIABLE SOURCE that LIED about where he got drugs from. One side then made the HUGE choice to use this info to rush into the home of an old woman who then protected herself from invasion after her door was forced open. How the hell did both sides have little choice?[/quote]
There are definitely two sides. Unfortunately the old woman wasn’t on either one of them.
I’m just jumping into this thread and am curious as to why fault is being allocated only to the Police.
Those officers didn’t write the “No Knock”, a Judge did. I don’t care how the officers presented the information in their request for the warrant. It’s the Judges’ responsibility to determine if there is justification. Did the snitch provide such compelling information that would warrant a “No-Knock”? Not knowing what was presented to him, I would say the Judge blew it.
The snitch should be charged for misleading an investigation and providing false information resulting in death (Obviously not the actual charge).
The Judge? I’m not sure what the hell they do to Judges. Review boards? Seems like they always skate.
[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
Those officers didn’t write the “No Knock”, a Judge did. I don’t care how the officers presented the information in their request for the warrant.[/quote]
That’s total bullshit. The cops were in a hurry to get a bust and did NOT do their homework. The Judge has only the law enforcements word on what’s going on.
Get off the crap. The Police were WRONG here 100% WRONG!
[quote]Edders wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
Those officers didn’t write the “No Knock”, a Judge did. I don’t care how the officers presented the information in their request for the warrant.
That’s total bullshit. The cops were in a hurry to get a bust and did NOT do their homework. The Judge has only the law enforcements word on what’s going on.
Get off the crap. The Police were WRONG here 100% WRONG!
[/quote]
I don’t care if you think it’s total bullshit. Are you implying that the Police are criminally negligent here? They had a lawful, court issued “No Knock” warrant. To lay 100% of the responsibility on the Police is short sighted and naive.
The fact remains, it’s the Judge who is ultimately responsible for issuing warrants. That’s how checks and balances work. A “No Knock” is not a BS warrant for everyday use. It is not as simple to get one issued as you may think, or at least it’s not supposed to be.
If a Judge or Judges are issuing warrants without considering law and the sources of information, then it is not a problem with the Police following procedures, it’s a judicial problem.
Someone in this thread wants the officers to rot in jail. For what? Following the procedures of a warrant authorized by a Judge? Shouldn’t appropriate blame be directed more towards the petitioning officer and the supervisors than the officers who were following instructions?
And if so, where did THAT authority come from?
Ultimate responsibility lies with those who knowingly and willingly allow injustices like this to occur in the first place. Not the individuals carrying out their orders.
Why, in your arguments, haven’t you questioned how the hell they got the fruitless warrant in the first place? Without the warrant, none of this would have happened.
You are concentrating too much on the puppets when you should be looking at the puppet master.
People, as usual, are looking way too far into this. It looks to me like we have at least one cop himself on here who thinks these guys didn’t do anything wrong. Thats not a bad start. It also seems like a “no-knock” warrant explains all of this. Also, since when is it Okay so start blasting away at people for busting through your door? I am sure I would be surprised too, but I don’t think I would start shooting before I knew what was going on. I can’t just shoot people bcause I think they might hurt me. Police generally work very hard to protect us for not a whole lot of money. I give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time.