I’m still not sold on the necessity of an armed raid to respond to the public menace posed by a squirrel.
4 Likes
Well, their jobs are hard.
1 Like
Rolling up to people’s homes with guns is definitely a lot harder than giving someone a citation.
2 Likes
Why didn’t they eat the squirrel.
1 Like
This is true.
For the record, I see both overreach here as well as irony in application of anger. Speaking broadly.
But, for the sake of forum discussion, how were they supposed to know the squirrel kidnappers intent? They can never be too careful and there is probably a lot of evidence we don’t know about.
I think it’s best we err on the side of law enforcement, not the criminal, considering.
Hard no.
1 Like
Sarcasm. See Scottie Scheffler case and literally superimpose the entire thread.
Keep context in mind in the process.
- Told by police to proceed
- Had his car tackled by police after following police orders
- Was charged with attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon or some other life ruining thing
“Break” the forum rules force continuous numbering
- Illegally kept a wild animal for a pet, breaking health code and a slew of other laws
- Met with a law enforcement response
I see a lot of overreach. The personal point of interest for me the juxtaposition of response.
And squirrels are tree rats.
It’s getting quite silly to try and draw equivalence here to the broader qualified immunity discussion, as the Peanut the Squirrel case doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not it is a good idea.
As far as your golf star, I still don’t understand why that of all cases has been your hill to die on. Out of all cases that have a pretty complete record of evidence and testimony, you keep bringing up a murky example involving a celebrity athlete.
Was he completely in the right the entire time? Did the police officer decide he wasn’t assaulted after miraculously finding a bag of unmarked bills? I didn’t see any complete video and I have no idea.
The two cases couldn’t be more dissimilar.
1 Like
What I’m drawing equivalence to is the knee-jerk reactionism despite, or maybe in spite of the broader context.
Specifically, laws that were not violated by laws that were.
It was an active enough conversation in this community for easy reference.
This is exactly what I’m talking about, though.
Yet we know for a fact Peanut’s kidnapper was in the wrong.
And the variation in response is pretty interesting. Probably belongs in the psychology thread.
“In the wrong” in the case of unlawful squirrel possession is perhaps the weakest excuse for an armed raid on a citizen’s home I’ve possibly ever heard. That, along with previously explained elements, is what made this story worthy of comment.
If I’m to compare it to another case, I would compare it to when my friend Sara and my dog Rylee were attacked two years ago. They were attacked and mauled by a pair of boxers on Sara’s property, just as she was leaving the house to go for a walk. Serious injuries were sustained by both Sara and Rylee the dog.
The animal control officer didn’t respond with an armed raid on their home. He just knocked on the door to talk. The animals were placed in a 10 day quarantine to monitor for rabies symptoms and no criminal charges were filed.
1 Like
Did they get bitten on the ear?
For the record, I agree there is overreach here.
I said as much in the beginning.
And I think it’s funny it took a squirrel for others to come around.
That is precisely the whole point of this thread
1 Like
Exactly.
Mine were alternatively homed neighbors who happen to be squirrels.
They were many things, but definitely not pets.
1 Like
Better question: Why would you handle an animal you believed may have rabies without protective gear?
1 Like
First off, golf is gay. Squirrels can be dicks but they are cute. I remember the first time I saw golf on tv when I was a kid. I couldn’t get over the fact that a bunch of chubby middle aged white guys were considered athletes. Jockeys are better athletes.
But to the point of overreach; Scheffler had an interaction with a cop. The cop may have been wrong but that isn’t government overreach, it’s a mistake by an individual in the moment.
In the case of Peanut, you had two government agencies coordinating beforehand. They then got a warrant from a judge. They then rolled up as if they were expecting Tony Montana. That is government overreach. And Scheffler wasn’t decapitated. He was allowed his day in court.
5 Likes
I actually completely agree with your entire post. I read it twice.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Haha
For the record, I knew you were being tongue in cheek for at least the past hand full of posts we exchanged.