Your tax dollars at work

2010-05-06 18:57:05

#26

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5643|London, England

And if they had found three pounds of weed in the house (which was probably just as likely as the few ounces they did find) would you deem it an overreaction then? Look, mistakes do happen, but generally our police do their homework before busting into a guys home. It takes probable cause to get a search warrant.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-06 18:57:26)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-05-06 18:59:00

#27

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6970|United States of America

Uzique wrote:
the fact of the matter is that your law enforcement agencies don't even want to follow the money trail: they're happy busting into little guy's houses and ruining their fucking lives. why dont they follow the paper-trail? it probably goes through the corrution of your own state officials. you guys do nothing about your neighbouring countries that ship the drugs. the war on drugs in america is a fucking farce, in my honest opinion, and i hope all of you enjoy being socialist taxpayers so that dumb police grunts with inferiority complexes can go around shooting corgis for a sense of self-satisfaction and moral 'right'.

There's an awful lot of conjecture and prejudice in this post. Good deal of assumptions about what you think is going on and the motives of those involved.

2010-05-06 18:59:04

#28

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

few ounces? no way. doubt they even found that much. this guy was clearly street-level, at best. just your average, tokin' joe.

nobody deserves to get their dog shot for that shit. put down your harsh judgements about 'drugs' or drug-use. the guy had his house busted down and his entire life disrupted for a minor, minor drugs offence. should the CIA waterboard your mother if you jaywalk?

and yeah, desert. im a guy on the internet making assumptions on a forum. the SWAT team were guys armed with sub-machine guns making similar assumptions and half-guesses. who's doing more harm? who's costing you money as an american taxpayer? right on...

Last edited by Uzique (2010-05-06 19:01:17)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-06 19:04:54

#29

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6970|United States of America

The SWAT team has reason to make assumptions. So he's "your average, tokin' joe" and we should just assume he's going to be compliant and unarmed? I think not. They're prepared for the worst case scenario because lives are at stake in those situations.

EDIT: Pssh, I don't make enough money to be a taxpayer yet. Mooching off the system FTW *hides from lowing*

Last edited by DesertFox- (2010-05-06 19:05:54)

2010-05-06 19:07:17

#30

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

i don't think it's reasonable at all to assume that someone with drugs is going to therefore a) have a gun b) be disposed to use it

do the SWAT teams take such extreme measures when arresting someone for non-drug related offences? because i mean, like, anybody could have alcohol or liquor in the house. and could legally own a gun. so therefore i guess fully-armed swat-teams with zero-tolerance responses need to be called out for every domestic arrest, right? because potentially every domestic-scene arrest in america could be a murder-scene. hmm... wonder why they don't do that. it's bullshit. unwarranted, unreasonable application of unlawful force. i hope the SWAT officer had a report filed.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-06 19:12:58

#31

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6970|United States of America

Uzique wrote:
i don't think it's reasonable at all to assume that someone with drugs is going to therefore a) have a gun b) be disposed to use it

do the SWAT teams take such extreme measures when arresting someone for non-drug related offences? because i mean, like, anybody could have alcohol or liquor in the house. and could legally own a gun. so therefore i guess fully-armed swat-teams with zero-tolerance responses need to be called out for every domestic arrest, right? because potentially every domestic-scene arrest in america could be a murder-scene. hmm... wonder why they don't do that. it's bullshit. unwarranted, unreasonable application of unlawful force. i hope the SWAT officer had a report filed.

There is a huge difference between responding to a call, such as the domestic dispute example, and serving a search warrant as a result of an investigation. I'd like to sit and hurl data about drug crime at you, but I do have a final exam tomorrow morning and thus, am inclined to disengage from this discussion until further notice. Have a pleasant....what the fuck, it's 3 AM---go to bed.

2010-05-06 19:13:56

#32

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

uh we're having a general election. did you go for a nap when obama was on the podium?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-06 19:14:13

#33

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6690|North Carolina

I'm against the War on Drugs, but I'm also against assuming too much from one video.

I'm not saying they handled this situation well, but I think it's reasonable to assume that there is a greater context here that was not shown on the video. Basically, it looks like somebody in their department fucked up big time.

2010-05-06 19:14:30

#34

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6753

Uzique wrote:
uh we're having a general election. did you go for a nap when obama was on the podium?

I did, I had school the next day.

2010-05-06 19:21:34

#35

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5987|College Park, MD

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Uzique wrote:
uh we're having a general election. did you go for a nap when obama was on the podium?
I did, I had school the next day.

nerd

I'm with Uzique on this one. Next we'll see the Air Force dropping JDAMs on the houses of known file sharers.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2010-05-06 19:24:41

#36

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

at the end of the day guys, it's a tiny bit of weed. to call out a SWAT team to enact a narcotics house-search would surely require some high-level of jurisdiction to approve such a thing. whoever did the paperwork, did the investigating or acted on the tip-off clearly made a huge fuck-up. you cannot roll into a family house with guns blazing, let off rounds in a private property, cause death (ok it's animals but still) and then not accept any accountability because 'IT'S THE WAR ON DRUGS'. a small personal quantity of marijuana aint the fucking war on the drugs. it aint even a battle. not even a skirmish. not even a slight, scratching altercation. it's a waste of fucking time and money. i'd be more satisfied to see police resources used on deploying SWAT teams to take-down crack dealing jonnies on street-corners in the ghettos.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-06 19:43:34

#37

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6696|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
all im saying is it's reasonable that they would have done some research on the property if they had taken out narcotics/search warrants. those things need signing-off. they take some level of time and bureaucracy. they arrange a SWAT raid. bust in on a house. and find... nothing. police incompetence at best. total fucking mistake with unlawful use of force at worst. a fuck-up.

Did you read the first bit that you wrote, Uzique?

Do you really think they would've planned, approved, and sent in a full-up SWAT team on suspicion of just a few ounces of pot? Clearly there was a lot more going on that the rest of us aren't privy to, and you've pretty much explained why that is the case.

So the bigger question is...why? Why did they have such clearly bad information going in? Was it a bad informant (as they usually get their information from narc informants)? One would think there would be an investigation to get to the bottom of why that went down the way it did.

Try some critical thinking. I know you're probably tired and high...but you're usually better than that.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-05-06 19:49:21

#38

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

i have critically thought out the legal process that leads to a house-bust. ive done the course myself and been on the receiving end of it.

my point is... someone badly fucked up if all they found was a small amount - a misdemeanour (btw that equals a lot less than a few ounces!)

somebody fucked up even worse when a SWAT team opens fire on a fucking corgi. so SWAT squads in full body armour are threatened by an ankle-snapper? get outta here. it's a massive fuck-up and i think the fact it's a narcotics operation colours and biases everyone's assessment. like i said, if it was a reaction to any other domestic incident or investigation, people wouldn't bat an eyelid. and ive already pointed out the logical fallacy in the "well if substances are involved, it's reasonable to think there will be a gunfight" - how many people have a liquor cabinet in their house? it makes you even more irate and even more belligerent.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-06 19:57:48

#39

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6696|'Murka

I'm not condoning their killing of the dog. I think they certainly could have re-assessed the situation when they entered the home and realized it wasn't what they were clearly expecting. But until then, they had no reason not to believe it wasn't a completely different situation they were walking into.

But that's the point of the departure from what you typed originally. They had some reason to be expecting something different--hence the SWAT team. Probable cause to execute that type of warrant, which requires a greater level of evidence to be signed off on by the judge. So they didn't go in there with a full-up SWAT team only expecting a misdemeanor amount of pot--otherwise, there wouldn't have been a full-up SWAT team because that would never have been signed off on.

Are you feeling me now? Is the logic making sense?

There is some other backstory that is missing, that the rest of us aren't getting from a short internet video and a blog with a clear agenda-driven bias.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-05-06 20:02:13

#40

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6756

yes, the end-logic makes sense. i understand what judicial and bureaucratic measures must have been cleared and given the green-light for a SWAT raid. my only assertion is that someone fucked up, and i hope someone steps forward to accept culpability. but, what i fear will happen, is that this will all be swept under the carpet as a simple 'mistake', because the case is a narcotics-wrap and involves drugs. i'm not blind enough to make entire assumptions from an internet video- but i DO know that cops high on the macho-pills at the time of a house-bust will be pricks. the dog got shot because of that. ive been at the direct receiving end of some adrenaline-high cop busting in and ruining your night. of course there's more back-story and more evidence to the case than the purely circumstantial stuff we're looking at here... but the fact is, conduct-wise, the SWAT team shouldn't have been so trigger-happy. especially against a little mutt. i care less about the drug case and more about the official police demeanour.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-05-06 20:09:44

#41

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6696|'Murka

Well, we're in agreement on most of that. The pup should still be alive. Had a similar case in MD when I lived near DC a year or so back. Narcotics raid on the wrong house based on bad information, and the family pooches end up dead because of trigger-happy cops. But the cops ended up getting severely punished afterward for their fuck-up.

Now as to all the "macho-pills" talk...when SWAT goes in, they are expecting a firefight. That's why they are called and not the average beat cop. They are trained to a different standard and to react in different ways. That's why they are only called in under certain circumstances--so that you don't have SWAT guys responding to every event like that. That's why SWAT warrants require extra approvals.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-05-06 20:43:53

#42

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5987|College Park, MD

FEOS wrote:
But the cops ended up getting severely punished afterward for their fuck-up.

They did? Last I heard they were "undergoing investigation" but granted I haven't heard or read much about it in ages.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were just suspended without pay for a few weeks. Hell some crazy riot police beat a bunch of students' skulls in after a victory in basketball at UMD a few months ago, and recently some video footage was released that completely contradicts the police's report about the incident. Yet the cops still have their jobs.

2010-05-07 00:24:58

#43

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX

That really is fucked up, kicking someones door in and shooting their dogs.
He should have been read his rights much earlier, can they really just assume no response = 'yes' ?

Those SWAT guys are pumped-up fuckwits, they were wearing full protective gear, they weren't at much risk from the dog.

JG wrote:
generally our police do their homework before busting into a guys home. It takes probable cause to get a search warrant

Its dangerous to assume that, its one of the first steps along the road to a fascist state.
'Gee the Police arrested him, we'd better convict him'

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-07 06:19:19)

Fuck Israel

2010-05-07 03:02:51

#44

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6696|'Murka

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
But the cops ended up getting severely punished afterward for their fuck-up.
They did? Last I heard they were "undergoing investigation" but granted I haven't heard or read much about it in ages.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were just suspended without pay for a few weeks. Hell some crazy riot police beat a bunch of students' skulls in after a victory in basketball at UMD a few months ago, and recently some video footage was released that completely contradicts the police's report about the incident. Yet the cops still have their jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Hei … _drug_raid

You're right. I mis-remembered--I must've been thinking of the civil suit or something.

Apparently, St George's County Sheriff's investigation found "no wrongdoing". Slightly different situation, as a large quantity of drugs was involved, but different methodology on the part of the dealer.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Your tax dollars at work

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

JG wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer