There are always three ways; your way, their way, MY WAY. Things will go a lot easier for you if we just do it my way in the first place.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Show This to the Womenfolk When Next They are Feeling "Protected" by Law Enforcement
23 comments:
Bill
said...
Meh, another drug bust. It actually looks like that one went off like they're supposed to. No old ladies getting shot, no cops shooting each other, and no cops pocketing drugs and money.
Perhaps I'm missing the sarcasm Bill. For one, this one didn't produce anything significant, so breaking in with weapons and shooting the dogs probably isn't necessary. For two, if it is remarkable that a drug bust goes right, perhaps we would be better of leaving the druggies to their drugs.
Of course, that gets to the whole question of, "What business is it of mine what you choose to put in your body?" and vice-versa.
And then there is the causal relationship between such prohibitions and organized crime, as well as petty, individual crime, which can also be violent, to pay for the drugs...
It's a Brave New World, allright, and we have a new liberal supreme court justice to give us even more of it.
First; I have zero problem with them shooting the dogs, that's simply the right thing to do. I shoot dogs whenever I see them on my property, it's just common sense. I have no idea why people are making such a big deal about the cops shooting the dogs. Second; I have even less of an idea why folks are making such a big deal about shooting in front of the children. I think it's great that the kids get to see what cops actually do. Regarding the drug thing, well, the cops found drugs and drug stuff, and the guy plead guilty, so apparently there was something to it.
Now, all that aside, I totally disagree with the militarization of the police. I think SWAT is WAY overused. But the problem is that police actually do need a SWAT kind of capability, there really are criminals that have body armor and MP5's. The problems is overuse, and those tactics moving down into regular police use.
Oh, and don't start on all that hippy "let 'em smoke dope if they want to" bullshit, that ain't the argument and I ain't buying it.
Only problem with that argument, Bill, is when confronted with similarly equipped opposition cops inevitably cower in terror behond their vehicles. That only leaves defensless civilians to play Pretend Delta Force against.
Shooting the dogs is just one more inevitable consequence of playing Pretend Delta Force when simply knocking on the door in broad daylight and behaving like civilized humans rather than the Gestapo looking for Jews.
Bill, you had better not break into MY property and shoot MY dog without a damn good reason. A couple ounces of pot is not a good reason. That is why it is a big deal.
I don't use drugs, never have, never will.
Shooting dogs on your own property is your own business. I prefer to let them live unless they make a nuisance of themself. I've never shot one, except when I stung one with birdshot once.
Think about it this way. Post your address, so somebody can give the cops an anoymous tip, and let them break down your door and shoot your dog in front of you. Would you want that to happen? I am sure they could find something after the fact to charge you with. Damn near everything is illegal nowadays.
I know the guy they did this too was a dirtbag, but sooner or later the classification of dirtbag gets broader in scope. I'm a bitter clinger and proud of it, for example.
<span>Bill, you had better not break into MY property and shoot MY dog without a damn good reason. A couple ounces of pot is not a good reason. That is why it is a big deal. </span><span></span> <span>Well, that's just your opinion. If the cops break down your door and shoot your dog, you do whatever you think you need to do and then you can argue with the jury (or not, as the case may be).</span> <span></span> <span>You folks (Giraffe, et al) are the main problem. All you do is hang around blogs like this and bang your spoons on your high chair. You don't show any evidence of understanding the problem, and you offer no solutions (largely due to your inability to grasp the problem). So, you cede the battlefield by not showing up to the argument. A classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good as well as a shining example of trying to make your solution fit an unrelated problem.</span> <span></span> <span>Here's the problem that you need to come up with a viable solution to;</span> <span>Law enforcement is a vital function of civil government, citizens cannot enforce the law. <span>Criminals are violent, and criminals kill people. Police are supposed to arrest criminals, especially dangerous violent criminals. Many criminals, realizing that they have a dangerous occupation, are well armed and prone to violence. How should society respond to this problem?</span></span> <span><span></span></span> <span><span>Note that drugs are completely unrelated to this, criminals that run prostitution rings, fencing operations, illegal gambling, and theft rings are also violent. And with drugs, innocent people are often killed in turf wars. Even here in America, when drugs were legal, we had this problem. And in other countries where drugs are legal, they still have SWAT teams (although, they often use their military for this function). </span></span> <span><span></span></span> <span><span>So, I await your solution.</span></span>
<span><span>Law enforcement is a vital function of civil government, citizens cannot enforce the law. I thought cops were citizens, and also civilians. </span></span>
<span><span> <span>Criminals are violent, and criminals kill people. Police are supposed to arrest criminals, especially dangerous violent criminals. Many criminals, realizing that they have a dangerous occupation, are well armed and prone to violence. How should society respond to this problem?</span></span> </span>
I'm not so much protesting the use of lethal force, but why do we need to use it so often? Well I'd guess because people like you (Bill) are the main problem. You think things like drugs, prostitution, and gambling, justify bursting unannounced into sombody's home with a itchy trigger finger, as if that were not likely to get an innocent granny or two shot in the head. Why not legalize these things and let people who engage in them suffer the consequences. That isn't all good either, but I think it is better than the police knocking down the door with guns blazing.
Such things may be necessary, but lets use them more sparingly.
The solution is to remove the utopian prohibition. There is no positive side to having a bunch of wannabes doing midnight raids on ordinary folks homes.
There was a piece on Lew Rockwell.com that said we need to use the jury box instead of the ballot box to destroy the state.
I'm thinking that might just be more effective. Only 1 out of 12 to convince instead of 7 out of 12.
And I'm changing my mind about lying to get on a jury. I think I just might keep my yap shut about the FIJA and the such long enough to get on and spare someone a conviction for something that shouldn't be illegal.
Especially since Indiana's constitution explicitly guarantees the right to judge every law on the books.
I would vote not guilty for this guy, even if he killed three cops when they broke in. The underlying act shouldn't be illegal, so the cops created the situation of their own demise.
Keeping with the details of this specific instance, I find it hard to support the police.
Reason #1 The cops waited over a week to serve the warrent. This tells me they weren't all that concerned about the situation in this home. Why did they wait all that time? If they waited that long why couldn't they wait till the guy came to the door or until the next day? By their own actions the police demonstrated that there was no need for a swat team or aggresive behavior in serving the warrent.
Reason #2 Since there was no immediate need for the seach, there was no reason to not allow the owners to secure their property ie the dog prior to begining the seach. The cops should have to pay damages as individuals for the loss of the dog, plus other damages.
Reason #3 This was a night time raid on a house that the cops weren't in a hurry to search when they recieved the warrent. They could have waited till the women and kids left or grabbed the man after he left the house, etc.
The police delay in serving the warrent removes any rational reason for the way in which they served the warrent, placing the greater burden for restrained conduct on the police.
Res: I hadn't read that on the warrant stuff, shades of David Koresh there. Dude went running outside the compound every day but they couldn't arrest him THEN, no way.
4. Since the people in the house were not accused of capital crimes, use of deadly force to apprehend them was not justified.
5. Since there was no tip of expecting a violent response by the suspect, bringing their own violence was an over-reaction by police forces. Simply covering the front and back doors would have been sufficient.
6. Shooting a dog (moving) in a house with children present is inherently unsafe and very likely to shoot a child in the same house. As it is, a ricochet hit another dog. Presumeably, that child is not accused of a violent crime warrenting death to apprehend it.
7. Competent police forces need well thought out procedures for entering a house and apprehending suspects non-violently. That includes a procedure for containing dogs that does not include dischagning firearmes in close proximity to human beings. Very few dogs are large enough to stop a bullet. You will almost always get overpenetration and bullets hitting unintended object (people/other cops). If dog catchers can do their job without lethal force, police should be able to also. In a pinch, I'll bet they could ask animal control agents to help them out.
8. The reason police have firearms is the same reason that all of the rest of us do: self defense. There is no justification that permits them to enter a house "guns blazing". Even SWAT teams are acting on an extended self defense rationale when they shoot. Shooting a dog is not needed. Even police snipers can only shoot suspects when there is a clear danger to life (of someone) if they do not shoot and if shooting is needed right away to save that life.
9. Breaking down the door in the middle of the night is the same tactics used by armed robbers. People who live in bad neighborhoods know this and act accordingly, until they recognize real police. Serving warrants in broad daylight helps the accused recognize real police and is safer for them, the police and the dogs.
10. Police who claim an automatic policy right to shoot dogs do not permit a reciprocal right for people to shoot police dogs, or even to shoot stray dogs in their neighborhoods.
11. In the final analysis, Police are just people and they by right have the same rights and responsibilities under law as non-police in the same communities. When they take upon themselves additional rights to kill dogs, to shoot-on-sight, and to value their own safety above the community they serve, then they are just another criminal gang. The only difference is that they limit their take to taxes and what they can confiscate from their competitors.
23 comments:
Meh, another drug bust. It actually looks like that one went off like they're supposed to. No old ladies getting shot, no cops shooting each other, and no cops pocketing drugs and money.
<span>"and no cops pocketing drugs and money."</span>
Not on camera anyway.
Perhaps I'm missing the sarcasm Bill. For one, this one didn't produce anything significant, so breaking in with weapons and shooting the dogs probably isn't necessary. For two, if it is remarkable that a drug bust goes right, perhaps we would be better of leaving the druggies to their drugs.
Of course, that gets to the whole question of, "What business is it of mine what you choose to put in your body?" and vice-versa.
And then there is the causal relationship between such prohibitions and organized crime, as well as petty, individual crime, which can also be violent, to pay for the drugs...
It's a Brave New World, allright, and we have a new liberal supreme court justice to give us even more of it.
J3, I like your motorcycle posts better.
Cops are like any other group. Good and bad.
Ok, more info here;
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/complete-coverage-february-2010-swat-raid/
First; I have zero problem with them shooting the dogs, that's simply the right thing to do. I shoot dogs whenever I see them on my property, it's just common sense. I have no idea why people are making such a big deal about the cops shooting the dogs. Second; I have even less of an idea why folks are making such a big deal about shooting in front of the children. I think it's great that the kids get to see what cops actually do. Regarding the drug thing, well, the cops found drugs and drug stuff, and the guy plead guilty, so apparently there was something to it.
Now, all that aside, I totally disagree with the militarization of the police. I think SWAT is WAY overused. But the problem is that police actually do need a SWAT kind of capability, there really are criminals that have body armor and MP5's. The problems is overuse, and those tactics moving down into regular police use.
Oh, and don't start on all that hippy "let 'em smoke dope if they want to" bullshit, that ain't the argument and I ain't buying it.
Only problem with that argument, Bill, is when confronted with similarly equipped opposition cops inevitably cower in terror behond their vehicles. That only leaves defensless civilians to play Pretend Delta Force against.
Shooting the dogs is just one more inevitable consequence of playing Pretend Delta Force when simply knocking on the door in broad daylight and behaving like civilized humans rather than the Gestapo looking for Jews.
I like the motorcycle posts better, too, Giraffe. Just doing my part to spread the reality of wannabes doing midnight raids for shits and giggles.
I would love to know how many persons can actually make it to the door in the time allowed by these types of arguments.
I know I wouldn't simply because I like to sit around in my underwear and I don't usually answer the door like that.
I noticed you had a pic of a Scorpion EXO thrown up there...
Bill, you had better not break into MY property and shoot MY dog without a damn good reason. A couple ounces of pot is not a good reason. That is why it is a big deal.
I don't use drugs, never have, never will.
Shooting dogs on your own property is your own business. I prefer to let them live unless they make a nuisance of themself. I've never shot one, except when I stung one with birdshot once.
Think about it this way. Post your address, so somebody can give the cops an anoymous tip, and let them break down your door and shoot your dog in front of you. Would you want that to happen? I am sure they could find something after the fact to charge you with. Damn near everything is illegal nowadays.
I know the guy they did this too was a dirtbag, but sooner or later the classification of dirtbag gets broader in scope. I'm a bitter clinger and proud of it, for example.
"Oh, and don't start on all that hippy "let 'em smoke dope if they want to" bullshit, that ain't the argument and I ain't buying it."
Why are some men so busy with other mens business? Think I'll have a beer now.
<span>Bill, you had better not break into MY property and shoot MY dog without a damn good reason. A couple ounces of pot is not a good reason. That is why it is a big deal.
</span><span></span>
<span>Well, that's just your opinion. If the cops break down your door and shoot your dog, you do whatever you think you need to do and then you can argue with the jury (or not, as the case may be).</span>
<span></span>
<span>You folks (Giraffe, et al) are the main problem. All you do is hang around blogs like this and bang your spoons on your high chair. You don't show any evidence of understanding the problem, and you offer no solutions (largely due to your inability to grasp the problem). So, you cede the battlefield by not showing up to the argument. A classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good as well as a shining example of trying to make your solution fit an unrelated problem.</span>
<span></span>
<span>Here's the problem that you need to come up with a viable solution to;</span>
<span>Law enforcement is a vital function of civil government, citizens cannot enforce the law. <span>Criminals are violent, and criminals kill people. Police are supposed to arrest criminals, especially dangerous violent criminals. Many criminals, realizing that they have a dangerous occupation, are well armed and prone to violence. How should society respond to this problem?</span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>Note that drugs are completely unrelated to this, criminals that run prostitution rings, fencing operations, illegal gambling, and theft rings are also violent. And with drugs, innocent people are often killed in turf wars. Even here in America, when drugs were legal, we had this problem. And in other countries where drugs are legal, they still have SWAT teams (although, they often use their military for this function). </span></span>
<span><span></span></span>
<span><span>So, I await your solution.</span></span>
<span><span>Law enforcement is a vital function of civil government, citizens cannot enforce the law. I thought cops were citizens, and also civilians.
</span></span>
<span><span> <span>Criminals are violent, and criminals kill people. Police are supposed to arrest criminals, especially dangerous violent criminals. Many criminals, realizing that they have a dangerous occupation, are well armed and prone to violence. How should society respond to this problem?</span></span> </span>
I'm not so much protesting the use of lethal force, but why do we need to use it so often? Well I'd guess because people like you (Bill) are the main problem. You think things like drugs, prostitution, and gambling, justify bursting unannounced into sombody's home with a itchy trigger finger, as if that were not likely to get an innocent granny or two shot in the head. Why not legalize these things and let people who engage in them suffer the consequences. That isn't all good either, but I think it is better than the police knocking down the door with guns blazing.
Such things may be necessary, but lets use them more sparingly.
The solution is to remove the utopian prohibition. There is no positive side to having a bunch of wannabes doing midnight raids on ordinary folks homes.
There was a piece on Lew Rockwell.com that said we need to use the jury box instead of the ballot box to destroy the state.
I'm thinking that might just be more effective. Only 1 out of 12 to convince instead of 7 out of 12.
And I'm changing my mind about lying to get on a jury. I think I just might keep my yap shut about the FIJA and the such long enough to get on and spare someone a conviction for something that shouldn't be illegal.
Especially since Indiana's constitution explicitly guarantees the right to judge every law on the books.
I would vote not guilty for this guy, even if he killed three cops when they broke in. The underlying act shouldn't be illegal, so the cops created the situation of their own demise.
Keeping with the details of this specific instance, I find it hard to support the police.
Reason #1
The cops waited over a week to serve the warrent. This tells me they weren't all that concerned about the situation in this home. Why did they wait all that time? If they waited that long why couldn't they wait till the guy came to the door or until the next day? By their own actions the police demonstrated that there was no need for a swat team or aggresive behavior in serving the warrent.
Reason #2
Since there was no immediate need for the seach, there was no reason to not allow the owners to secure their property ie the dog prior to begining the seach. The cops should have to pay damages as individuals for the loss of the dog, plus other damages.
Reason #3
This was a night time raid on a house that the cops weren't in a hurry to search when they recieved the warrent. They could have waited till the women and kids left or grabbed the man after he left the house, etc.
The police delay in serving the warrent removes any rational reason for the way in which they served the warrent, placing the greater burden for restrained conduct on the police.
Res: I hadn't read that on the warrant stuff, shades of David Koresh there. Dude went running outside the compound every day but they couldn't arrest him THEN, no way.
Late to the party but I wish to add:
4. Since the people in the house were not accused of capital crimes, use of deadly force to apprehend them was not justified.
5. Since there was no tip of expecting a violent response by the suspect, bringing their own violence was an over-reaction by police forces. Simply covering the front and back doors would have been sufficient.
6. Shooting a dog (moving) in a house with children present is inherently unsafe and very likely to shoot a child in the same house. As it is, a ricochet hit another dog. Presumeably, that child is not accused of a violent crime warrenting death to apprehend it.
7. Competent police forces need well thought out procedures for entering a house and apprehending suspects non-violently. That includes a procedure for containing dogs that does not include dischagning firearmes in close proximity to human beings. Very few dogs are large enough to stop a bullet. You will almost always get overpenetration and bullets hitting unintended object (people/other cops). If dog catchers can do their job without lethal force, police should be able to also. In a pinch, I'll bet they could ask animal control agents to help them out.
8. The reason police have firearms is the same reason that all of the rest of us do: self defense. There is no justification that permits them to enter a house "guns blazing". Even SWAT teams are acting on an extended self defense rationale when they shoot. Shooting a dog is not needed. Even police snipers can only shoot suspects when there is a clear danger to life (of someone) if they do not shoot and if shooting is needed right away to save that life.
9. Breaking down the door in the middle of the night is the same tactics used by armed robbers. People who live in bad neighborhoods know this and act accordingly, until they recognize real police. Serving warrants in broad daylight helps the accused recognize real police and is safer for them, the police and the dogs.
10. Police who claim an automatic policy right to shoot dogs do not permit a reciprocal right for people to shoot police dogs, or even to shoot stray dogs in their neighborhoods.
11. In the final analysis, Police are just people and they by right have the same rights and responsibilities under law as non-police in the same communities. When they take upon themselves additional rights to kill dogs, to shoot-on-sight, and to value their own safety above the community they serve, then they are just another criminal gang. The only difference is that they limit their take to taxes and what they can confiscate from their competitors.
PH,
Well put.
And I love it!
Res, PH - I'll post up your items in the near future. Nicely doen.
Damn PH... you even got the marrow. Respect.
Post a Comment