There are good cops, hell there are great ones; then you have guys that shoot a family's dogs in the presence of their kid.
I understand that some druggies can be incredibly violent but this guy was non-confrontational and didn't put up resistance. At one point in the video you hear a SWAT officer say "leave the dog alone we're good" but that doesn't stop one of the asshats from shooting it later.
From the video it looks like there was no real confrontation between the SWAT and the dogs but they still pumped 'em with lead. I understand pitbulls have a nasty reputation but a corgi? Really?!
Frankly laughable that they tried to pin "child endangerment" on that guy since the SWAT were the ones shooting indoors at his dogs. There are bigger things to worry about but this kind of news boils one's blood. If you're out there with a uniform that commands authority then why the hell are you shooting a corgi in a non-hostile situation? Michael Vick with a badge...scary stuff.
SWAT should not be used in this manner and whoever fired those rounds just landed their department nationwide controversy over what could've been a smooth operation.
Yeah, it's not just SWAT officers.
Local (both in NY and NJ) PD have been know to open fire on dogs when investigating noise complaints and domestic disputes.
One instance (which never made my local paper) the cop entered without permission (noise complaint, loud music) after being warned that the dog was uptight about strangers and need to be putting into the bedroom.
Belphegor wrote:Yeah, it's not just SWAT officers.
Local (both in NY and NJ) PD have been known to open fire on dogs when investigating noise complaints and domestic disputes.
One instance (which never made my local paper) the cop entered without permission (noise complaint, loud music) after being warned that the dog was uptight about strangers and need to be putting into the bedroom.
Because police officers don't have rights to protect their own safety, right? Dog bites can be just as fatal as gunshots, depending on the size of the dog or where the dog bite occurs.
And I'm calling BS on your second story. A police officer "entering without permission" would have made the news, even if no dog was involved.
What was the actual raid in regards to anyways? Because they don't mount midnight raids just to nab some pothead.
As a sidenote,I personaly would love to see "law enforcement"/ "legal departments" go after criminals like the ones at Goldman/Sachs with the same tenacity as they do when going after some guy selling a few quarter bags to people who WANT them.
You guys make me laugh. Were they in the right to shoot the dog? Totally. They are trained that if something looks aggressive to put it down before it becomes a problem. Period. Did the dog need to be shot in that video? Probably not. But you have to realize that they are trained to react that way because not all drug offenders just lay down and have nice chats with the officers coming in to take their freedom and bust their drug trades. They are trained to be prepared for the ones that will go all out and not stop until they are killed themselves. And you CANNOT tell the difference between nice guy pot head, and psycho nutcase guns blazing guy until the gak hits the fan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote:
As a sidenote,I personaly would love to see "law enforcement"/ "legal departments" go after criminals like the ones at Goldman/Sachs with the same tenacity as they do when going after some guy selling a few quarter bags to people who WANT them.
I totally agree with you on this point though. Those rich money sucking bad words piss me off on a completely different level
KingCracker wrote:You guys make me laugh. Were they in the right to shoot the dog? Totally. They are trained that if something looks aggressive to put it down before it becomes a problem. Period. Did the dog need to be shot in that video? Probably not. But you have to realize that they are trained to react that way because not all drug offenders just lay down and have nice chats with the officers coming in to take their freedom and bust their drug trades. They are trained to be prepared for the ones that will go all out and not stop until they are killed themselves. And you CANNOT tell the difference between nice guy pot head, and psycho nutcase guns blazing guy until the gak hits the fan.
Alternatively, their training resembles that of a Monty Python clip... like this one.
Kill all those who wear fur, because they may just BITE YOUR HEAD OFF!!! JESUS CHRIST!
Kanluwen wrote:And I'm calling BS on your second story. A police officer "entering without permission" would have made the news, even if no dog was involved.
What was the actual raid in regards to anyways? Because they don't mount midnight raids just to nab some pothead.
Oh, bless. That's so cute.
Seriously dude, cops get things wrong, and they get things wrong fairly often. It's a complicated job. When they get things wrong, sometimes it ends up with an innocent dude's house getting trashed, losing a few months out of his life to get BS charges dismissed, or his dog getting shot.
That's just how it is, and the only real solution is to have enough money that you avoid living in bad neighbourhoods.
KingCracker wrote:You guys make me laugh. Were they in the right to shoot the dog? Totally. They are trained that if something looks aggressive to put it down before it becomes a problem. Period. Did the dog need to be shot in that video? Probably not. But you have to realize that they are trained to react that way because not all drug offenders just lay down and have nice chats with the officers coming in to take their freedom and bust their drug trades. They are trained to be prepared for the ones that will go all out and not stop until they are killed themselves. And you CANNOT tell the difference between nice guy pot head, and psycho nutcase guns blazing guy until the gak hits the fan.
Sort of, a policeman who recognises a dog as a reasonable threat is entitled to kill it, but it's about reasonable and about the judgement of the officers. Shooting a corgie that's running away is a really crappy exercise of judgement.
And you have to realise that when a guy smoking pot is deemed such a horrific threat that a squad of guys with automatic weapons would undertake a midnight raid, and killing his dog because it could be a vicious killer, well then things have gotten really, really ridiculous.
Kanluwen wrote:And I'm calling BS on your second story. A police officer "entering without permission" would have made the news, even if no dog was involved.
What was the actual raid in regards to anyways? Because they don't mount midnight raids just to nab some pothead.
Oh, bless. That's so cute.
Seriously dude, cops get things wrong, and they get things wrong fairly often. It's a complicated job. When they get things wrong, sometimes it ends up with an innocent dude's house getting trashed, losing a few months out of his life to get BS charges dismissed, or his dog getting shot.
That's just how it is, and the only real solution is to have enough money that you avoid living in bad neighbourhoods.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about police never making mistakes?
*double checks*
Well, whaddyaknow. I didn't.
Again, let me elaborate:
The police do not send heavily armed SWAT teams to every single house that has been mentioned in regards to narcotics possession.
In most cases I know of, they don't even bother enforcing narcotics laws--unless you're trafficking to minors, trafficking in things like ecstasy, LSD, etc or you have some form of a connection to an organization that has been known to do the above.
sebster wrote:
KingCracker wrote:You guys make me laugh. Were they in the right to shoot the dog? Totally. They are trained that if something looks aggressive to put it down before it becomes a problem. Period. Did the dog need to be shot in that video? Probably not. But you have to realize that they are trained to react that way because not all drug offenders just lay down and have nice chats with the officers coming in to take their freedom and bust their drug trades. They are trained to be prepared for the ones that will go all out and not stop until they are killed themselves. And you CANNOT tell the difference between nice guy pot head, and psycho nutcase guns blazing guy until the gak hits the fan.
Sort of, a policeman who recognises a dog as a reasonable threat is entitled to kill it, but it's about reasonable and about the judgement of the officers. Shooting a corgie that's running away is a really crappy exercise of judgement.
I didn't see the corgie running away in the video linked. I never even saw either dog. All I heard relating to the dogs was the beginning, when the officers conducted the breach and then began securing when the dogs were barking/snarling(followed by a few gunshots and whimpers)--and then towards the end when the guy under arrest was freaking out about his dog getting shot.
sebster wrote:And you have to realise that when a guy smoking pot is deemed such a horrific threat that a squad of guys with automatic weapons would undertake a midnight raid, and killing his dog because it could be a vicious killer, well then things have gotten really, really ridiculous.
And again, what you have to realize is they don't devote manpower like a SWAT team or SRT to something as simple as a guy who's smoking reefer.
There's something being left out in regards to what the warrant they were serving was.
Kanluwen wrote:And again, what you have to realize is they don't devote manpower like a SWAT team or SRT to something as simple as a guy who's smoking reefer.
There's something being left out in regards to what the warrant they were serving was.
This is obviously the case, even with the minute chance of this raid being completely slowed; and I don't discount the option of 'completely slowed' entirely.
I still feel bad about the Corgie though (I have a very hard time being threatened by this...), and at first I thought the audio was dubbed into the video... until the guy started screaming about it.
Still a bit perplexed about why and who this was filmed by.
sebster wrote:That's just how it is, and the only real solution is to have enough money that you avoid living in bad neighbourhoods.
Anecdotally, and at odds with your statement, I can attest to this not being the case at all. Even if I like the story of Robin Hood, most raids DO happen for a very good reason; even with mistakes accounted for. Sometimes that reason is pure stupidity and ill preparation, on the part of police, but more often than not the guy slammed against a wall, is actually a pretty fethed up individual.
We could argue semantics, but I put fair odds on this being a run of the mill raid, with real reason behind it, that was filmed for some reason, and as of that fact became a poster for police brutality. I like the ease which such a narrative slips off of the tongue, but it doesn't square with my experience.
Kanwulen wrote:Again, let me elaborate:
The police do not send heavily armed SWAT teams to every single house that has been mentioned in regards to narcotics possession.
That isn't the accusation being made here, and it weakens your argument to assume such things.
Reinforcing your premise, a good reason not to hand out warrants for a random accusation of having a joint or two laying around, is that it could be a way for the police to serve as an agent of petty vendettas against personal acquaintances. As it doesn't really matter, due to this among many other reasons being quite obvious, a counter to the assumption of complete idiocy of the part of law enforcement; it is fair enough to run odds and just say that the likelihood of this being within the law, is exceedingly likely.
Wrexasaur wrote:Still a bit perplexed about why and who this was filmed by.
Police film their raids for evidentiary and training purposes.
Anecdotally, and at odds with your statement, I can attest to this not being the case at all. Even if I like the story of Robin Hood, most raids DO happen for a very good reason; even with mistakes accounted for. Sometimes that reason is pure stupidity and ill preparation, on the part of police, but more often than not the guy slammed against a wall, is actually a pretty fethed up individual.
Yeah, most raids are fine, I didn't say otherwise. But there are hundreds of armed raids nightly, so there will be mistakes. There is always a chance that the guy involved isn't guilty, or that he's just a low level goob. That's why an officer on the scene is expected to be capable of making excellent judgements in a second. This dude shot a corgie.
We could argue semantics, but I put fair odds on this being a run of the mill raid, with real reason behind it, that was filmed for some reason, and as of that fact became a poster for police brutality. I like the ease which such a narrative slips off of the tongue, but it doesn't square with my experience.
I don't have a problem with police operations in general, I think they perform a really difficult job to a very high level of performance. My issue is with people who fall in line to defend police officers regardless of what they do. To maintain a high level of service the police and the community at large need a strong culture demanding excellence. I don't think shooting a corgie really meets that standard.
Well, there's another issue about how even a high quality police force will be an oppressive presence in poor and crime ridden neighbourhoods, and we should understand that experiences with police can be very different depending on which side of the tracks you were born on, but in this thread its more about people being willing to defend every possible thing the police do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about police never making mistakes?
*double checks*
Well, whaddyaknow. I didn't.
Again, let me elaborate:
The police do not send heavily armed SWAT teams to every single house that has been mentioned in regards to narcotics possession.
Sure, and you're almost certainly aware that they'll get bad leads, and sometimes come to wrong conclusions. At which point a squad of dudes with automatic weapons will come into your house, and they might end up shooting your dog.
I didn't see the corgie running away in the video linked. I never even saw either dog. All I heard relating to the dogs was the beginning, when the officers conducted the breach and then began securing when the dogs were barking/snarling(followed by a few gunshots and whimpers)--and then towards the end when the guy under arrest was freaking out about his dog getting shot.
The running away was mentioned in one of the linked articles. Running away or not, it's a corgie. Judgement. Use of lethal force. Corgie. Judgement. It's really, really simple.
Kanluwen wrote:
The police do not send heavily armed SWAT teams to every single house that has been mentioned in regards to narcotics possession.
Actually, there's been a lot of criticism with regard to the use of SWAT in the service of seemingly unremarkable warrants. The textbook case being the guy from Virginia who was to be arrested on charges of sports booking, only to be shot by a SWAT officer.
sebster wrote:
At which point a squad of dudes with automatic weapons will come into your house, and they might end up shooting your dog.
With little to no effective liability for property damage.
sebster wrote:
The running away was mentioned in one of the linked articles. Running away or not, it's a corgie. Judgement. Use of lethal force. Corgie. Judgement. It's really, really simple.
The wife and child were both more significant threats, and not only were they not shot, they weren't even held at gun point.
KingCracker wrote:You guys make me laugh. Were they in the right to shoot the dog? Totally. They are trained that if something looks aggressive to put it down before it becomes a problem. Period. Did the dog need to be shot in that video? Probably not. But you have to realize that they are trained to react that way because not all drug offenders just lay down and have nice chats with the officers coming in to take their freedom and bust their drug trades. They are trained to be prepared for the ones that will go all out and not stop until they are killed themselves. And you CANNOT tell the difference between nice guy pot head, and psycho nutcase guns blazing guy until the gak hits the fan.
Yet anyone who is not a complete moron can tell the difference between a dangerous dog and an excited dog.
Yeah, most raids are fine, I didn't say otherwise. But there are hundreds of armed raids nightly, so there will be mistakes. There is always a chance that the guy involved isn't guilty, or that he's just a low level goob. That's why an officer on the scene is expected to be capable of making excellent judgements in a second. This dude shot a corgie.
Fair is fair.
COOORGGGGIIIIIII!!!
Like a teddy bear in a tiny suit. WHY WOULD YOU SHOOT THAT?!
Cheye Calvo's July 2008 encounter with a Prince George's County, Maryland, SWAT team is now pretty well-known: After intercepting a package of marijuana at a delivery service warehouse, police completed the delivery, in disguise, to the address on the package. That address belonged to Calvo, who also happened to be the mayor of the small Prince George’s town of Berwyn Heights. When Calvo's mother-in-law brought the package in from the porch, the SWAT team pounced, forcing their way into Calvo's home. By the time the raid was over, Calvo and his mother-in-law had been handcuffed for hours, police realized they'd made a mistake, and Calvo's two black Labradors lay dead on the floor from gunshot wounds.
As a result of this colossal yet not-unprecedented screw-up, plus Calvo's notoriety and persistence, last year Maryland became the first state in the country to make every one of its police departments issue a report on how often and for what purpose they use their SWAT teams. The first reports from the legislation are in, and the results are disturbing.
Over the last six months of 2009, SWAT teams were deployed 804 times in the state of Maryland, or about 4.5 times per day. In Prince George's County alone, with its 850,000 residents, a SWAT team was deployed about once per day. According to a Baltimore Sun analysis, 94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended.
Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes. And that's just one county in Maryland. These outrageous numbers should provide a long-overdue wake-up call to public officials about how far the pendulum has swung toward institutionalized police brutality against its citizenry, usually in the name of the drug war.
But that’s unlikely to happen, at least in Prince George's County. To this day, Sheriff Michael Jackson insists his officers did nothing wrong in the Calvo raid—not the killing of the dogs, not neglecting to conduct any corroborating investigation to be sure they had the correct house, not failing to notify the Berwyn Heights police chief of the raid, not the repeated and documented instances of Jackson’s deputies playing fast and loose with the truth.
Jackson, who's now running for county executive, is incapable of shame. He has tried to block Calvo's efforts to access information about the raid at every turn. Last week, Prince George's County Circuit Judge Arthur M. Ahalt ruled that Calvo's civil rights suit against the county can go forward. But Jackson has been fighting to delay the discovery process in that suit until federal authorities complete their own investigation into the raid. That would likely (and conveniently) prevent Prince George's County voters from learning any embarrassing details about the raid until after the election.
But there is some good news to report here, too. The Maryland state law, as noted, is the first of its kind in the country, and will hopefully serve as a model for other states in adding some much-needed transparency to the widespread use and abuse of SWAT teams. And some Maryland legislators want to go even further. State Sen. Anthony Muse (D-Prince George's), for example, wants to require a judge's signature before police can deploy a SWAT team. Muse has sponsored another bill that would ban the use of SWAT teams for misdemeanor offenses. The latter seems like a no-brainer, but it's already facing strong opposition from law enforcement interests. Police groups opposed the transparency bill, too.
Beyond policy changes, the Calvo raid also seems to have also sparked media and public interest in how SWAT teams are deployed in Maryland. The use of these paramilitary police units has increased dramatically over the last 30 years, by 1,000 percent or more, resulting in the drastic militarization of police. It's a trend that seems to have escaped much media and public notice, let alone informed debate about policies and oversight procedures. But since the Calvo raid in 2008, Maryland newspapers, TV news crews, activists, and bloggers have been documenting mistaken, botched, or disproportionately aggressive raids across the state.
Lawmakers tend to be wary of questioning law enforcement officials, particularly when it comes to policing tactics. They shouldn't be. If anything, the public employees who are entrusted with the power to use force, including lethal force, deserve the most scrutiny. It's unfortunate that it took a violent raid on a fellow public official for Maryland's policymakers to finally take notice of tactics that have been used on Maryland citizens for decades now. But at least these issues are finally on the table.
Lawmakers in other states should take notice. It's time to have a national discussion on the wisdom of sending phalanxes of cops dressed like soldiers into private homes in search of nonviolent and consensual crimes.
Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
Yeah, most raids are fine, I didn't say otherwise. But there are hundreds of armed raids nightly, so there will be mistakes. There is always a chance that the guy involved isn't guilty, or that he's just a low level goob. That's why an officer on the scene is expected to be capable of making excellent judgements in a second. This dude shot a corgie.
Fair is fair.
COOORGGGGIIIIIII!!!
Like a teddy bear in a tiny suit. WHY WOULD YOU SHOOT THAT?!
Agreed. Lets feed that particular jackass to a corgi
A famous rapper said it best.... "F*%$ da Police!" I'm sure there are some kind hearted people here, as well as some "donkey-caves" These cops ought to have their scrotums made into chewtoys.....
NO, Im NOT law enforcement. YES, I have been involved in a "sting" operation *recieving end* and YES the slowed cops went WAYYYYYY to far.
15 SCARED LITTLE PIGS with blastas pointed at various parts of 2 guys anatomy. And we were Non-violent criminals..... If some Pork-loin shot my dog,,,,, well lets just say the headlines would read "Google search leads to the revenge killing of esteemed officer" - ever notice it dosent matter how much of an ass the guy is, when hes pushin up daisies he's always "esteemed"
One article says pit bull and corgi. Other says 2 Labradors. I is confused.
Two different cases. One was the original fellow; that raid resulted in adead pit bull and an inured corgie. The other was some mayor that had both of his labs shot.
When the police first enter you hear a dog barking, shots, then whimpering and silence. So that likely the pit bull out of the picture. The kid and lady are then escorted out. Around about 2:15 you see the dog (I think it's the Corgi) scoot by the man on the ground. I don't hear any more gunshots, but the man does blow up saying "Did you shoot my dog?!" when the lights go out.
I can't tell what was really going on in there. But how did this guy get his hands on a police video?
J.Black wrote:Cute or not, dogs have no rights. I'd happily see all dogs on the planet peeled, salted and thrown into the sun.
I'd happily see all humans who wished that peeled, salted, and thrown into the sun first. Or since the sun is a bit far away, dropped from a second story roof onto concrete. Won't kill 'em, just hurt 'em real bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
Belphegor wrote:Yeah, it's not just SWAT officers.
Local (both in NY and NJ) PD have been known to open fire on dogs when investigating noise complaints and domestic disputes.
One instance (which never made my local paper) the cop entered without permission (noise complaint, loud music) after being warned that the dog was uptight about strangers and need to be putting into the bedroom.
Because police officers don't have rights to protect their own safety, right? Dog bites can be just as fatal as gunshots, depending on the size of the dog or where the dog bite occurs.
And I'm calling BS on your second story. A police officer "entering without permission" would have made the news, even if no dog was involved.
What was the actual raid in regards to anyways? Because they don't mount midnight raids just to nab some pothead.
What are you talking about, they do that all the time. You just aren't living in thw wrong neighborhood. In my apartment complex in Cali they were also sending out the goon squad to bust into a low rent hooligan's house.
Police officers, while yes they have the right to defend themselves, also have a need to excercise human judgement, which in this case they clearly didn't. You can blabber on about "training" and "self defense" all you want, my own experiences with cops, both those I know and those I've had dealings with, tells me they do what they want and whip these two phrases out whenever something gets out, and it's a magical "free pass" card where they get out of trouble 99% of the time, when anyone who isn't a police officer would have gotten a stiff sting in jail.
You don't tend to see this same behavior in most other industrialized nations to the same degree as you do in the US, our police (as a generalization, it happens elsewhere too of course) often tend to resort to force before really doing much else.
There's no excuse for what these officers did, and the level of force used in this event for the suspected crime being committed was overwhelming to the point of vulgarity. One's "training" should not an excuse to excercise overwhelming force at will, nor a free pass.
I didn't see the corgie running away in the video linked. I never even saw either dog. All I heard relating to the dogs was the beginning, when the officers conducted the breach and then began securing when the dogs were barking/snarling(followed by a few gunshots and whimpers)--and then towards the end when the guy under arrest was freaking out about his dog getting shot.
The running away was mentioned in one of the linked articles. Running away or not, it's a corgie. Judgement. Use of lethal force. Corgie. Judgement. It's really, really simple.
It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
The police do not send heavily armed SWAT teams to every single house that has been mentioned in regards to narcotics possession.
Actually, there's been a lot of criticism with regard to the use of SWAT in the service of seemingly unremarkable warrants. The textbook case being the guy from Virginia who was to be arrested on charges of sports booking, only to be shot by a SWAT officer.
There's a reason they have SWAT teams serve warrants rather than the "standard" officers. SWAT is trained for potentially high risk situations and clearing+securing a building.
It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs....
And I suppose SWAT went in the house wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt? Get real!
It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs....
And I suppose SWAT went in the house wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt? Get real!
Exactly. If you have to use a machine gun on a pekinese then 1. you need to be fired immediately; 2. the guy(s) who hired you need to be fired right after they fire you.
Kanluwen wrote:It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs....
And I suppose SWAT went in the house wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt? Get real!
Yes, because ballistic gear is so good at stopping knives, blunt instruments, etc.
It's not the tearing of flesh that causes the injuries from bites. It's the sheer force exerted on a small area--and potential of nerve damage in sensitive areas like the hands.
Which, incidentally, can't be too heavily armored in tactical officers like SWAT due to being able to y'know...manipulate the triggers of their weapons.
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.
However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.
Kanluwen wrote:That you have no point, whatsoever?
No that people are defending cops for shooting a small dog should never ever 1.) have access to firearms; 2.) be allowed near the military or police professions or for that matter anything involving decisionmaking authority.
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.
However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.
Yes a jack russell is a terror. He might break the skin.
Kanluwen wrote:That you have no point, whatsoever?
No that people are defending cops for shooting a small dog should never ever 1.) have access to firearms; 2.) be allowed near the military or police professions or for that matter anything involving decisionmaking authority.
I love dogs as much as anyone else, but get a friggin' clue. There's a reason why dogs have been used as guard animals for centuries. They can do incredible amounts of damage to a person who isn't wearing proper protective gear(protip: ballistic gear used to stop bullets? It doesn't stop lacerations or blunt force trauma--both of which are the most common injuries associated with dog attacks) using nothing but their teeth.
Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.
However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.
Yes a jack russell is a terror. He might break the skin.
Nuts.
How is this complicated?
You know all those sensitive nerve clusters in your hand? Something as small as a Jack Russell can bite clean into your hand and damage those beyond repair.
Standard ballistic gear will do absolutely nothing to stop a dog bite(it's why if you ever go to a police academy that's training K9 units, they use a very very very bulky and cumbersome suit when training the dogs to attack).
With their standard lines of protection ineffective--if the animal is seen to be aggressive--the officers are going to take measures to protect themselves if they feel threatened.
Is it always done correctly? No.
But you can bet your ass that Animal Control probably won't start doing ridealongs with SWAT teams "just in case there's a mean dog!" whenever they're serving a warrant.
Everyone is quick to point the evil Nazi finger at the cops... but would they have gone in there if they had no reason?
If the guy wasn’t involved in enough criminal activity to warrant a midnight raid, then the cops wouldn’t have had to...
They had evidence for a *misdemeanor* pot possession charge. I dunno about you, but I'm not usually going to think "this is a full breach situation here" for a pot charge.
Kanluwen wrote:That you have no point, whatsoever?
No that people are defending cops for shooting a small dog should never ever 1.) have access to firearms; 2.) be allowed near the military or police professions or for that matter anything involving decisionmaking authority.
I love dogs as much as anyone else, but get a friggin' clue. There's a reason why dogs have been used as guard animals for centuries. They can do incredible amounts of damage to a person who isn't wearing proper protective gear(protip: ballistic gear used to stop bullets? It doesn't stop lacerations or blunt force trauma--both of which are the most common injuries associated with dog attacks) using nothing but their teeth.
Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.
However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.
Yes a jack russell is a terror. He might break the skin.
Nuts.
How is this complicated?
You know all those sensitive nerve clusters in your hand? Something as small as a Jack Russell can bite clean into your hand and damage those beyond repair.
Standard ballistic gear will do absolutely nothing to stop a dog bite(it's why if you ever go to a police academy that's training K9 units, they use a very very very bulky and cumbersome suit when training the dogs to attack).
With their standard lines of protection ineffective--if the animal is seen to be aggressive--the officers are going to take measures to protect themselves if they feel threatened.
Is it always done correctly? No.
But you can bet your ass that Animal Control probably won't start doing ridealongs with SWAT teams "just in case there's a mean dog!" whenever they're serving a warrant.
This argument lacks sanity. Its like kids bneing arrested for brining an aspirin to school. Rottweiler coming at you yes. If you fire rounds and waste Buffy the doner poodle then you have absolutely no ability to rationally use judgement and are liable to waste a kid with pacifier next.
Again. Nuts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote:
Envy89 wrote:This is a rather sad story...
Everyone is quick to point the evil Nazi finger at the cops... but would they have gone in there if they had no reason?
If the guy wasn’t involved in enough criminal activity to warrant a midnight raid, then the cops wouldn’t have had to...
They had evidence for a *misdemeanor* pot possession charge. I dunno about you, but I'm not usually going to think "this is a full breach situation here" for a pot charge.
Everyone is quick to point the evil Nazi finger at the cops... but would they have gone in there if they had no reason?
If the guy wasn’t involved in enough criminal activity to warrant a midnight raid, then the cops wouldn’t have had to...
They had evidence for a *misdemeanor* pot possession charge. I dunno about you, but I'm not usually going to think "this is a full breach situation here" for a pot charge.
No actually, it seems like they were serving a warrant and found evidence for a misdemeanor pot possession charge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:That you have no point, whatsoever?
No that people are defending cops for shooting a small dog should never ever 1.) have access to firearms; 2.) be allowed near the military or police professions or for that matter anything involving decisionmaking authority.
I love dogs as much as anyone else, but get a friggin' clue. There's a reason why dogs have been used as guard animals for centuries. They can do incredible amounts of damage to a person who isn't wearing proper protective gear(protip: ballistic gear used to stop bullets? It doesn't stop lacerations or blunt force trauma--both of which are the most common injuries associated with dog attacks) using nothing but their teeth.
Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.
However, they don't wear said "best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves" because it won't do any good anyways. The only time you'll really see them wearing things like that is raiding a meth lab, and that's more because of the fire retardant material in the gloves rather than being able to stop a dogbite.
Yes a jack russell is a terror. He might break the skin.
Nuts.
How is this complicated?
You know all those sensitive nerve clusters in your hand? Something as small as a Jack Russell can bite clean into your hand and damage those beyond repair.
Standard ballistic gear will do absolutely nothing to stop a dog bite(it's why if you ever go to a police academy that's training K9 units, they use a very very very bulky and cumbersome suit when training the dogs to attack).
With their standard lines of protection ineffective--if the animal is seen to be aggressive--the officers are going to take measures to protect themselves if they feel threatened.
Is it always done correctly? No.
But you can bet your ass that Animal Control probably won't start doing ridealongs with SWAT teams "just in case there's a mean dog!" whenever they're serving a warrant.
This argument lacks sanity. Its like kids being arrested for bringing an aspirin to school. Rottweiler coming at you yes. If you fire rounds and waste Buffy the doner poodle then you have absolutely no ability to rationally use judgment and are liable to waste a kid with pacifier next.
Again. Nuts.
None of those comparisons are anywhere near remotely similar to each other.
A kid won't be arrested for bringing an aspirin to school--unless they're selling them to other students as hard drugs. At most, the kid bringing aspirin to school would have it confiscated and discarded. Because the schools don't want people bringing medication with them that the school isn't able to account for or distribute themselves.
And again:
A dog is a dog. A dog, no matter the size, can do significant damage to a vulnerable area on anyone.
Tell me again that a poodle isn't dangerous if it bites your nads or an artery in your wrist.
A dog is a dog. A dog, no matter the size, can do significant damage to a vulnerable area on anyone.
Tell me again that a poodle isn't dangerous if it bites your nads or an artery in your wrist.
If a grown man in combat gear needs to utilize a firearm to defend himself against a poodle, with similarly equipped comrades near him, something is very, very wrong. The likelyhood of most household pets attacking is extremely low, and can be stopped without the utilization of lethal force unless it's a large trained attack animal. Sorry, but having been around both firearms and dogs most of my life, I find the idea that the use of lethal force in this case (and most) was somehow required, is simply a fantasy.
This whole argument is based on the theory that, yes, the dog *can* hurt you, so you should kill it. A very dangerous line of thinking. The officers had a greater chance being hurt on the drive there in all honesty.
Kanluwen wrote:
And again:
A dog is a dog. A dog, no matter the size, can do significant damage to a vulnerable area on anyone.
Tell me again that a poodle isn't dangerous if it bites your nads or an artery in your wrist.
Does this mean you're seconding my 'throw all dogs into the sun argument?'
Kanluwen wrote:
And again:
A dog is a dog. A dog, no matter the size, can do significant damage to a vulnerable area on anyone.
Tell me again that a poodle isn't dangerous if it bites your nads or an artery in your wrist.
Does this mean you're seconding my 'throw all dogs into the sun argument?'
Hell no, I love dogs But they're animals you have to be careful with--particularly if it's not anyone you know's.
Kanluwen wrote:And I find your wishywashy "household pets won't attack" a fallacy.
If we were talking about a housecat or an iguana or some kind of exotic animal? Sure.
But we're not. We're talking about dogs, which can potentially have a pretty hostile reaction to intruders who aren't properly introduced to them.
cats will inflict more harm than small dogs.
I live with dogs, I know dogs rather well, dogs aren't going to just attack, and if they are, there are going to be definite warning signs beyond just barking. The only thing a group of grown, combat trained men in full gear has to fear from the overwhelming vast majority of dogs is noise.
Shooting the dog as you enter is not a proper use of force or responsible police work. There was no indication the dog was hostile, it barked at the loud noise and people, they saw that dog and shot it. That's not a life threatening situation, that's just normal dog behavior. Shooting it, leaving it yelping for a while, then hitting it three more times is not proper police work, that is not self defense, that is not responsible use of force.
Watching that video does not give me any confidence in that police force as a capable agency.
To change the subject and link with the Deadliest Warrior Thread, which unit would be better vs. a killer pekinese - SWAT or GS9 (or whatever the German one is)?
From the video I see one dog is shot upon the SWAT first entering, at around 2 minutes a second dog apparently appears, one officer says leave it alone and then that's it. No other gun shots or anything, nor do you see it running and then the cops shoot it running. Maybe if one of the cops had a silenced pistol but as sensitive as those mics are you would have heard even a silenced pistol.
As to the ridiculousness of the "cops putting the kids in danger". The SWAT's job is to look out for themselves and one another first. It might seem asinine to shoot a pit bull with kids present but obviously none of the kids were in danger of stray rounds, the pit bull was probably threatening to attack giving the SWAT reason to put it down.
It's sad the kids had to see their family pet killed but then again if the police wouldn't have had to raid the home in the first place it never would have happened.
I still think there is more to this raid then just "OMG I"m being raided for being brown and smoking pot."
Fateweaver wrote:From the video I see one dog is shot upon the SWAT first entering, at around 2 minutes a second dog apparently appears, one officer says leave it alone and then that's it. No other gun shots or anything, nor do you see it running and then the cops shoot it running. Maybe if one of the cops had a silenced pistol but as sensitive as those mics are you would have heard even a silenced pistol.
As to the ridiculousness of the "cops putting the kids in danger". The SWAT's job is to look out for themselves and one another first. It might seem asinine to shoot a pit bull with kids present but obviously none of the kids were in danger of stray rounds, the pit bull was probably threatening to attack giving the SWAT reason to put it down.
It's sad the kids had to see their family pet killed but then again if the police wouldn't have had to raid the home in the first place it never would have happened.
I still think there is more to this raid then just "OMG I"m being raided for being brown and smoking pot."
bs. Police officers are not permitted under lot just to fire off rounds willy nilly. There has to be imminent threat to their person. Whipple the wonder shnouser does not present any threat that a foot couldn't stop. Else cops would be shutting suspects left and right. It has to be an appropriate response level. This aint it.
Kanluwen wrote:
There's a reason they have SWAT teams serve warrants rather than the "standard" officers. SWAT is trained for potentially high risk situations and clearing+securing a building.
Sports booking? Really? Seriously? Dude, I've placed bets on games before, does SWAT need to be called to arrest a 24 year-old white dude from the suburbs of Chicago? Are normal police really that useless?
Kanluwen wrote:
There's a reason they have SWAT teams serve warrants rather than the "standard" officers. SWAT is trained for potentially high risk situations and clearing+securing a building.
Sports booking? Really? Seriously? Dude, I've placed bets on games before, does SWAT need to be called to arrest a 24 year-old white dude from the suburbs of Chicago? Are normal police really that useless?
Did the guy have a previous record with violent crimes?
If yes: Skip to why they'd use a SWAT team.
If not: Then they were tipped off about something that worried them enough to send a SWAT team to his house rather than just serve an arrest warrant at his place of employment.
Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.
I've been bitten by a Jack Russel, without protective gear, and I didn't go to the hospital.
Kanluwen wrote:
Did the guy have a previous record with violent crimes?
If yes: Skip to why they'd use a SWAT team.
If not: Then they were tipped off about something that worried them enough to send a SWAT team to his house rather than just serve an arrest warrant at his place of employment.
Nice tautology. You should try again.
The guy had no prior record of violent crime. And even if he did, are normal police really that useless?
They sent a SWAT team because they were able to send a SWAT team. You need to do some research sonny.
I reiterate: The mom and the kid were more serious threats than the dogs, and they weren't even held at gun-point. Or cuffed, for that matter.
Kanluwen wrote:It may be a little dog, but it's still a dog. Even small dogs can cause ridiculous amounts of injury to someone, if they bite the hand, arm, or your legs....
And I suppose SWAT went in the house wearing shorts, flip-flops, and a t-shirt? Get real!
Yes, because ballistic gear is so good at stopping knives, blunt instruments, etc.
Which, incidentally, can't be too heavily armored in tactical officers like SWAT due to being able to y'know...manipulate the triggers of their weapons.
Actually, it sort of is. A ceramite SAPI plate is a solid reinforced ceramic plate. Nothing short of a gunshot or a warhammer of some sort is going to deal significant damage to that. Do you really think that a SWAT team, so concerned with their safety, would really go into a situation without adequate stab protection? Knives are a lot more common than guns, and every so often you get cases where you can't put a knife wielding PCP psycho down with even a good volley. Sometimes, the badguy does get the jump on the officer. So sureley, is this guy is god damn gung-ho enough to storm in and blast away Rover, he's probably be going to wear all the kit he can wear.
As for had protection, well, there are plenty of options. I know from personal experience that the Wiley-X CAG-1 glove can retain a steak knife by the blade.
J.Black wrote:Cute or not, dogs have no rights. I'd happily see all dogs on the planet peeled, salted and thrown into the sun.
No, but property does. If they had stormed in, and started busting up lamps and TV's for no good reason, there'd be equal outrage, and equally justified consequences for the LEO.
KingCracker wrote:You guys make me laugh. Were they in the right to shoot the dog? Totally. They are trained that if something looks aggressive to put it down before it becomes a problem. Period. Did the dog need to be shot in that video? Probably not. But you have to realize that they are trained to react that way because not all drug offenders just lay down and have nice chats with the officers coming in to take their freedom and bust their drug trades. They are trained to be prepared for the ones that will go all out and not stop until they are killed themselves. And you CANNOT tell the difference between nice guy pot head, and psycho nutcase guns blazing guy until the gak hits the fan.
The truth is, you're correct.However, it doesn't fly anymore. As this case goes to show, everything can be exploited and scandalized by the media. Equal training needs to be put into not making oneself look like a toolbag in front of the camera.
Kanluwen wrote:
A Jack Russell Terrier can bite with enough force to compromise the best of the Kevlar/nylon gloves that tactical teams could wear.
I've been bitten by a Jack Russel, without protective gear, and I didn't go to the hospital.
Then the dog wasn't trying to harm you or was playing. There is such a thing as a "love bite" from dogs, y'know.
My youngest brother had his hand bitten by a Jack Russell, and had to be hospitalized along with major surgery due to the dog damaging the nerves of the hand.
Dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Did the guy have a previous record with violent crimes?
If yes: Skip to why they'd use a SWAT team.
If not: Then they were tipped off about something that worried them enough to send a SWAT team to his house rather than just serve an arrest warrant at his place of employment.
Nice tautology. You should try again.
The guy had no prior record of violent crime.
They sent a SWAT team because they were able to send a SWAT team. You need to do some research sonny.
Oh, so you KNOW they sent a SWAT team because they could?
I didn't realize you were a mind-reader now. Maybe you should start working for law enforcement to let them know when a completely unknowable situation crops up if they should send SWAT teams or patrol cops.
How the dogs should have been handled: Dog is barking, could present a threat. Deliver a swift kick to the stomach of said dog, watch it sulk away to your display of force.
You have just asserted your dominance. No more barking from that puppy.
Problem. Solved.
It's rules of engagement, escalation of force. Had the dog charged (which I didn't read that it did, but I might be mistaken.), I believe they are well within their rights to open fire.
As for the corgi: Did it run away, or stay put? If it ran, I could understand they might want to track it, make sure it doesn't have drugs hidden in the collar or something.
But if it just stayed put, wasn't barking or being an obstruction: WTF? The guy who did that is just a dick. Plain and simple.
Kan-Kan wrote:Then the dog wasn't trying to harm you or was playing. There is such a thing as a "love bite" from dogs, y'know.
My youngest brother had his hand bitten by a Jack Russell, and had to be hospitalized along with major surgery due to the dog damaging the nerves of the hand.
First off, being a dog does not equal being a beast of mass destruction. I feel bad for your brother, but a fully prepared police officer could have taken different action than what was assumed from the audio of OP's clip.
We are not talking about bulls, gorillas, or elephants; not even attack dogs. The dog that was shot MAY have been a pitbull, but for the sake of my argument I will assume it was not. Argue with that assumption if you want.
The power of a dog's bite, is associated with the breed in question. Chihuahas are not a threat to a trained police officer, a quick boot to the tiny dog's face will confirm that. Your argument DOES include all dogs, especially the tiny ones that do not have an initial conception as attack dogs. Talking about rottweilers, pitbulls (which this may have been, I don't know), and german sheperds, among a few other breeds; does not include every single breed of dog. If a trained officer takes shots at all dogs they see, they should be removed from duty. I am not entirely sure why that isn't clear.
"DEAR LORD MAN, PROTECT THAT TEDDY BEAR!"
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:How the dogs should have been handled: Dog is barking, could present a threat. Deliver a swift kick to the stomach of said dog, watch it sulk away to your display of force.
You have just asserted your dominance. No more barking from that puppy.
Problem. Solved.
This is the obvious way to deal with a corgi, but another option would be pepper spray. A riot shield and some bear mace will stop anything short of a wolf from doing ridiculous damage.
BEAR MACE WILL BLIND YOU. Tazers will probably kill a dog, and there are a dozen different ways to deal with canines without resorting to firearms. A pack of pitbulls protecting a drug compound, is different than a couple family dogs. Cops should not be scared by corgies... seriously.
In Kan's defense, the later article linked in this thread states toward the end that this department sends in the SWAT team to deal with narcotics cases because, in their view, individuals involved with narcotics are likely to also posses a firearm, and the will to use it. It's a view I do not disagree with.
Sending in SWAT was the right play. Shooting the dog wasn't.
I find it strange that the police find & treat drug culture (in particular the way dealers are armed) as consistent unilaterally. That behavior seems like like the result of a pocket community demonizing another. The differences between types of dealer/customer bases tend to be pretty wide. Lumping together the coke crowd with the weed crowd is like lumping wargamers and basketball players in the same group. Sure there is some crossover, but they are definitely not the same. In practice or in purchase.
In direct line with this thread, If a SWAT team was needed for that house then there would have been guards.
Just like large banks have security, serious houses have squads. Some guy paying for his smoke by selling bulk doesn't warrant the use of civilian soldiers.
"SWAT! GET IN THE GROUND! (THAT MEANS YOU AS WELL YOU EFFING CORGI!) STOP RESISTING OR WE WILL SHOOT YOU!
*Blam Blam Blam*
(Laughter)
"Yeah, that's right, that's what will happen if your stupid dog doesn't participate!" "Alright, alright, now tell the dog his rights before he passes out on the floor."
Kanluwen wrote:
Then the dog wasn't trying to harm you or was playing. There is such a thing as a "love bite" from dogs, y'know.
My youngest brother had his hand bitten by a Jack Russell, and had to be hospitalized along with major surgery due to the dog damaging the nerves of the hand.
Actually, I had puncture wounds on my left calf. They were sterilized, and bandaged at the earliest opportunity.
You're very good at creating tautologies, this is your second so far.
Kanluwen wrote:
Oh, so you KNOW they sent a SWAT team because they could?
I didn't realize you were a mind-reader now. Maybe you should start working for law enforcement to let them know when a completely unknowable situation crops up if they should send SWAT teams or patrol cops.
Yes, I know they sent a SWAT team because they could. If they could not send a SWAT team, they would not have been able to do so. The point of that particular turn of phrase was to illustrate that SWAT is frequently used in situations where it is not necessary; likely because there is a general trend in law enforcement towards the protection of officers. Its almost as if police work isn't supposed to be a dangerous business.
Kanluwen wrote:
Then the dog wasn't trying to harm you or was playing. There is such a thing as a "love bite" from dogs, y'know.
My youngest brother had his hand bitten by a Jack Russell, and had to be hospitalized along with major surgery due to the dog damaging the nerves of the hand.
Actually, I had puncture wounds on my left calf. They were sterilized, and bandaged at the earliest opportunity.
You're very good at creating tautologies, this is your second so far.
I wouldn't have to repeat myself if the fact that "dog bites can cause damage" didn't seem to go over the heads of people.
Dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Oh, so you KNOW they sent a SWAT team because they could?
I didn't realize you were a mind-reader now. Maybe you should start working for law enforcement to let them know when a completely unknowable situation crops up if they should send SWAT teams or patrol cops.
Yes, I know they sent a SWAT team because they could. If they could not send a SWAT team, they would not have been able to do so. The point of that particular turn of phrase was to illustrate that SWAT is frequently used in situations where it is not necessary; likely because there is a general trend in law enforcement towards the protection of officers. Its almost as if police work isn't supposed to be a dangerous business.
Uh no. SWAT's more frequent deployment in serving warrants is due to a trend in community oriented policing.
With the fact that more and more officers are being assigned to specific neighborhoods and building up a trusting foundation with that neighborhood's inhabitants, there becomes a worry of corruption or the potential of officers tipping off someone who they feel might be completely innocent(or potentially just y'know...be inappropriately linked to) which is deemed to be a nonexistent threat when deploying SWAT teams which have no such connections.
Kanluwen wrote:
I wouldn't have to repeat myself if the fact that "dog bites can cause damage" didn't seem to go over the heads of people.
Actually, your first tautology wasn't related to the potential damage of a dog bite.
Incidentally, women who are not properly secured can also cause damage if they decide to throw a punch.
Kanluwen wrote:
Uh no. SWAT's more frequent deployment in serving warrants is due to a trend in community oriented policing.
With the fact that more and more officers are being assigned to specific neighborhoods and building up a trusting foundation with that neighborhood's inhabitants, there becomes a worry of corruption or the potential of officers tipping off someone who they feel might be completely innocent(or potentially just y'know...be inappropriately linked to) which is deemed to be a nonexistent threat when deploying SWAT teams which have no such connections.
Interestingly, multiple trends can converge to produce a single effect.
That being said, there is no reason to deploy SWAT in many of the instances in which it is. If SWAT is to be a frequent deployment, then its rules of engagement need to be revisited.
It's either they alter the rules of engagement, tighten up gun registration and enforcement of illegal firearms, or any number of things that ensure officers have a reasonable level of safety expectations.
We can also train officers to deal with conflict, or create units that stand somewhere between paramilitary SWAT and civilian patrol. Something specifically focused on the service of warrants.
Kanluwen wrote:There's a reason why dogs have been used as guard animals for centuries. They can do incredible amounts of damage to a person who isn't wearing proper protective gear.
How many corgies have been used as guard animals?
How many officers have been brought down in the line of duty by corgies?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Envy89 wrote:This is a rather sad story...
Everyone is quick to point the evil Nazi finger at the cops... but would they have gone in there if they had no reason?
If the guy wasn’t involved in enough criminal activity to warrant a midnight raid, then the cops wouldn’t have had to...
Dude, have you read the thread? Did you see the points made about the use of SWAT in serving warrants for non-violent and consensual crimes? Because your point had already been made, and we'd moved past that?
If you didn't bother to read the whopping one page of discussion before coming in to the thread, why bother to come onto a bulletin board at all?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:As to the ridiculousness of the "cops putting the kids in danger". The SWAT's job is to look out for themselves and one another first.
Most SWAT teams place their lives and the lives of civilians on equal footing, with the criminal third.
It's sad the kids had to see their family pet killed but then again if the police wouldn't have had to raid the home in the first place it never would have happened.
Which is a major point of discussion in this thread. Did they need to raid the house? How many SWAT raids are necessary, when they're used for non-violent and consensual crimes?
I still think there is more to this raid then just "OMG I"m being raided for being brown and smoking pot."
He wasn't even brown. Why would you say that? What is going on in your head when you say things like that?
dogma wrote:We can also train officers to deal with conflict, or create units that stand somewhere between paramilitary SWAT and civilian patrol. Something specifically focused on the service of warrants.
Actually...that's what the Sheriff's Department version of SWAT is for.
They can't know every single detail when they're serving warrants. Someone could potentially have any number of illegal firearms, etc that would pose a threat not just to the officers executing the warrant but any civilians in the area too.
I still don't see the Corgi being shot. You hear the initial barks and shots, but later you see the Corgi scoot by. Right when the officer says "Leave the Dog. We're good."
I don't hear any shots after that. (Although there is the blackout)
I have now watched this. I put it off because I really hate animal cruelty.
It was cretinous and painfully unprofessionally executed. I hope that guy gets a good lawyer and sues 20 shades of gak out of those blundering keystone kopz.
No doubt they were laughing like beavis and butthead about 'did you see when spike wasted that thar dog, dang that wus funny gak', all the way home. And for what, a handful of grass. The idea that smoking grass recreationally equates to child endangerment is laughable, perhaps we should be breaking down the doors of everyone with booze in the house...? Stoners aren't likely to hit their kids, drunks are.
The child was certainly endangered when 8 dickheads with guns broke into the house and starting putting rounds into the family dogs as he watched. Perhaps when he gets to 17, climbs the clock tower and starts firing rounds into the crowd screaming 'Why did you shoot scamp you muthahubbards!!!1', we can take solace in knowing it would have been worse if his dad had continued to smoke weed.
Point in fact, you waste my family pet, I'm coming after you in the wee small hours and rein-acting the final scene from Audition on you.
I could hear the whimpering after the initial barking and shots. (unless I'm confusing shots with the breaking down of doors) I didn't hear any more shots, not even during the blackout. If anything I thought the mans reaction was a bit delayed, seeing as the dog (the pit bull that is) had been shot at the first outburst.
Piss poor drills on behalf of the Police officers envolved.
They were serving a low risk warrant, went in tooled up like Angolan mercenaries and shot two family pets because they let the adrenaline rush of the moment overrule good sense.
I dont know what is worse the fact that these clowns shot the dogs in the first place given that they clearly were not a serious threat to over ten heavily armed men or that they couldn't make a confimed kill on an injured pooch without several attempts.
I have no problem with cops shooting dogs, cats or even shifty looking hamsters as long as they actualy do pose a threat of some sort of threat, but the apparent willingness of these tools to "open up" on a pair of harmless pets leads me to worry that next time it could be a small child for brandishing a power ranger with intent.
One would assume that "trained law enforcement"personal would be able to tell the differance between a "threat" and a "nuisance".
Now,while I myself have never recieved the "top shelf" training the SWAT team in the video have obviously had,I have never entered a home and encounterd a yappy little dog that I percieved to be a "threat".
These animals were no "threat" to the officers,they weren't some cinematic "drug kingpins" viciously trained attack dogs,they were family pets reacting in a natural way to large,agressive group of strangers entering the home.
OK, I'm not arguing the use of SWAT. I live in PA, just outside of Philadelphia, they even raided my entire apartment unit (5 homes), including mine where my 7 month pregnant ex and dog (lab-akita mix, much more of a threat) were. Did they shoot my dog, or kick my ex in the belly? No, because they had a small amount of common sense. Those officers weren't even in attack distance of the dog when they shot it, and dogs being dogs they were most likely at the door when SWAT breached. This means they were backing away from the officers and barking because they didn't know what was going on. Obviously one of the officers is a douche, or a cat person.
And the wife and kid were sat in a corner with 2 men over them, they weren't going anywhere.
I'm being led to a conclusion from the general replies here...
We must not have been watching the same video. Where can I get the deleted scenes you all are seeing with the dogs backing away from the door or running away from the officers after they breach?
Because the video camera never entered until after SWAT had secured the house.
If I didn't see either of the dogs, you all sure as hell didn't see the dogs either.
So pretty much all we've got is a video of SWAT officers securing a house, and then some guy(and by the by--I'm calling BS on the warrant being just for the small amount of pot that apparently was turned up during the course of the search, especially given how the guy was hollering for his lawyer before even being Mirandized.) yelling "YOU SHOT MY DOG YOU SHOT MY DOG!" while two officers keep an eye on his wife+kid.
I will not blame the kid in 15 years when he murders every single cop that entered that house.
They ran in there strapped to kill a fething tyranasaurus rex for a WEED WARRANT. I smoke weed, you know what it makes me do? Sit on the couch and stare at a wall.
This is bs. They shoot a damn CORGI, a corgi is literally a teddy bear that barks.
So the cops can murder animals for making noise now? Yeah, my ass.
Oh, and also
I have no problem with cops shooting dogs, cats or even shifty looking hamsters
^^^
Going in my sig....just for the shifty looking hamsters.
I'm sorry, I didn't see anything at all about what the warrant they were serving was--anyfethingwhere in the article or the video.
All it says is that "In the course of serving a warrant, they found enough marijuana to charge with misdemeanor possession of narcotics" and that there was an "endangerment of a child" charge too.
Endangerment of a child because he had weed, they must have had evidence that he smoked pot (illegal, just because its looked upon as being bad by the population)
A man arrested on suspicion of drug charges and child endangerment said he is concerned with the actions of police who shot two dogs they described as “aggressive” while serving a drug-related search warrant at his home earlier this month in southwest Columbia.
Police arrested Jonathan E. Whitworth, 25, of 1501 Kinloch Court on Feb. 11 on suspicion of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana and second-degree child endangerment.
A police SWAT team entered Whitworth’s residence around 8:30 p.m. suspecting a large amount of marijuana at the location, police spokeswoman Officer Jessie Haden said. SWAT members encountered a pit bull upon entry, held back and then fatally shot the dog, which officers said was acting in an uncontrollably aggressive manner.
Whitworth was arrested, and his wife and 7-year-old son were present during the SWAT raid, Haden said. A second dog, which Whitworth’s attorney Jeff Hilbrenner described as a corgi, also was shot but was not killed.
“The family is concerned with what happened,” Hilbrenner said. “We don’t feel like what happened in the home was appropriate. The priority right now for us is the misdemeanor charges.”
Police discovered a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana, Haden said. Because the SWAT team acts on the most updated information available, the team wanted to enter the house before marijuana believed to be at the location could be distributed, she said.
“If you let too much time go by, then the drugs are not there,” she said.
Drug distributors traditionally have a history with firearms, which is why the SWAT team is used when executing such warrants, Haden said. If the SWAT team believed they could have executed the warrant successfully during the daytime when the wife and child were not present, they would have, she said.
That was posted on February 23rd, 2010.
There is, and has been an inquiry ongoing since the incident--even before the tape was put out.
The release and wide circulation of a video showing the February police raid of a southwest Columbia home has led to a flood of calls and e-mails to the department and a death threat sent in by fax.
Yesterday, Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton and Mayor Bob McDavid convened a news conference to address some of the questions surrounding the Feb. 11 SWAT raid at the home of Jonathon Whitworth.
Burton said the department has received phone calls and e-mails and a fax that described Columbia police as “fat donut munching aholes” and concluded, “I hope” you “run into an ambush that wipes out about a dozen of you.”
Burton said yesterday that investigators should not have executed the warrant because the information was too old. The warrant authorizing investigators to enter Whitworth’s home at 1501 Kinloch Court was executed eight days after Boone County Associate Circuit Judge Leslie Schneider approved it. Burton said the state allows police 10 days to execute a signed warrant, and he thinks Columbia officers should have done so immediately.
Information provided by an informant led investigators to believe Whitworth was in possession of a large amount of marijuana and was considered a distributor. In 2003, Whitworth pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana in federal court and was ordered to serve 15 months in federal prison, according to court documents.
The Feb. 11 raid ended with a misdemeanor amount of marijuana discovered and two of Whitworth’s dogs shot, one of them fatally. Whitworth pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia.
“It’s my opinion that it needs to be served as soon as possible,” Burton said of the warrant. “The contraband can be disposed of. It they are going to do that, there is not much point in serving the warrant.”
Burton said as of Feb. 12, the day after the SWAT team’s entry at Whitworth’s home, warrants have been ordered to be executed immediately.
Burton said police officers have fielded questions from several agitated callers concerning the dogs. The chief, who is personally conducting an internal investigation into the incident, said three officers shot at the pit bull; the first missed completely, which is when the corgi is believed to have been shot in the paw.
The pit bull acted aggressively toward a SWAT member as they pushed into the home, Burton said, and that resulted in the animal being shot, he said. After being shot, it moved to attack a SWAT member, which is when the dog was killed.
“It was not a mistake to shoot the pit bull,” Burton said. “I wouldn’t be standing here if an officer had been bitten by a pit bull instead of the reverse happening.”
Whitworth’s attorney, Jeff Hilbrenner, said he met with Whitworth and his family yesterday and they still are undecided about whether they will seek civil action against the city. Hilbrenner said police made a poor decision by forcing entry into Whitworth’s home based on bad information, which resulted in the discovery of little evidence.
The Columbia Police Department was in the process of evaluating how its Special Weapons and Tactics Team, or SWAT, is used in narcotic investigations when the team executed a warrant at 1501 Kinloch Court in February.
“It was unfortunate timing,” said Lt. Scott Young, SWAT commander. “We were in the process of considering a lot of changes. We were already having meetings to improve narcotic investigations, then this happened.”
Columbia police spokeswoman Jessie Haden said there sometimes was a lag between the time a warrant was issued and when SWAT could execute the warrant. The problem was SWAT members’ primary assignments, such as their role as beat officers or investigators, would take precedence over SWAT and they would have to work overtime to participate in SWAT operations.
Young said changes began to develop upon the arrival of Chief Ken Burton last year.
Young said drug dealers try to move their product as quickly as possible, so the timing of narcotic investigations is critical. He said SWAT members now are more available for SWAT operations because of this.
“Chief Burton has freed us up to do this when they are needed, not when it is convenient,” Young said. “He is making efforts to allow us to act quickly on intelligence.”
But that process was not complete at the time of the February raid at Jonathan E. Whitworth’s home.
The warrant authorizing SWAT and investigators to enter Whitworth’s home was approved by Boone County Associate Circuit Judge Leslie Schneider on Feb 3., and the raid happened Feb. 11.
Investigators were working with intelligence from two informants that claimed Whitworth had a large amount of high-grade marijuana at his residence, according to the warrant, which also noted that Whitworth had a prior arrest for suspicion of possession of marijuana and manufacturing a controlled substance. One of the informants told police he or she had seen the marijuana in Whitworth’s home within 10 days of the warrant’s approval.
Columbia police Detective Ronald Hall Jr. also conducted a trash grab at Whitworth’s home on Jan. 27. He found baggies containing narcotic residue and items of drug paraphernalia with residue on them, according to the warrant.
So when SWAT entered the home, investigators believed Whitworth was in possession of a large amount of marijuana and was considered a distributor. SWAT is used when executing warrants on distributors because they often have a history with firearms.
SWAT members stormed into the home at 8:30 p.m. Feb. 11 and shot two of Whitworth’s dogs. They found only a grinder, a pipe and a misdemeanor amount of marijuana. Whitworth pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia.
“We are hypercritical, even when an operation goes perfect,” Young said. “After every search warrant, the team discusses what happened and what could have been done better, and then we train.”
Deputy Chief Tom Dresner, former SWAT commander, has said he is confident narcotics were in Whitworth’s residence before police entry.
Haden said an internal affairs investigation of the incident should be completed in two weeks.
A man whose home Columbia police raided in February on a narcotics search warrant has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and is contemplating a civil action against the department for shooting his two dogs during the raid.
Jonathan E. Whitworth, 25, of 1501 Kinloch Court entered into a plea agreement with the state to drop charges of possession of marijuana and second-degree child endangerment for a guilty plea to possession of drug paraphernalia.
Investigators believed Whitworth was in possession of a large amount of marijuana and was considered a distributor, Deputy Chief Tom Dresner said in February. Police, who found a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana, shot two dogs upon entering Whitworth’s home around 8:30 p.m. Feb. 11.
SWAT team members encountered a pit bull upon entry, held back and then fatally shot the dog, police say. Officers said the dog was acting in an uncontrollably aggressive manner. A video of the raid shows that a shot was fired upon entry, but the pit bull was not wounded until later.
Whitworth was arrested, and his wife and 7-year-old son were present during the raid. Both his wife and child were living in the residence at the time, said Jeff Hilbrenner, Whitworth’s attorney. Dresner previously said that intelligence gathered before the raid did not indicate the child was in the home.
A second dog was shot in the leg but was not killed. The corgi is seen in the video and does not appear to be wounded. There is no indication when the dog was shot, and Dresner previously said he was unsure when the animal was wounded.
“Their focus right now is to get this behind them,” Hilbrenner said of the Whitworth family. “Obviously, this was a traumatic event for his wife and son. A final decision has not been made, but they are evaluating all of their options.”
Hilbrenner previously said the family was concerned with what happened and that they thought police actions were inappropriate.
After the arrest, Dresner said he believed SWAT team members followed protocol and was awaiting an Internal Affairs investigation. Investigations are conducted each time a weapon is used by officers, said spokeswoman Officer Jessie Haden.
The investigation is expected to be completed within the next two weeks and has been prolonged because a SWAT team member is out of town for training. Internal Affairs is conducting the review because the incident involved multiple shots and was inside an occupied residence, Haden said. This allows Internal Affairs sergeants to review the incident independent from the SWAT command.
The Whitworths have not filed a complaint with the department concerning the incident.
And that was all in a very basic Google of "Jonathan Whitworth Missouri Dog Shooting".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote: Hmmm.perhaps the decriminalization of marijuana would help in limiting this sort of incident.
Or maybe people shouldn't be surprised when they actually decide to act against something that's illegal?
FITZZ wrote: Hmmm.perhaps the decriminalization of marijuana would help in limiting this sort of incident.
Or maybe people shouldn't be surprised when they actually decide to act against something that's illegal?
Crazy, right?
Or maybe..people should question why a substance is illegal in the first place,and why so much time,money and resources are utilized in "combating" a substance that,in all probability is less harmful than alcohol?
It doesn't really matter why a substance is illegal.
There's a very simple flow chart:
Is it illegal? If Yes:
Don't be surprised when police come after you, if they're tipped off about it or given faulty intelligence that you're dealing in said illegal substances.
Kanluwen wrote:It doesn't really matter why a substance is illegal.
There's a very simple flow chart:
Is it illegal? If Yes:
Don't be surprised when police come after you, if they're tipped off about it or given faulty intelligence that you're dealing in said illegal substances.
If Not Illegal:
Have fun--but responsibly!
I get what your saying,my point however was that by decrimanlizing marijauna,alot of these types of situations would be avoided.
Plus it would free up a gak load of money,manpower and prison space for dealing with "real" criminals,like "true drug kingpins" and ...well,those "Wall street types".
The problem with the "true drug kingpins" is most of them are in non-extradition countries. We might be able to take out their pipelines here, but they'll be able to find someone else willing to take the place of the nutter who just got shut away.
Kanluwen wrote:I'm being led to a conclusion from the general replies here...
We must not have been watching the same video. Where can I get the deleted scenes you all are seeing with the dogs backing away from the door or running away from the officers after they breach?
Because the video camera never entered until after SWAT had secured the house.
If I didn't see either of the dogs, you all sure as hell didn't see the dogs either.
So pretty much all we've got is a video of SWAT officers securing a house, and then some guy(and by the by--I'm calling BS on the warrant being just for the small amount of pot that apparently was turned up during the course of the search, especially given how the guy was hollering for his lawyer before even being Mirandized.) yelling "YOU SHOT MY DOG YOU SHOT MY DOG!" while two officers keep an eye on his wife+kid.
OK, now your just being ignorant. If you read my post I said the dogs were MOST LIKELY at the door. I did not say they were, but working at a vets office for 2 years and being a pet trainer for 4, I think I know a little bit about how dogs think and react. The suspect was not in the room when the police breached, therefore a pair of smaller dogs would back away from the big scary looking men coming through the door, and the dog was shot within 10 seconds of them breaching, they wouldnt have had time to make it all the way through the kitchen if they were clearing the house properly. the man closest to the dead dog was at the entrance to the kitchen, and when the cam pans over into the kitchen, the dog is not in view. And even IF the cop felt threatened by the pitbull, why did he wait 20 seconds to finish the job?
Your not gonna win this one, just get up and walk away form the computer. Maybe take a walk, read a book, or learn something about proper use of force.
Kanluwen wrote:I'm being led to a conclusion from the general replies here...
We must not have been watching the same video. Where can I get the deleted scenes you all are seeing with the dogs backing away from the door or running away from the officers after they breach?
Because the video camera never entered until after SWAT had secured the house.
If I didn't see either of the dogs, you all sure as hell didn't see the dogs either.
So pretty much all we've got is a video of SWAT officers securing a house, and then some guy(and by the by--I'm calling BS on the warrant being just for the small amount of pot that apparently was turned up during the course of the search, especially given how the guy was hollering for his lawyer before even being Mirandized.) yelling "YOU SHOT MY DOG YOU SHOT MY DOG!" while two officers keep an eye on his wife+kid.
OK, now your just being ignorant. If you read my post I said the dogs were MOST LIKELY at the door. I did not say they were, but working at a vets office for 2 years and being a pet trainer for 4, I think I know a little bit about how dogs think and react. The suspect was not in the room when the police breached, therefore a pair of smaller dogs would back away from the big scary looking men coming through the door, and the dog was shot within 10 seconds of them breaching, they wouldn't have had time to make it all the way through the kitchen if they were clearing the house properly. the man closest to the dead dog was at the entrance to the kitchen, and when the cam pans over into the kitchen, the dog is not in view. And even IF the cop felt threatened by the pitbull, why did he wait 20 seconds to finish the job?
Oh, so you worked at a vet's office for 2 years huh? Well, you must obviously be trained in tactical entries too! That must have been some vet's office you worked at.
Puhleeze. Dogs don't think and react to where people can predict their behavior 100%. Dogs are individuals and have their own personalities. But as a dog trainer for 4 years and a vet tech, you know that right?
And you'll also notice that the cop who shot the pitbull wasn't trying to kill it. He shot it, and then when it *kept coming*, he finished it off.
Dogs can recover from gunshot wounds, given proper treatment. Just like people can.
You're not gonna win this one, just get up and walk away form the computer. Maybe take a walk, read a book, or learn something about proper use of force.
I didn't realize this was a contest? And obviously it's impossible to win a discussion.
When did the dog THAT WAS ALREADY SHOT keep coming? All I hear in the video is alot of yelping. And if you watch it again, you'll hear a loud yelp and see a small shadow back away from the door the moment the door opens. I didnt hear or see the dog attacking an officer, or reading about it in any of the articles. Odds are they slammed the door into one of the dogs, furthering my point of them just backing up, and going further into my point of they didn't need to shoot the dog. I'm going to put this as plainly as I can:
I don't care they used swat to raid the house
I don't care that they didn't detain the wife or kid
But the dog didn't need to be shot.
PS- most of the members of my local gun club are cops, a few are SWAT. So I'm not completely stupid when it comes to this stuff.
Edit- Found a different article. I stand PARTIALLY corrected. The pitbull moved to attack the officers, AFTER they shot it the first time. The corgi was shot in the paw when 1 of the 3 officers shooting at the pitbull missed. But the warrant was old, so they shouldn't have conducted the raid.
Kanluwen wrote:It doesn't really matter why a substance is illegal.
There's a very simple flow chart:
Is it illegal? If Yes:
Don't be surprised when police come after you, if they're tipped off about it or given faulty intelligence that you're dealing in said illegal substances.
If Not Illegal:
Have fun--but responsibly!
It doesn't really play wrt the video, or vitriol, here, but that "flow chart" is fatally flawed. Again, take a look at the Berwyn Heights case. That makes your "Don't be surprised.." bit absolutely meaningless as an excuse to justify extreme police behavior. If one can claim it's okay for police to "come after you" (which apparently includes shooting people's pets when they're not a threat as alleged in the video case and documented in the Berwyn Heights case) due to "faulty intelligence", without being held accountable, then there's absolutely no limit to police behavior.
That is quite simply unacceptable. Police must exercise judgment, and be held accountable when they fail to do so, even that makes their job harder and riskier. That quite simply is the burden that MUST be borne by people who are given positions of unique responsibility and/or power within society.
Oh, and there is that whole, pesky I know, "innocent until proven guilty" clause... When police make a decision to take irrevocable actions like shooting animals or people, or destroying property they, again, should have a very high threshold for accountability. Otherwise, in effect, they are allowed to usurp the punishment portion of our criminal justice system and place it in their own hands.
Kanluwen wrote:It doesn't really matter why a substance is illegal.
There's a very simple flow chart:
Is it illegal? If Yes:
Don't be surprised when police come after you, if they're tipped off about it or given faulty intelligence that you're dealing in said illegal substances.
If Not Illegal:
Have fun--but responsibly!
Of course it matters why a substance is illegal.
Would you let the government make anything it wanted illegal without a good reason?
I reckon the guy was dobbed in by someone who had a grudge against him.
You've got to question how any law-abiding citizen would know that someone was a marijuana dealer, if they weren't buying from him.
The warrant bit was the police chief's official statement to the press. They should have acted faster and not waited until day 8 of 10 because the warrant was old.
And slightly off my persona topic of the dog: Yes, I do believe police need to be held accountable for mishaps alot more then they currently are. I was arrested 3 years ago for stealing a frigging soda and I now cant be a cop, but some of these retards are given a gun and a free pass? There are good cops, stupid cops, and cops that need to be shot. Ive seen all 3 (irony perhaps, that the nicest officer I've ever met was the one that arrested me).
Kanluwen wrote:
Actually...that's what the Sheriff's Department version of SWAT is for.
They can't know every single detail when they're serving warrants. Someone could potentially have any number of illegal firearms, etc that would pose a threat not just to the officers executing the warrant but any civilians in the area too.
Actually, no, that's not what its for. SWAT is not trained to interact with mundane suspects. If they are to interact with said, then they need to be trained in such a way which prepares them to interact with said.
Or we can make the department liable in the course of mistaken warrant service, or matters of questionable judgment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Except *they didn't shoot the Corgi according to any form of fething police report being published*.
The pitbull was shot twice. Once when it went after an officer, and again when it kept coming after being shot.
Uh, the police report states that two dogs were shot. Was there a third dog that was not a Corgi? Is this the new grassy knoll?
Additionally, there are reports that claim the Pit Bull was caged when it was shot.
Kanluwen wrote:It doesn't really matter why a substance is illegal.
There's a very simple flow chart:
Is it illegal? If Yes:
Don't be surprised when police come after you, if they're tipped off about it or given faulty intelligence that you're dealing in said illegal substances.
If Not Illegal:
Have fun--but responsibly!
Of course it matters why a substance is illegal.
Would you let the government make anything it wanted illegal without a good reason?
I reckon the guy was dobbed in by someone who had a grudge against him.
You've got to question how any law-abiding citizen would know that someone was a marijuana dealer, if they weren't buying from him.
Informants don't have to be "law-abiding citizens", Kilkrazy. A lot of information leading to busts comes from people who get busted on routine things like traffic violations or parole violations while having narcotics in their possession.
As for illegalities of marijuana...it doesn't matter. It's been illegal since the early 20th century(I *think*. I haven't looked in a long time when it was first put on a list of controlled substances).
You can't proclaim "Oh my gosh, I didn't realize it's not legal!". It's an illegal substance and has been for a long time.
Kanwulen wrote:As for illegalities of marijuana...it doesn't matter. It's been illegal since the early 20th century(I *think*. I haven't looked in a long time when it was first put on a list of controlled substances).
Mid 20th century (1950's).
You can't proclaim "Oh my gosh, I didn't realize it's not legal!". It's an illegal substance and has been for a long time.
Time is not indicative of logic that would necessitate such a law.
Sure, but you can't be surprised if they're enforcing some crazy things like "laws" while the substance is still considered illegal.
Surely you can be annoyed by the ineffective way, that resources appear to be used, in fighting a war against one's own society though?
I don't care if Joe Shmoe the pothead, gets a misdemeanor charge after his home was raided, and his dogs were shot; a clear waste of resources IMO.
Apparently it was first put down on a controlled substance list in 1925.(I was looking it up right after my post anyways, Wrex so don't take it as an "OMG YOU'RE WRONG!" snipe )
Kanluwen wrote:Sure, but you can't be surprised if they're enforcing some crazy things like "laws" while the substance is still considered illegal.
The distance between you and reason is a yawning gulf that could encompass star systems.
We understand, well most of us, that differing crimes warrant differing punishments. Similarly differing circumstances warrant differing police intervention. Kicking down some average joe's door with 10 armed and armoured men, when he has a wife and kids in the house and then wasting two family dogs, is overkill, draconian and most importantly Poorly Executed.
If it was a biker gang, armed to the teeth, using Tosa dogs on PCP, then fine. This was some bloke sat at home with his wife and child and two household dogs, one of which IS A TOY BREED.
Once again Kanluwen, you stand brazenly in defence of the indefensible, not only that, but taking potshots at people for daring to voice an alternative opinion. Do you stand in you're pulpit and verbally lambast people like that in real life? Because I am very surprised someone hasn't put you on your saintly behind yet...
Sure, but you can't be surprised if they're enforcing some crazy things like "laws" while the substance is still considered illegal.
Surely you can be annoyed by the ineffective way, that resources appear to be used, in fighting a war against one's own society though?
I don't care if Joe Shmoe the pothead, gets a misdemeanor charge after his home was raided, and his dogs were shot; a clear waste of resources IMO.
This is the problem whenever pot comes into any case. You get the "it's harmless!" people who discount the fact that it's still illegal--and that they were under the impression that it was a much bigger operation than it appears to us, as outside observers.
They probably were watching this guy prior to it, if they were willing to listen to an informant--or even get an informant involved in the first place.
Either way, we wouldn't care about the case if the guy was selling cocaine alongside of marijuana, now would we?
Kanluwen wrote:
Apparently it was first put down on a controlled substance list in 1925.(I was looking it up right after my post anyways, Wrex so don't take it as an "OMG YOU'RE WRONG!" snipe )
No worries.
As far as I know, it wasn't illegal until the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, and not heavily enforced until mandatory sentencing was introduced in the 1950's. I see no reason why cops would bust people prior to the 50's, if they had a hard time actually punishing them.
Either way, we wouldn't care about the case if the guy was selling cocaine alongside of marijuana, now would we?
Probably not, but he was caught with next to nothing, so the raid was wasted time along with any other investment.
In other words, this guy is still Joe Shmoe the pothead, to me...
Kanluwen wrote:
Either way, we wouldn't care about the case if the guy was selling cocaine alongside of marijuana, now would we?
Why?
We're discussing why the guys dropped the dogs, the manner of narcotic isn't pertinent to the reasoning or lack thereof of the dickheads who shot the dogs.
Actually, back in 03 he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute weed and coke, went to jail for 15 months. But this thread is about the dogs, not the drugs
Kanluwen wrote:Sure, but you can't be surprised if they're enforcing some crazy things like "laws" while the substance is still considered illegal.
The distance between you and reason is a yawning gulf that could encompass star systems.
I can't hear you, what with being on my side of a yawning gulf crossing the stars.
Stars of actually looking at it reasonably from a police perspective.
We understand, well most of us, that differing crimes warrant differing punishments. Similarly differing circumstances warrant differing police intervention. Kicking down some average joe's door with 10 armed and armoured men, when he has a wife and kids in the house and then wasting two family dogs, is overkill, draconian and most importantly Poorly Executed.
Yes. Differing crimes warrant differing punishments.
That's what happens when someone is being sentenced.
It's also worth noting that the guy copped a plea deal to possession of narcotics "equipment" rather than the possession and child endangerment charge.
Which basically means that he's getting a fine rather than community service, rehabilitation or potentially jailtime.
As for police intervention:
SWAT is no longer intended to be dealing with nutjobs with automatics taking over banks or taking hostages.
They're also used for things like parole violations, executing search warrants(as evidenced here), etc. Otherwise, they can't really justify the cost of having SWAT teams for the emergencies where they'd really be needed period.
If it was a biker gang, armed to the teeth, using Tosa dogs on PCP, then fine. This was some bloke sat at home with his wife and child and two household dogs, one of which IS A TOY BREED.
And once again, we don't know if the guy has a prior history of firearms violations, violence, etc. The officers before they went in were not told there were dogs or a child in the house.
But it really doesn't matter because SWAT teams are who they tap to serve warrants in unknown situations where they can't get someone at work or in a situation where the police are 100% in control of the area and can ensure there's no chance of the guy getting away and potentially harming others.
Once again Kanluwen, you stand brazenly in defense of the indefensible, not only that, but taking potshots at people for daring to voice an alternative opinion. Do you stand in your pulpit and verbally lambast people like that in real life? Because I am very surprised someone hasn't put you on your saintly behind yet...
They're welcome to try to knock me on my ass, I fight dirty.
And when I see an "alternative opinion" that doesn't consist of "RAWR THEY SHOT A DOG THOSE FETHERS!" or "MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD SHOOT THAT OFFICER AND SEE HOW HE LIKES IT!" I'll be happy to take time to respond to it with something akin to what I've been doing with Dogma or Wrex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Actually, back in 03 he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute weed and coke, went to jail for 15 months. But this thread is about the dogs, not the drugs
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I PRESENT TO YOU WHY THEY SENT A SWAT TEAM.
Prior convictions and jailtime(no matter how little) tend to up the ante a bit.
Kanluwen wrote:Sure, but you can't be surprised if they're enforcing some crazy things like "laws" while the substance is still considered illegal.
I don't know. Being a college student I know my fair share of drug dealers, and I'd be surprised if SWAT kicked down their door. At least given the minimal volume they move.
Of course, college students tend to have more than their fair share of protections, and the use of SWAT may vary heavily by region. Us northerners don't like tactical teams.
Kanluwen wrote:Sure, but you can't be surprised if they're enforcing some crazy things like "laws" while the substance is still considered illegal.
I don't know. Being a college student I know my fair share of drug dealers, and I'd be surprised if SWAT kicked down their door. At least given the minimal volume they move.
Of course, college students tend to have more than their fair share of protections, and the use of SWAT may vary heavily by region. Us northerners don't like tactical teams.
If they live on campus, generally the campus police are supposed to take them into custody to turn them over to the police.
But, like you also mentioned--volume and what they're selling means everything.
If they were, say, living off campus and dealing in $50,000+ of marijuana(a month) with a smattering of cocaine sales in there--the DEA might decide to go after them and try to turn them against whoever's supplying them.
All I've been able to find on his record was the '03 charge that he pleaded guilty and did his time with no further complications in the last 7 years. No reason to suspect someone would have gotten shot busting in. Cops could have just knocked on the door at 6pm and asked him nicely to let them search. You saw in the video, he offered no resistance until he saw the dead dog. Still a moot point though. SWAT is SWAT but excessive force is still excessive
Karon wrote:I will not blame the kid in 15 years when he murders every single cop that entered that house.
.
This.
Yes, because murder is totally a reasonable response to your dog getting shot because your dad got snitched on by one of his customers of illegal narcotics.
Oh shi, I think something just broke my Sarcast-O-Meter.
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Actually, back in 03 he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute weed and coke, went to jail for 15 months. But this thread is about the dogs, not the drugs
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I PRESENT TO YOU WHY THEY SENT A SWAT TEAM.
And I'm sure the Officer shouted "This is for what happened back in 03!" as he shot the dog.
...
I don't think why they sent a SWAT team is important, the point is that they shouldn't have shot the dog before It even attempted to attack. It's understandable that a dog will act agressive if a dozen large men charged into there house, shouting and pushing around their owner. Ofcourse It's going to be barking and growling, I would have thought that they'd have had training on this sort of thing...
Karon wrote:I will not blame the kid in 15 years when he murders every single cop that entered that house.
.
This.
Yes, because murder is totally a reasonable response to your dog getting shot because your dad got snitched on by one of his customers of illegal narcotics.
Yes, and murdering the family pet in front of a child wouldn't be traumatic at all.
Karon wrote:I will not blame the kid in 15 years when he murders every single cop that entered that house.
.
This.
Yes, because murder is totally a reasonable response to your dog getting shot because your dad got snitched on by one of his customers of illegal narcotics.
Yes, and murdering the family pet in front of a child wouldn't be traumatic at all.
Funny, because I didn't see them marching the child out and forcing his eyes open while shooting the dog.
In fact, I never even saw the dead dog's body when the kid was out there.
Again, where can I get these deleted scenes and director commentary that some of you are getting?
That there's no evidence of them having done anything in front of the child, outside of arresting the father--who was, again, dealing illegal narcotics.
You can try spinning this however you want, but it all boils down to "man with prior record in dealing illegal narcotics and is currently dealing illegal narcotics has house raided by police".
Your argument for the police being in dire danger from a couple of dogs really doesn't ring true to me. Dogs aren't as dangerous as you're making out at all. Especially not small dogs.
No, according to the articles you posted the Pit Bull acted agressively towards a SWAT member and was then shot, it attacked and they shot it again... killing it.
Karon wrote:I will not blame the kid in 15 years when he murders every single cop that entered that house.
.
This.
Yes, because murder is totally a reasonable response to your dog getting shot because your dad got snitched on by one of his customers of illegal narcotics.
Oh shi, I think something just broke my Sarcast-O-Meter.
everything has conseuences. Shooting willie the wonder poodle in front of Jr. means Jr is going to grow up hating the cops. He might just turn into a cop kiler.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord-Loss wrote:And the police shot his two dogs...
Kanluwen wrote:And just think, if his dad didn't have his house kicked in by cops Willie the Wonder Poodle would be just fine to keep playing with Junior.
And there's still no excuse to keep harping about "OHEMGEE THEY KILLED A CORGI!" because the Corgi's fine after being shot in the leg.
Fixed your typo. There is still a presumption of innocence in this country.
SWAT team acts on a reasonable warrant. (Prior convictions, who the hell wouldn't act on it?)
SWAT teams bursts down door.
Pit Bull goes ballistic, a reasonable threat, gets shot. I assume the Corgi was caught in the initial fire, as the officer later said "Leave the dog. We're good." as the Corgi scurried past. Kid isn't present to see dead/dying Pit Bull.
Seems pretty obvious to me that the SWAT team was in the right. Even the family isn't sure whether to press a civil suit.
@Frazzled: His innocence doesn't actually matter right now. The validity of the warrant, and the reasons for acting upon it, do.
Kanluwen wrote:And just think, if his dad sell illegal narcotics out of the house, Willie the Wonder Poodle would be just fine to keep playing with Junior.
And there's still no excuse to keep harping about "OHEMGEE THEY KILLED A CORGI!" because the Corgi's fine after being shot in the leg.
Fixed your typo. There is still a presumption of innocence in this country.
And a previous conviction for selling narcotics, alongside of a tipoff from an informant leads to a warrant being served on the idea of "reasonable suspicion".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:SWAT team acts on a reasonable warrant. (Prior convictions, who the hell wouldn't act on it?)
SWAT teams bursts down door.
Pit Bull goes ballistic, a reasonable threat, gets shot. I assume the Corgi was caught in the initial fire, as the officer later said "Leave the dog. We're good." as the Corgi scurried past. Kid isn't present to see dead/dying Pit Bull.
Seems pretty obvious to me that the SWAT team was in the right. Even the family isn't sure whether to press a civil suit.
@Frazzled: His innocence doesn't actually matter right now. The validity of the warrant, and the reasons for acting upon it, do.
The general consensus I've been getting from the LEOs I know is the family isn't sure about pressing the suit because if they do, the plea deal to misdemeanor possession of narcotics paraphanelia might be yanked out from under them and the child endangerment+misdemeanor possession would be added into the paraphanelia charge.
Kanluwen wrote:
If they live on campus, generally the campus police are supposed to take them into custody to turn them over to the police.
You and I both know that isn't what happens. Hell, my school just about refused to deal with police in any fashion. Though that might not be true of state schools.
Kanluwen wrote:
If they were, say, living off campus and dealing in $50,000+ of marijuana(a month) with a smattering of cocaine sales in there--the DEA might decide to go after them and try to turn them against whoever's supplying them.
I knew a guy that moved, probably, 10k of cocaine a month. He had a lot of leeway though, thanks to his name.
Kanluwen wrote:
If they live on campus, generally the campus police are supposed to take them into custody to turn them over to the police.
You and I both know that isn't what happens. Hell, my school just about refused to deal with police in any fashion. Though that might not be true of state schools.
Yep, and it leads to alot of BS in regards to sexual assaults that occur on campus.
Dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
If they were, say, living off campus and dealing in $50,000+ of marijuana(a month) with a smattering of cocaine sales in there--the DEA might decide to go after them and try to turn them against whoever's supplying them.
I knew a guy that moved, probably, 10k of cocaine a month. He had a lot of leeway though, thanks to his name.
And therein lies another problem, in my personal opinion. If someone comes from a wealthy or influential family it leads to officers losing jobs or being put on someone's crap list. for not treating them with kid gloves like they deserve some kind of special treatment.
Kanluwen wrote:
Yep, and it leads to alot of BS in regards to sexual assaults that occur on campus.
So...much....date rape. But also a lot of girls who knowingly put themselves into questionable situations whereby "date rape" could easily be claimed, but may not have actually occurred. The whole issue is a mess, and I do not envy those people who deal with it.
Hell, I dated a girl that wanted to be the next Gloria Allred who, early in our relationship, would get mad at me when I wouldn't take advantage of her when intoxicated.
Kanluwen wrote:
And therein lies another problem, in my personal opinion. If someone comes from a wealthy or influential family it leads to officers losing jobs or being put on someone's crap list. for not treating them with kid gloves like they deserve some kind of special treatment.
My nominal policy is to make friends with those people.
Kanluwen wrote:
Yep, and it leads to alot of BS in regards to sexual assaults that occur on campus.
So...much....date rape. But also a lot of girls who knowingly put themselves into questionable situations whereby "date rape" could easily be claimed, but may not have actually occurred. The whole issue is a mess, and I do not envy those people who deal with it.
Hell, I dated a girl that wanted to be the next Gloria Allred who, early in our relationship, would get mad at me when I wouldn't take advantage of her when intoxicated.
Is quite ridiculous.
Dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
And therein lies another problem, in my personal opinion. If someone comes from a wealthy or influential family it leads to officers losing jobs or being put on someone's crap list. for not treating them with kid gloves like they deserve some kind of special treatment.
My nominal policy is to make friends with those people.
I'd try that, but most of the people I know who have any form of wealth or influence?
They're dicks.
I do have a lot of friends whose parents are career law enforcement(two DEA, a FBI, and one who's retired Secret Service). It's always fun getting to discuss potentially going into law enforcement with them.
This infuriates me to no end. Just another story of a trigger happy nutjob who feels like he can do whatever he wants cuz he's got a badge and a boomstick. A corgi? Really? Corgis are one of the most nonthreatening breeds out there. And why were they going after this guy in the first place? cuz he's got a few ounces and a pipe? ridiculous. .
rubiksnoob wrote:This infuriates me to no end. Just another story of a trigger happy nutjob who feels like he can do whatever he wants cuz he's got a badge and a boomstick. A corgi? Really? Corgis are one of the most nonthreatening breeds out there. And why were they going after this guy in the first place? cuz he's got a few ounces and a pipe? ridiculous. .
Learn
To
Read
Threads
Before
Commenting
The corgi was shot when the officers shot the Pit Bull. The corgi is not dead, it was injured but is perfectly okay.
And again:
Pot is illegal. You understand that, right?
You also, if you had read, would have noticed that the SWAT team received a warrant to raid the house because of an informant who said that the man who they went after was dealing in high volumes.
And again, if you had actually read...the guy had a prior conviction for dealing marijuana and cocaine.
rubiksnoob wrote:This infuriates me to no end. Just another story of a trigger happy nutjob who feels like he can do whatever he wants cuz he's got a badge and a boomstick. A corgi? Really? Corgis are one of the most nonthreatening breeds out there. And why were they going after this guy in the first place? cuz he's got a few ounces and a pipe? ridiculous. .
Learn
To
Read
Threads
Before
Commenting
QFT.
I have to admit, that little bit Off topic sugar speech was entertaining.
@dogma: I'm afraid I'm not up to sketch here. Who is Gloria Allred?
Kanluwen wrote:It doesn't really matter why a substance is illegal.
There's a very simple flow chart:
Is it illegal? If Yes:
Don't be surprised when police come after you, if they're tipped off about it or given faulty intelligence that you're dealing in said illegal substances.
If Not Illegal:
Have fun--but responsibly!
Yes! Never ever question the value of a law.
What the hell, man? You have a really odd fetishisation of the law going on here.
You can question the value of a law, you can actively try to get it repealed or amended.
But violating it while it's still a law is still...well, crazily enough breaking the law.
Selective enforcement of laws by law enforcement officers is what leads to this whole situation with marijuana in the United States being a fiasco.
A lot of officers won't bother arresting or enforcing the laws against marijuana specifically because it's considered by the mainstream to be "harmless"(I can't speak as to it being harmless or not. I've never taken drugs stronger than Advil or a mild painkiller when I had my wisdom teeth removed in December). The exception to that rule is if you're moving high volumes of marijuana right in front of them(like an idiot), dealing while on parole/probation, or dealing marijuana in addition to harder drugs.
It leads to this whole "well, you don't enforce it all the time so just legalize it!" crap.
He's not saying don't question the law. Kanluwen is making a point, and a valid one at that, which is that if you do break the law don't act shocked when there are consequences.
Kanluwen wrote:Except *they didn't shoot the Corgi according to any form of fething police report being published*.
The pitbull was shot twice. Once when it went after an officer, and again when it kept coming after being shot.
It was in your own stories. Read your own stories.
"A second dog, which Whitworth’s attorney Jeff Hilbrenner described as a corgi, also was shot but was not killed."
"The chief, who is personally conducting an internal investigation into the incident, said three officers shot at the pit bull; the first missed completely, which is when the corgi is believed to have been shot in the paw."
"SWAT members stormed into the home at 8:30 p.m. Feb. 11 and shot two of Whitworth’s dogs."
"A second dog was shot in the leg but was not killed."
Kanluwen wrote:Except *they didn't shoot the Corgi according to any form of fething police report being published*.
The pitbull was shot twice. Once when it went after an officer, and again when it kept coming after being shot.
It was in your own stories. Read your own stories.
"A second dog, which Whitworth’s attorney Jeff Hilbrenner described as a corgi, also was shot but was not killed."
"The chief, who is personally conducting an internal investigation into the incident, said three officers shot at the pit bull; the first missed completely, which is when the corgi is believed to have been shot in the paw."
"SWAT members stormed into the home at 8:30 p.m. Feb. 11 and shot two of Whitworth’s dogs."
"A second dog was shot in the leg but was not killed."
Perhaps I should edit it to read 'they didn't shoot at'.
Kanluwen wrote:"Old" was if the warrant was 10 days or over.
As it is, the warrant was still valid.
Not really. Ten days is the length of time police had to execute the warrant. It took them eight days, likely because they had a long list of other people suspected of non-violent crimes to raid first.
'Old' is the what the police are claiming, as their defence for why there was just a small amount of dope in the house and nothing to justify a squad of dudes with automatic weapons kicking the door down. "Oh, it isn't that are information was based on something as unreliable as a single snitch, it's that there was totally a drug empire in that house, but it moved before we got around to raiding the house!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:And just think, if his dad wasn't dealing drugs out of the house Willie the Wonder Poodle would be just fine to keep playing with Junior.
Dude, they reacted to an informant's report of dope dealing with a squad of guys automatic weapons.
dogma wrote:Intent isn't really relevant here. If you can't control your automatic weapon in a police action, you shouldn't be issued with an automatic weapon.
Even with tight groupings, it's possible for a shot to go wild or the pit bull could have just moved and the corgi got in the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:"Old" was if the warrant was 10 days or over.
As it is, the warrant was still valid.
Not really. Ten days is the length of time police had to execute the warrant. It took them eight days, likely because they had a long list of other people suspected of non-violent crimes to raid first.
'Old' is the what the police are claiming, as their defense for why there was just a small amount of dope in the house and nothing to justify a squad of dudes with automatic weapons kicking the door down. "Oh, it isn't that are information was based on something as unreliable as a single snitch, it's that there was totally a drug empire in that house, but it moved before we got around to raiding the house!"
Keep reading the thread and catching up.
They got information about a prior convicted cocaine+marijuana dealer who served jail time.
Sebster wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:And just think, if his dad wasn't dealing drugs out of the house Willie the Wonder Poodle would be just fine to keep playing with Junior.
Dude, they reacted to an informant's report of dope dealing with a squad of guys automatic weapons.
Again:
SWAT serves warrants. SWAT is, in this day and age, used in more and more roles where there's the potential of violence that could spill over and cause harm to civilians.
And before you say it:
"Civilians" being people who aren't stupid enough to deal drugs out of their home.
Emperors Faithful wrote:They didn't mean to shoot the Corgi. Surely even animal activists such as MGS can understand lethal action against a Pit Bull in a hostile situation?
Kanluwen was claiming at that point that the dog wasn't even shot. After lecturing us all on how easy it was to get information on the event. Which he then posted, but didn't read, because he got a basic facts of the case wrong that was mentioned in every article he posted.
And yes, I can understand using lethal action against a pit bull in a hostile situation. I have no idea why a snitch's report on dope dealing was so important that it justifies sending a squad of guys with automatic weapons into the house, when it was so unimportant they waited eight days after receiving the warrant to bother acting on it.
Kanluwen wrote:
Even with tight groupings, it's possible for a shot to go wild or the pit bull could have just moved and the corgi got in the way.
I don't care. If you want to be a part of an elite group, you must maintain elite standards. Missing your target is not generally regarded as a qualifier for elite status.
At the very least the incident should be investigated, and the shooter should be forced to re-certify on his MP5.
Also: it doesn't say what the shooter hit the Corgi with. It's entirely possible it was a high powered rifle round, as some of them were packing M4s it looked like.
In which case, it could've gone right through the Pit Bull and hit the Corgi.
Kanluwen wrote:Perhaps I should edit it to read 'they didn't shoot at'.
I don't feel like it though, so deal with it.
As long as you recognise your error and set about reading your own stories in future before posting them, I think I can deal.
I read my own stories, actually. I get tired of having to constantly correct misconceptions and idiotic generalizations about things however.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Well good thing that the incident has been under investigation since before the tape even went public?
Yes.
That's a part of this whole thing that really irks me. This whole situation when I've seen it on the news is being broadcast as something like "OMG THEY'RE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT!".
1)They've changed SWAT deployment strategies.
and
2)They've been investigating the incident since it happened, not since it "made headlines".
Part 1 shows that they recognized the error and part 2 shows that they're actively trying to correct things like this from ever happening again.
Kanluwen wrote:Also: it doesn't say what the shooter hit the Corgi with. It's entirely possible it was a high powered rifle round, as some of them were packing M4s it looked like.
In which case, it could've gone right through the Pit Bull and hit the Corgi.
Well, the shooter clearly hit the Corgi, even if he didn't aim at it. Being conscientious of your weapon, and it penetration potential is critical to safe usage in police work, so over-penetration isn't really a defense here.
I'd also add that there didn't seem to be a reason to breach with M4's. I understand bringing them, but there was no need to make entry with them, the dude wasn't especially likely to be rocking body armor.
Kanluwen wrote:Uh, probably because it's the law as written?
You can question the value of a law, you can actively try to get it repealed or amended.
But violating it while it's still a law is still...well, crazily enough breaking the law.
Yes, and when someone says that it's crazy that it's illegal when it produces situations like this, and you respond with 'but it is illegal' you end up sounding like someone that really, really liked Judge Dredd and really, really didn't understand it.
Kanluwen wrote:That's a part of this whole thing that really irks me. This whole situation when I've seen it on the news is being broadcast as something like "OMG THEY'RE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT!".
1)They've changed SWAT deployment strategies.
and
2)They've been investigating the incident since it happened, not since it "made headlines".
Part 1 shows that they recognized the error and part 2 shows that they're actively trying to correct things like this from ever happening again.
Dude, welcome to my world. Do you know how painful it is to read IA articles, and comments, as an IA scholar? Seriously, there are people that I want to kill whom I've never met.
Kanluwen wrote:Uh, probably because it's the law as written?
You can question the value of a law, you can actively try to get it repealed or amended.
But violating it while it's still a law is still...well, crazily enough breaking the law.
Yes, and when someone says that it's crazy that it's illegal when it produces situations like this, and you respond with 'but it is illegal' you end up sounding like someone that really, really liked Judge Dredd and really, really didn't understand it.
Again:
Prior convictions for dealing marijuana and cocaine.
It doesn't state what the informant tipped the police off about, and the police aren't likely to tout what was said to be present.
All the stated article was that "they found a small amount of marijuana, grinders, pipes, and scales".
Kanluwen wrote:SWAT, at least the guys I know from the SRTs here in NC believe in "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it".
Well obviously, but you don't lead a breach with a contingency weapon.
Kanluwen wrote:That's a part of this whole thing that really irks me. This whole situation when I've seen it on the news is being broadcast as something like "OMG THEY'RE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT!".
1)They've changed SWAT deployment strategies.
and
2)They've been investigating the incident since it happened, not since it "made headlines".
Part 1 shows that they recognized the error and part 2 shows that they're actively trying to correct things like this from ever happening again.
Dude, welcome to my world. Do you know how painful it is to read IA articles, and comments, as an IA scholar? Seriously, there are people that I want to kill whom I've never met.
Are we talking Imperial Armour or Internal Affairs or what?
Kanluwen wrote:SWAT, at least the guys I know from the SRTs here in NC believe in "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it".
Well obviously, but you don't lead a breach with a contingency weapon.
The first guy in seemed to be the shotgunner. In which case, barring a medical examiner report on the Pit Bull, he could've hit it with a breaching round.
Depending on how he loaded the shotgun, at least. To use another SRT example, here's how the guy I know who usually is point/breaching loads his:
Breaching Round-Breaching Round-Rubber-Rubber-Slug-Slug.
Then he's got a speedloader setup for it with the same, but in reverse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:International Affairs, with an emphasis on the Middle East; especially Iran.
I'm disappointed. I want to meet an Imperial Armour Scholar.
Kanluwen wrote:SWAT, at least the guys I know from the SRTs here in NC believe in "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it".
Well obviously, but you don't lead a breach with a contingency weapon.
"Dynamite, son... this is dynamite. With all my experience, I know that it isn't smart NOT to have it."
Kanluwen wrote:Keep reading the thread and catching up.
They got information about a prior convicted cocaine+marijuana dealer who served jail time.
I just keep posting when I notice stuff that's been said that's wrong. You're coming up a lot, sorry about that.
Meanwhile, your post stating the conditions of the warrant has little or no relation to my correction of your error on the use of 'old' by the police. Why did you post that?
Again:
SWAT serves warrants. SWAT is, in this day and age, used in more and more roles where there's the potential of violence that could spill over and cause harm to civilians.
And before you say it:
"Civilians" being people who aren't stupid enough to deal drugs out of their home.
Wow. You really don't understand what a civilian is, do you.
And yes, SWAT is being used to serve warrants that could break out into violence. What is being questioned is the judgement on what warrants could break out into violence. A guy moving dope, according to a single snitch, with a prior seven years ago for dope and coke, with no record of violence. Very dubious.
Kanluwen wrote:SWAT, at least the guys I know from the SRTs here in NC believe in "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it".
Well obviously, but you don't lead a breach with a contingency weapon.
"Dynamite, son... this is dynamite. With all my experience, I know that it isn't smart NOT to have it."
Dynamite's for punks! They can get their hands on breaching charges
Kanluwen wrote:
The first guy in seemed to be the shotgunner. In which case, barring a medical examiner report on the Pit Bull, he could've hit it with a breaching round.
I thought that as well, but the pause outside the entrance after the breach was made seemed to indicate that the point man was not the shooter.
Kanluwen wrote:
I'm disappointed. I want to meet an Imperial Armour Scholar.
Maybe I should make a hat saying it...
If it paid as much as International Affairs did, I would do it.
Kanluwen wrote:Well good thing that the incident has been under investigation since before the tape even went public?
It's so cute how you think 'under investigation' actually means people can assume it is under investigation. Of course, a lot of the time it does, but not every police department has a culture of maintaining high standards. Some will investigate misconduct with the intent of clearing the police of wrong-doing.
Public pressure can be very important in bringing that culture into police departments.
Why the second breaching round? Are they unreliable?
"Door opens... guys with guns standing in front of you... SURPRISE FIRECRACKER!" , I can't imagine it doing much damage.
Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...
If they breach, and there's a target right there wearing body armor--a shot to the chest will stun the guy long enough for him to get followed up on by a rubber baton round to the head or the follow-up officer to subdue him.
If they breach and there's a target there not wearing body armor, he unloads the round into a wall or the next door he spots ASAP and then nails the target with a rubber baton round.
Kanluwen wrote:I read my own stories, actually. I get tired of having to constantly correct misconceptions and idiotic generalizations about things however.
What? I pointed out you made a mistake by claiming something that wasn directly contradicted by your own posted articles, and you're defending that by saying you're tired of constantly correcting misconceptions?
'I only made a mistake because I was tired of people making mistakes.'
Dude, it's alright. You made a small error. You just say 'yep, I made a small error' and then you move on.
Kanluwen wrote:I read my own stories, actually. I get tired of having to constantly correct misconceptions and idiotic generalizations about things however.
What? I pointed out you made a mistake by claiming something that wasn't directly contradicted by your own posted articles, and you're defending that by saying you're tired of constantly correcting misconceptions?
'I only made a mistake because I was tired of people making mistakes.'
Dude, it's alright. You made a small error. You just say 'yep, I made a small error' and then you move on.
Do you even read your posts or what you reply to?
I said, not too long ago actually in reply to your first statement that "I should have stated that 'They did not shoot *at* the Corgi'."
I've been making a lot of posts in this thread. I do not have the time or inclination to go back and check every single one to make sure my facts lined up 100%.
Kanwulen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...
As far as I knew, they are powdered steel that is designed for very short ranges. Shot fires, powder punches, then disperses.
If they breach, and there's a target right there wearing body armor--a shot to the chest will stun the guy long enough for him to get followed up on by a rubber baton round to the head or the follow-up officer to subdue him.
If they breach and there's a target there not wearing body armor, he unloads the round into a wall or the next door he spots ASAP and then nails the target with a rubber baton round.
Makes sense I guess, not that I have a huge amount of experience with this stuff.
Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...
No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.
And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.
Kanwulen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...
As far as I knew, they are powdered steel that is designed for very short ranges. Shot fires, powder punches, then disperses.
Then these guys are making their own, which are solid steel slugs...
Wrexasaur wrote:
If they breach, and there's a target right there wearing body armor--a shot to the chest will stun the guy long enough for him to get followed up on by a rubber baton round to the head or the follow-up officer to subdue him.
If they breach and there's a target there not wearing body armor, he unloads the round into a wall or the next door he spots ASAP and then nails the target with a rubber baton round.
Makes sense I guess, not that I have a huge amount of experience with this stuff.
It's an interesting method, that's for sure. And it makes a good deal of sense, because if nothing else two quick shotgun discharges usually throws anyone in the target building off their game right off.
Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...
No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.
And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.
Hmm... it would make more sense to just take out the lock, wouldn't it? That would explain having two breaching shells in a clip though.
Not exactly a standardized shell, but it certainly isn't a solid slug.
Kanluwen wrote:Then these guys are making their own, which are solid steel slugs...
So they aren't breaching shells. The purpose of a breaching shell is safety, not lethality. Firing a slug into a lock sounds pretty freaking dangerous.
Kanluwen wrote:Do you even read your posts or what you reply to?
I said, not too long ago actually in reply to your first statement that "I should have stated that 'They did not shoot *at* the Corgi'."
Yes, which was then followed a snide comment.
I've been making a lot of posts in this thread. I do not have the time or inclination to go back and check every single one to make sure my facts lined up 100%.
Sure, this is just a forum, there's no standard for 100% accuracy. It would suck if there was. But in a post where someone is correcting other people's mistakes... maybe there's a greater expectation someone will be correct?
And maybe there could also be an expectation that if someone values accuracy enough to correct others, they'll accept correction of their own mistakes?
Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...
No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.
And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.
Sorry, I'm going to listen to the guy actually using the shotgun than some random guy on the Internet.
He says it's a solid steel slug--then he's firing a solid steel slug.
And by the by:
The area it's being fired at depends on the kind of door.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Do you even read your posts or what you reply to?
I said, not too long ago actually in reply to your first statement that "I should have stated that 'They did not shoot *at* the Corgi'."
Yes, which was then followed a snide comment.
I've been making a lot of posts in this thread. I do not have the time or inclination to go back and check every single one to make sure my facts lined up 100%.
Sure, this is just a forum, there's no standard for 100% accuracy. It would suck if there was. But in a post where someone is correcting other people's mistakes... maybe there's a greater expectation someone will be correct?
And maybe there could also be an expectation that if someone values accuracy enough to correct others, they'll accept correction of their own mistakes?
For someone who's doing alot of correcting, you sure do manage to be wrong quite a bit.
Wrexasaur wrote:Hmm... it would make more sense to just take out the lock, wouldn't it? That would explain having two breaching shells in a clip though.
You can't always be certain that there's only one lock. Sometimes you'll get latches and deadbolts that aren't visible from the outside. But you always know there's two hinges.
If he is firing a solid steel shell, then he isn't using a breaching round. It isn't uncommon for operators to misrepresent their equipment.
Also, calm down dudes. The pit bull is dead, and you can't bring it back with hot air.
sebster wrote:
You can't always be certain that there's only one lock. Sometimes you'll get latches and deadbolts that aren't visible from the outside. But you always know there's two hinges.
dogma wrote:If he is firing a solid steel shell, then he isn't using a breaching round. It isn't uncommon for operators to misrepresent their equipment.
He uses it to breach doors.
Thus, breaching round!
I mean, if he was using it to peg hippies--it'd be a Hippypegger. Isn't that how the whole naming convention works?
As for the safety of it:
From what I've seen of how he uses it, he fires it at an angle from the upper left of a doorknob. It impacts the lock at a downward angle and blows it out that way.
Dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:
You can't always be certain that there's only one lock. Sometimes you'll get latches and deadbolts that aren't visible from the outside. But you always know there's two hinges.
My door has three. Screw you SWAT!
My guinea pig is safe!
Three hinges?
You devious fiend.
I guess that means they'll need the breaching charges
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:Your not gonna win this one, just get up and walk away form the computer. Maybe take a walk, read a book, or learn something about proper use of force.
Goin in MY sig!! lol
Frazzled wrote:There is still a presumption of innocence in this country.
That's funny.... there wasn't when I had my 3 years (wish I could say day) in court.
Kanluwen wrote:That there's no evidence of them having done anything in front of the child, outside of arresting the father--who was, again, dealing illegal narcotics.
You can try spinning this however you want, but it all boils down to "man with prior record in dealing illegal narcotics and is currently dealing illegal narcotics has house raided by police".
There's no evidence he is currently dealing, apart from the tip-off, which was proved wrong by the search.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:
sebster wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...
No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.
And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.
Sorry, I'm going to listen to the guy actually using the shotgun than some random guy on the Internet.
He says it's a solid steel slug--then he's firing a solid steel slug.
And he could be wrong too.
Consider doing some research to find out how doors are breached.
Kanluwen wrote:Well, some locks take more than one round. And breaching rounds are pretty much a solid steel slug...
No, it isn't. It's powdered metal or similar, the whole point being that it will disperse after being fired, so there's no risk of the round travelling on to hit someone else.
And it's typically two rounds as it's fired at the hinges, not the lock.
Sorry, I'm going to listen to the guy actually using the shotgun than some random guy on the Internet.
He says it's a solid steel slug--then he's firing a solid steel slug.
And he could be wrong too.
Consider doing some research to find out how doors are breached.
Kanluwen wrote:I don't need to do research as I've seen how it's done in training exercises using said solid steel slugs.
I think you might be confusing 'a round used to breach' with 'a round specifically built as a breaching round, which means a round designed to have full force for about a foot before dissipating'.
Seeing the former in action might lead you to think that's what a breaching round, when a breaching round is actually built with the specific design goal of dissipating in an extremely short distance after leaving the barrel.
Kanluwen wrote:Well good thing that the incident has been under investigation since before the tape even went public?
It's so cute how you think 'under investigation' actually means people can assume it is under investigation. Of course, a lot of the time it does, but not every police department has a culture of maintaining high standards. Some will investigate misconduct with the intent of clearing the police of wrong-doing.
Public pressure can be very important in bringing that culture into police departments.
Well in Kanluwen's defense, more and more weed running is being done with these sorts of guys now:
. They are way more violent and heavily armed.
Kill all those who wear fur, because they may just BITE YOUR HEAD OFF!!! JESUS CHRIST!
But they're animals you have to be careful with--particularly if it's not anyone you know's.
. They are way more violent and heavily armed.
