Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/07 00:28:03
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
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.
Cute or not, dogs have no rights. I'd happily see all dogs on the planet peeled, salted and thrown into the sun.
1500pts
Gwar! wrote:Debate it all you want, I just report what the rules actually say. It's up to others to tie their panties in a Knot. I stopped caring long ago.
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.
What the hell, man?
People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made.
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.
You want another good case of the "War" on Drugs gone bad, Google "Cheye Calvo" or "Berwyn Heights Drug Raid".
It has it all, including the massacre of completely nonthreatening dogs, one of which was shot in the back as it ran away from the police.
The crime that Cheye committed to justify the police raid? Bringing in a package, addressed to his wife, that had been delivered to his house.
Cheye is a old friend of my wife's and is the absolute last person who'd be involved in the drug trade. Heck, he's the MAYOR of Berwyn Heights...
And, for the record, the police did an internal "investigation" and found their officers did "nothing" wrong. Cheye's filed a suit.
Anyone who thinks the "War on Drugs" is working needs to wake up...
Valete,
JohnS
Valete,
JohnS
"You don't believe data - you test data. If I could put my finger on the moment we genuinely <expletive deleted> ourselves, it was the moment we decided that data was something you could use words like believe or disbelieve around"
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 am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/07 03:13:27
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/07 06:33:18
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/05/07 07:03:16
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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"
======= sorry..... touchy subject
"If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie." - Insaniak, Dakka Mod
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.
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
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?
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/07 13:14:54
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/07 14:40:32
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/07 15:06:30
1500pts
Eldritch Raiders 2500
Ogre Kingdoms 1500
LotR-Mordor 750 
Kill all those who wear fur, because they may just BITE YOUR HEAD OFF!!! JESUS CHRIST!
