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.

Skarwael wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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?

OK, so it wasn't directly in front of the child, but my point still stands.

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".

And the police shot his two dogs...

Okay? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd your point is?

Are you a cat person, then?

Nope, I have 3 Golden Retrievers

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.

Except the dog that was shot and killed was a Pit Bull.

After it first attacked an officer, was shot, and then kept coming.

The Corgi apparently was hit in the leg, but otherwise okay.

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.

And you just again proved my point

If a person with a knife during a raid acted aggressively towards a SWAT member--they'd get shot.

Why should it be any different with a dog?

Kanluwen wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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...

In front of his kid.

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.

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.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Kanluwen wrote:
I'd try that, but most of the people I know who have any form of wealth or influence?

They're dicks.

Word, for the most part anyway.

The trick is to master your guffaw.

First you get the guffaw, then you get the sugar, then you get the money, then you get the women.



Photographic evidence of said approach to life.

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.

Kanluwen wrote:

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?

Gloria Allred is a lawyer famous for taking a hard stand on women's rights.

Ah, so she wanted you to take advantage of her while she was drunk, in the hopes of experiencing her first court case?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just realised how bad that sounds out of context.

Seemingly, yes.

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.

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.

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.