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.

Having served on a swat team, and assuming this story is indeed true, I have to question the training of this supposed swat team. As was stated above, you never toss a flash bang into a room we were trained the give a quick peak into the room to make sure we weren't going to hit someone with it, or toss it into a meth lab and blow the whole place up, and slid it across the floor. Also, you usually bang the front door, not te bed rooms, which makes me question if this actually happened. All of this happens after extensive observation of the house to e hit, specifically looking for children or innocent parties that may be in the house. There has usually been a undercover in the house so they have at least a basic idea of the lay out.

A local police department lost an officer a couple years ago when a bang grenade on his vest went off accidentally and blew a hole in his chest, killing him. This is yet another thing that makes me question this. A two year old survived a direct blast that killed a full grown man? Possible but I doubt it.

Harming a innocent child is my biggest fear.

 Asherian Command wrote:
No you cannot compare a substance that is made for narcotics compared to alcohol. Its own thing, its not as easy as just regulating it, taxing it and controlling it.

Why not? Give an actual legitimate reason why two substances that were illicit, used by the public in contravention of the law of the day, required a massive investment in the criminal process to tackle cannot be compared.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Because you will still have drug lords in mexico.

We still have moonshiners in Kentucky. Are most people doing and picking up beer in a liquor store or meeting someone by a copper still in the boonies?

 Asherian Command wrote:
You will still have people who will avoid it.

I don't imagine that the overwhelming majority of people will avoid a safer, cheaper product that is more readily available.

 Asherian Command wrote:
If you put up a price even if it was cheap. People would avoid it.

You mean someone is going to pay more for an illicit version that is more difficult to obtain, more expensive, and may not be as effective?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Its not so simple. If it was we would of done it by now.

If it was a matter of convenience alone we would have done it, Instead it is a moral and political football

 Asherian Command wrote:
If we allow it to be legalized it will lead to more crime. Not less.

How?

 Asherian Command wrote:
As this would only act as an incentive for the drug lords. The primary contributors. It will only add to the bloodshed in mexico.

You mean when their funds dry up and they cannot afford bribes for officials? Cannot afford their foot soldiers? Cannot sustain their empires? What do you think happened after Prohibition ended? The moonshiners lost out and couldn't compete. Everything that you have predicted did not happen. Instead it was the opposite.

But but, gotta hate the marijuana!

It doesn't matter if legalisation might actually help people in Mexico being murdered by the cartel, that's just an excuse for RAGE AGAINST THE DRUG.

Marijuana is BS! There i was, all pumped up after hearing all the stuff in anti-drug class in school and what did i get?

Sex parties? Nope
Hallucinations? Nope
Nothing that was told to me in anti drug class! It was from that point on I decided school was BS. War on drugs, more like lies on drugs.

There is some compelling evidence that it causes some minor damage to the brain.

I'm not sure if that was a dig at me or not

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is some compelling evidence that it causes some minor damage to the brain.

Indeed, alcohol is pretty dangerous.

as is marijuana

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
There is some compelling evidence that it causes some minor damage to the brain.

Indeed, alcohol is pretty dangerous.

as is marijuana

Alcohol makes me stronger, smarter, and more attractive to the ladies. That's just science.

To protect and serve the budget for war on crime!

Raven911 wrote:
As was stated above, you never toss a flash bang into a room we were trained the give a quick peak into the room to make sure we weren't going to hit someone with it, or toss it into a meth lab and blow the whole place up

A great counterpoint, especially when you're serving on drug offenders to begin with.

That being said, the police do not dispute the flashbang landed in the crib and caused the injuries to the child - so just because something's sort of a bad idea doesn't negate that they did it, anyway.

And if that is indeed the case they f-ed up big time. Some guys get too jacked up on the whole thing, those guys scare me. I'll take the calm and controlled guys anytime, which was what my old team was. The leaders did a good job weeding the trouble makers out of the application process.

My prayers to the baby.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
B-b-but druuuuugs!

Legalize, regulate, and tax them

Which ones?

Pot? Sure.

Crack? Hell no.

This is one of the few times I actually appreciate British/Northern Irish police. British police do not carry weapons or conduct drugs raids armed with flashbangs and military grade weaponry. The average drug raid has a small hand-held battering ram and tasers and are only fired when faced with threat. Armed RESPONSE teams are available in RESPONSE to major threats such as automatic weapons. And any example of extreme force and the resultant harm to the baby and threats against the family would be immediately investigated by every newspaper and politician and their mothers and the cops hung out to dry and to face the angry mobs.
Here in NI we see a little more heavy-handed due to the sectarian tensions. For example, last December during the flag protests (where Loyalists [to the British Crown and Westminster] protested the Irish Republican Sinn Fein government's decision.to only fly the British flag on City Hall on designated days instead of 365 days), police patrolled in ones or twos, with one armed with MP5s. And the police almost universally use armoured Land Rovers, but its.

 Deadshot wrote:
This is one of the few times I actually appreciate British/Northern Irish police. British police do not carry weapons or conduct drugs raids armed with flashbangs and military grade weaponry. The average drug raid has a small hand-held battering ram and tasers and are only fired when faced with threat. Armed RESPONSE teams are available in RESPONSE to major threats such as automatic weapons. And any example of extreme force and the resultant harm to the baby and threats against the family would be immediately investigated by every newspaper and politician and their mothers and the cops hung out to dry and to face the angry mobs.
Here in NI we see a little more heavy-handed due to the sectarian tensions. For example, last December during the flag protests (where Loyalists [to the British Crown and Westminster] protested the Irish Republican Sinn Fein government's decision.to only fly the British flag on City Hall on designated days instead of 365 days), police patrolled in ones or twos, with one armed with MP5s. And the police almost universally use armoured Land Rovers, but its.

Not being confrontational
Ours do not in public patrol equipped with a automatic nor roll in a armor vehicle

 Deadshot wrote:
This is one of the few times I actually appreciate British/Northern Irish police. British police do not carry weapons or conduct drugs raids armed with flashbangs and military grade weaponry. The average drug raid has a small hand-held battering ram and tasers and are only fired when faced with threat. Armed RESPONSE teams are available in RESPONSE to major threats such as automatic weapons. And any example of extreme force and the resultant harm to the baby and threats against the family would be immediately investigated by every newspaper and politician and their mothers and the cops hung out to dry and to face the angry mobs.
Here in NI we see a little more heavy-handed due to the sectarian tensions. For example, last December during the flag protests (where Loyalists [to the British Crown and Westminster] protested the Irish Republican Sinn Fein government's decision.to only fly the British flag on City Hall on designated days instead of 365 days), police patrolled in ones or twos, with one armed with MP5s. And the police almost universally use armoured Land Rovers, but its.

US police on an typical day are armed the same as the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland - but I still think the acronym should have been NIPS ) with a 9mm pistol. Lest we forget the British police have made their fair share of mistakes when it comes to armed intervention;
- Jean Charles de Menezes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)
- Harry Stanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Stanley)
- James Ashley (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/mar/05/police-shooting-james-ashley)

Let's hope these incidents are not causing the police to become like corporations with little to no oversight.

Oh, looks like someone already had that bright idea. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/

sqir666 wrote:
Let's hope these incidents are not causing the police to become like corporations with little to no oversight.

Oh, looks like someone already had that bright idea. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/

I really think it will be interesting to see how that develops. They are employed directly by the State as public officers, paid from the public purse, and exercise a public function.

That's what troubles me about this development.Though, i will be watching this very closely.

All the bad gak from Shadowrun keeps coming true but there are still no hot elf chicks.

 Manchu wrote:
All the bad gak from Shadowrun keeps coming true but there are still no hot elf chicks.

Maybe once we do more genetic manipulation/Stem cell research. We can even rely on cosplay until then

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
This is one of the few times I actually appreciate British/Northern Irish police. British police do not carry weapons or conduct drugs raids armed with flashbangs and military grade weaponry. The average drug raid has a small hand-held battering ram and tasers and are only fired when faced with threat. Armed RESPONSE teams are available in RESPONSE to major threats such as automatic weapons. And any example of extreme force and the resultant harm to the baby and threats against the family would be immediately investigated by every newspaper and politician and their mothers and the cops hung out to dry and to face the angry mobs.
Here in NI we see a little more heavy-handed due to the sectarian tensions. For example, last December during the flag protests (where Loyalists [to the British Crown and Westminster] protested the Irish Republican Sinn Fein government's decision.to only fly the British flag on City Hall on designated days instead of 365 days), police patrolled in ones or twos, with one armed with MP5s. And the police almost universally use armoured Land Rovers, but its.

US police on an typical day are armed the same as the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland - but I still think the acronym should have been NIPS ) with a 9mm pistol. Lest we forget the British police have made their fair share of mistakes when it comes to armed intervention;
- Jean Charles de Menezes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)
- Harry Stanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Stanley)
- James Ashley (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/mar/05/police-shooting-james-ashley)

No question, British police can makes mistakes. No arguement there.

@Jahidin

The armour is left over from the 70s and 80s during the Troubles, where the police were regularly bombed and shot at. Its easier to keep the armoured cars than replace with regular sedans, and the armour could prove useful. Better to have and not need as the saying goes.
The automatic is purely during that one time, to prevent the instigation of riots, as riots were high. Many people still have weapons from the Troubles. Again, better to have and not need, in case soke ex-paramilitaries decide to break out some Yugos during the middle of a protest (riot).

 Deadshot wrote:
@Jahidin

The armour is left over from the 70s and 80s during the Troubles, where the police were regularly bombed and shot at. Its easier to keep the armoured cars than replace with regular sedans, and the armour could prove useful. Better to have and not need as the saying goes.
The automatic is purely during that one time, to prevent the instigation of riots, as riots were high. Many people still have weapons from the Troubles. Again, better to have and not need, in case soke ex-paramilitaries decide to break out some Yugos during the middle of a protest (riot).

Like when the landrovers went from battleship grey to white with regular markings

Here is something that I say when people say it will stop Cartels in mexico.
Do you really think that just stopping their supply will make the go away? They are addicted to power, if they cant make money off drugs they will from human trafficking.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Here is something that I say when people say it will stop Cartels in mexico.
Do you really think that just stopping their supply will make the go away? They are addicted to power, if they cant make money off drugs they will from human trafficking.

I don't think the claim is that the Cartels will go away, but it would give them 1 less source of revenue. It's unlikely the Cartels could maintain a legal drug business and all their illegal businesses as a single entity if the US and it's allies were to as a group end the drug war. It's hard to maintain power with less money and really, how much is there to fight over with other people absent the drug trade and the mountain of dollars involved?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Here is something that I say when people say it will stop Cartels in mexico.
Do you really think that just stopping their supply will make the go away? They are addicted to power, if they cant make money off drugs they will from human trafficking.

Their market shrinks drastically overnight. They find themselves without the funds to keep their minions loyal, to keep corrupt officials in their pocket, and to keep themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed to. A lot of their money is tied up in the product itself. Without a marketplace that product is worthless. The cartels will likely implode as whatever small niche still exists for illegal drugs will be hotly contested.
With a reduction in violence in the long term it is likely that this will somewhat reduce the amount of people risking a border crossing. Although for this to be truly effective the US has to actually want to enforce its border controls effectively.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Here is something that I say when people say it will stop Cartels in mexico.
Do you really think that just stopping their supply will make the go away? They are addicted to power, if they cant make money off drugs they will from human trafficking.

Their market shrinks drastically overnight. They find themselves without the funds to keep their minions loyal, to keep corrupt officials in their pocket, and to keep themselves in the manner to which they have become accustomed to. A lot of their money is tied up in the product itself. Without a marketplace that product is worthless. The cartels will likely implode as whatever small niche still exists for illegal drugs will be hotly contested.
With a reduction in violence in the long term it is likely that this will somewhat reduce the amount of people risking a border crossing. Although for this to be truly effective the US has to actually want to enforce its border controls effectively.

They're not going to lose their market.

They'll still be able to offer it without taxes and without regulation.

With a reduction in violence in the long term it is likely that this will somewhat reduce the amount of people risking a border crossing.

For that to be true cartel violence would have to be a significant source of illegal immigration, which I don't really buy. Even without cartel violence there's still being dirt poor and dirt poor countries with a lot of violence not based in the drug trade.

Maybe it'll be a small decline, but not significant enough to really be a factor in favor of deregulating drugs.

Although for this to be truly effective the US has to actually want to enforce its border controls effectively.

It's been explained countless times in countless forums for decades. The border cannot be controlled. You can't control 2000 miles of nothing unless you really want to turn the border into a police state and my understanding is that we don't like police states


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They'll still be able to offer it without taxes and without regulation.

If we legalize drugs without tax or regulation we're doing it wrong.

Of course we'd regulate the crap out of any drug we legalized.

Look at tobacco. Its a wonder anyone can afford to smoke.

They'll still smuggle in drugs, but it'll be tax evasion instead of trafficking in illegal substances. Trading one crime for another, and all the other assorted problems will remain.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's been explained countless times in countless forums for decades. The border cannot be controlled. You can't control 2000 miles of nothing unless you really want to turn the border into a police state and my understanding is that we don't like police states

You make it sound like the US is the only nation that has a significant land border, It isn't.
Citizens do not like being under a police state. Protecting a long land border is nowhere near turning the US into a police state. But if actually stopping people from crossing the border isn't to your tastes then perhaps more focus should be on removing the incentives for illegal immigration, and reducing their access to public services (no healthcare, no SSN, no foodstamps, no education, no driver's license, no housing) and any unlawful jobs (with an emphasis on punishments for those found willfully hiring illegal immigrants)

 Grey Templar wrote:
They'll still smuggle in drugs, but it'll be tax evasion instead of trafficking in illegal substances. Trading one crime for another, and all the other assorted problems will remain.

And the only people who would buy then would be insane. Even with heavy regulation and taxes, legalized drugs would be infinitely cheaper than illegal drugs. If anything, like Tobacco there will probably be crimes involving the removal of the real drug from products and replacing it with a cheap knock off and then reselling the real drug at a higher price.

Either way, the Cartel's aren't going to need personal armies to defend their business anymore.

You make it sound like the US is the only nation that has a significant land border, It isn't.

France has a rather large water border and gets plenty of illegal immigrants (and 2000 miles is just the land border, 4x that for our total border that would need policing to make a significant dent in illegal migration). All of the developed world deals with challenges concerning illegals, but it's hard to argue that the US massive border's don't contribute to the larger influx, as well as it's massive prosperity even compared to other developed countries. Most of the rest of the world doesn't have a border made up mostly of sparsely inhabited bordering on uninhabited desert.

It's not that it's not in my tastes (countless people are killed crossing the border every year from all kinds of things) as much as I don't view any real way to secure the border. It's too big and the resources that would be necessary for the task are realistically unobtainable. Unless you want to turn the US into a third world country, we can't really remove the incentive for illegal immigration by any means other than making legal immigration really easy. The whole reason people want to live here is because we're not Honduras or the Congo.

Illegal immigration is a net consequence of our size and our prosperity. It's not going away because of rhetorical arguments about Americaness and how lazy poor people are.