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.

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."

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?

sebster wrote:

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'.

I don't feel like it though, so deal with it.

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.

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.

Well good thing that the incident has been under investigation since before the tape even went public?

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.

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:Well good thing that the incident has been under investigation since before the tape even went public?

Yes.

sebster wrote:

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.

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".

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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?

International Affairs, with an emphasis on the Middle East; especially Iran.

dogma wrote:

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.

Maybe I should make a hat saying it...

dogma wrote:

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

dogma wrote:

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.

Breaching Round-Breaching Round-Rubber-Rubber-Slug-Slug.

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Breaching Round-Breaching Round-Rubber-Rubber-Slug-Slug.

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.