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.

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.

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

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.

The guy who shot a damn teddybear is a dumbass.

Those few guys were fething idiots, end of story. A corgi isn't aggressive at all, THEY HAD KEVLAR ON.

They went in, ready to take down a fething tank, and shot some corgi's.

donkey-caves.

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.

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.

"Old" was if the warrant was 10 days or over.

As it is, the warrant was still valid.

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.

Valete,

JohnS

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

But you can proclaim that its illegal status is unjust.

Sure, but you can't be surprised if they're enforcing some crazy things like "laws" while the substance is still considered illegal.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

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...

Wrexasaur wrote:

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

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

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.

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...

They shot the dog before they found the owner in a different part of the house. So it wasnt around to see its owner being handled by the cops.

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.