namatad: and the cop lost his job???why isnt he in prison??????
Babwa Wawa: namatad: and the cop lost his job???why isnt he in prison??????Yeah, but I'm told if he screws up ONE MORE TIME, he's going to be in some BIG TROUBLE, MISTER.
ScotterOtter: Babwa Wawa: namatad: and the cop lost his job???why isnt he in prison??????Yeah, but I'm told if he screws up ONE MORE TIME, he's going to be in some BIG TROUBLE, MISTER.That's the 'ol "Cop has a clean record" excuse. So, nothing goes on his record. Then, the next time he gets in trouble, he doesn't get punished because he has a clean record...and so on..and so on
Smackledorfer: Babwa and Namatad, did you guys even read the article?
PsyLord: Paid administrative leave (paid vacation) and then granted him immunity for obstruction?/must be nice to be a cop
Babwa Wawa: Smackledorfer: Babwa and Namatad, did you guys even read the article?Smackledorfer and SDRR, do you understand humor when you read it? How could you read a sentence that ends with the word "mister" in caps and conclude it was anything but sarcasm?
Smackledorfer: I don't think you understand why you need to rtfa. Maybe if you read it you'll find out. Your Weeners was the retarded one.
Babwa Wawa: Smackledorfer: I don't think you understand why you need to rtfa. Maybe if you read it you'll find out. Your Weeners was the retarded one.I have. In fact, I read before I posted. And I've since re-read it, and I'll stand by what I wrote up top. You don't need to send in an armed SWAT team to nab a confidential informant with whom law enforcement is in regular contact. That's how people get hurt. You just grab him during a regular meet-up.This is all supported by the fact that the dude came in on his own the next f*cking day.Of course, if the chief uses common sense when he goes about leveraging his SWAT team, it's harder for him to justify all the stupid f*cking gear and training he wastes building up his own little platoon so he can play army men.
Kanemano: OK, kicking in door now.Pimp and FBI CII've seen this movie.
Smackledorfer: PsyLord: Paid administrative leave (paid vacation) and then granted him immunity for obstruction?/must be nice to be a coprta
Smackledorfer: Do you believe the SWAT team should exist at all?
Smackledorfer: Given that obviously they would still be costing the city the same amount whether they were used in that kind of op or not
Smackledorfer: what is the big deal with using them to serve warrants on dangerous criminals?
CruiserTwelve: I think some folks need to re-read the article.
Smackledorfer: Do you believe the SWAT team should exist at all?If so, do you believe those officers wouldn't be costing the city the exact same amount of money if they stayed home that day? Given that obviously they would still be costing the city the same amount whether they were used in that kind of op or not, what is the big deal with using them to serve warrants on dangerous criminals? Did I miss some part of the article where it states that there was a bigger thing going on across town and everybody died because the SWAT team was wasting its time with this guy?You use the word "play" a lot. Playing around is exactly what they AREN'T doing when they take a threat seriously and move with more than the minimum level of force required.
Babwa Wawa: You clearly don't understand the composition of most SWAT teams. In all but the largest cities, SWAT members are just beat and patrol officers with some extra training in special weapons and tactics. So using them in situations where they are not needed is a waste of resources on a number of levels. Smaller towns will share a SWAT capability with other towns, but they're still comprised of beat cops
Babwa Wawa: First, this is not a dangerous criminal. He's a f*cking CI - you can nab him quietly any damned time and place you please.Second, this is the problem with inappropriate use of SWAT teams:
Smackledorfer: Do you have a citation for this SWAT team, since it is so clear that I don't know shiat about SWAT teams?But ok, so the cops should have been out doing what, then? Writing traffic tickets? Is that more important than going after a dangerous suspect with superior numbers and training?
Smackledorfer: I know you don't seem to believe criminals are dangerous, or at least this particular multiple felon, but it appears that the cops did
Smackledorfer: The map and link to Cato are presented as an answer to a question I asked, but it doesn't address it at all.
vpb: Seriously though, TFA actually says "In reality he didn't tip anybody off to anything but because he engaged in communications, there were inferences that existed," said Edwards' attorney, Mike Dutko. "Even the most staunch critics would have to acknowledge there's nothing he did to compromise any investigation because the guy surrendered himself."So, it looks like they don't have grounds for criminal charges, but they do have enough to fire him.
Babwa Wawa: The big deal is that the use of paramilitary force by law enforcement is risky (especially to innocents). You use it only when other circumstances with markedly reduced risk cannot be contrived.
Babwa Wawa: If they thought he was dangerous, they wouldn't have him as a confidential informant
Smackledorfer: The map and link didn't show that. It showed no comparison between similar circumstances without swat and the results, nor did it show the percentage within swat operations in which problems arose.
Smackledorfer: You should be a police officer. Nobody is dangerous and you would be so awesome you'd never need backup.
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 23 2017 02:37:54
Runtime: 0.387 sec (387 ms)