If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courthouse News Service)   Refusing to let the police use your home as a lookout? That's a smashed open door and assault and arresting and jailing and some looting by the police while you are away   (courthousenews.com) divider line 372
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14055 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



372 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-04 10:09:38 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.

you are forgetting one thing... a seance cannot provide legal evidence in court, so it would be the word of the defendant against.... silence.


The cop would be painted the hero while you, the lowly scum.
 
2013-07-04 10:11:20 PM

pedrop357: Mock26: And how do you propose to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess? Do you think a strongly worded letter would work? Maybe a stern lecture with some finger wagging and brow furrowing? OR MAYBE AN ALL CAPS POST ON THE INTERNET?

The fact that it may or not be difficult to get criminals to obey the law has never been a factor when people like you push gun control, so I see no reason why criminals' obeyance of the law should be used as a way to block laws from being applied to the police.

if you weren't so single-minded, you might realize that another option to stop infringing upon the rights of non-police officers such that they're ability to buy/possess/bear arms is identical to those of the police.




It's a mathematical problem. You people will never get that fact.
 
2013-07-04 10:11:38 PM

fnordfocus: hardinparamedic: License them at the state level, like every other regulated profession. Take the departments out of this, and appoint a board to oversee those licensed by the state.

You mean like the  POST certification they have in Nevada where this occurred?

These programs are run by Officers to certify Officers, and they don't see anything wrong with the behavior described in this article.


As I stated earlier, anything involving police oversight is either run completely by the police, e.g. internal affairs, or is packed with the "right" people to guarantee the outcome the police desire.

Those tv shows where the internal affair guy bucks the system to bring down a bad cop?  Doesn't happen.  The internal affair guy's job is to figure out the best way to bury the corruption story.  If that means sacrificing one cop to cover for the others, not a problem.  They would prefer to pull out some 20 year old pot conviction to taint the credibility of the eye witness.

Even grand juries are controlled.  The DA won't always prosecute someone a grand jury indicts, especially if it involves someone with the right political connections.
 
2013-07-04 10:14:32 PM

bunner: Stoker: This is a case where the public needs to stand up together and correct this kind of injustice.
And that is why Homeland Security is stock piling bullets.

There is a war going on in America, and it's against just about all of us.

The war is being packaged and sold to us as something we need to wage against each other.  If you can create a social zeitgeist wherein people are willing to believe the idea that the cause of their woes and their fears and the reason they  don't have a pot to piss in is the fault of the other poor sonofab*tch up yonder road who is hiding under his bed, too, without a  pot to piss in, you can keep society fragmented and mistrustful and not focused on your shenanigans.  Everything since Sep. 2001 has been straight out of Goebbels and Khrushchev's playbooks.  All of it.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x300]


I wonder how many politicians had to keep themselves from jumping up and screaming "JACKPOT!" when the first plane hit the tower?  They didn't see it as a tragedy.  They saw it as an opportunity.

I can't believe how disillusioned I've become in my middle ages.  :(
 
2013-07-04 10:14:39 PM

bunner: megarian: bunner: megarian: So thanks for being a type of weird that I hate and enjoy.

Are you related to my ex wife?   :  )

I...um...I hope not because I might face jail-time.

Oh. OH.

I mean, "who?"

Not sure what the first part means but she's a very nice girl and I got nothing bad to say about her.


Well, you said "related" so I was implying that I may have slept with her. And it might be illegal (depending on the state).

I can't ever be sure. I'm Ukrainian and my family is huge. I don't know a lot of my cousins.

But that's part of the fun.
 
2013-07-04 10:17:24 PM

OgreMagi: As I stated earlier, anything involving police oversight is either run completely by the police, e.g. internal affairs, or is packed with the "right" people to guarantee the outcome the police desire.

Those tv shows where the internal affair guy bucks the system to bring down a bad cop?  Doesn't happen.  The internal affair guy's job is to figure out the best way to bury the corruption story.  If that means sacrificing one cop to cover for the others, not a problem.  They would prefer to pull out some 20 year old pot conviction to taint the credibility of the eye witness.

Even grand juries are controlled.  The DA won't always prosecute someone a grand jury indicts, especially if it involves someone with the right political connections.


Reader's Digest condensed version, yeah, it's all a con.   :  /  *sigh*
 
2013-07-04 10:32:50 PM

OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

IF.

The whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense from a tactical standpoint--which means either the homeowner is lying his ass off OR the cops broke in to rummage around because the homeowner had some nice stuff and then they cobbled up the excuse after the fact when he actually complained about it.

I find either explanation entirely plausible. What I find entirely unlikely is the "we need to use your house as a lookout for a DV investigation." So one side or the other is full of total bullhookey.

If it were two homeowners having a pissing match, I'd say, "who the fark knows?"  But with one side being the police, I'm going to have to assume the police are the lying sacks o'shiat.  Too many instances of police misconduct going on, too many cases of the police thinking they can do whatever the fark they want, to whomever they want, and there will be no consequences.  They lost any benefit of the doubt a long time ago.


Well, there are two possible stories:

1. The cops asked for entry for a legitimate cause, were denied, and the homeowner subsequently made up the story out of whole cloth to make a claim against the city, or get back at the cops for some other reason. This scenario makes sense if the homeowner has a history with one of the cops (like if one of the cops is his ex-brother in law or something) or some kind of gripe against the city.

2. The cops broke into the house for some other reason (a bogus drug warrant, a fake search) and rummaged around, pepperballing the homeowner when he protested, and then threatened him when they left, assuring him nobody would believe him. Then when he filed suit, they hastily cobbled together this b/s story about a "domestic violence investigation" as a pretext for why they were trying to be inside his house. This scenario makes sense if we've got a couple of rogue cops and they've been pulling this kind of shiat before.

What DOESN'T make sense is the idea that they  contacted plaintiff Anthony Mitchell via his telephone. Worley told plaintiff that police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a 'tactical advantage' against the occupant of the neighboring house. The only time they'd need to do that would be in a genuine tactical situation, where SWAT had been deployed, and in that case, the homeowner wouldn't be telling the officers he "didn't want to get involved." Or, if he did, the next thing the cops did wouldn't be to be kicking down HIS door as opposed to dealing with the subject in the next house.

What also doesn't make sense is the Third Amendment violation. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. "Quartering" is defined pretty narrowly as "providing with shelter" and soldiers are always defined as members of the armed services, not civil police. I can see pretty well that the homeowner's rights were trampled all over; but I really don't think soldiers were quartered in his house in any way he's going to be able to prove.
 
2013-07-04 10:40:35 PM

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: Marcus Aurelius: If even a fraction of this story is true, this entire police department is getting their asses sued off.

If the resulting judgement is enough to raise taxes, they might even suffer some consequences, like paid vacations and such.

IF.

The whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense from a tactical standpoint--which means either the homeowner is lying his ass off OR the cops broke in to rummage around because the homeowner had some nice stuff and then they cobbled up the excuse after the fact when he actually complained about it.

I find either explanation entirely plausible. What I find entirely unlikely is the "we need to use your house as a lookout for a DV investigation." So one side or the other is full of total bullhookey.

If it were two homeowners having a pissing match, I'd say, "who the fark knows?"  But with one side being the police, I'm going to have to assume the police are the lying sacks o'shiat.  Too many instances of police misconduct going on, too many cases of the police thinking they can do whatever the fark they want, to whomever they want, and there will be no consequences.  They lost any benefit of the doubt a long time ago.

Well, there are two possible stories:

1. The cops asked for entry for a legitimate cause, were denied, and the homeowner subsequently made up the story out of whole cloth to make a claim against the city, or get back at the cops for some other reason. This scenario makes sense if the homeowner has a history with one of the cops (like if one of the cops is his ex-brother in law or something) or some kind of gripe against the city.

2. The cops broke into the house for some other reason (a bogus drug warrant, a fake search) and rummaged around, pepperballing the homeowner when he protested, and then threatened him when they left, assuring him nobody would believe him. Then when he filed suit, they hastily cobbled together this b/s story about a "domestic violence investigation" as a pre ...


If consider the time when the Constitution was written, police forces did not exist.  Armed agents of the government enforcing the law were all soldiers.  Now we have armed agents of the government enforcing the law who are not considered soldiers by the strictest of definitions, but I personally feel they fall under the definition as intended by the authors of our Constitution.

Even without the 3rd Amendment violation, there's enough bad shiat going on here that it should get every single cop involved in the unemployment line.
 
2013-07-04 10:45:51 PM
They'll lose their jobs for mistreating the dog.
 
2013-07-04 10:58:58 PM
This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. For those looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.
 
2013-07-04 11:02:54 PM

DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. For those looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.


I agree.

Vote third party.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop voting for the status quo.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
 
2013-07-04 11:07:37 PM
Actually, you're voting for the second party.  The demopublicans are just two sock puppets on either hand of the same owner.
 
2013-07-04 11:18:25 PM
I see alot of people pointing out the difference between military and police. As a point of question, at the time of the writing of the constitution, who was doing law enforcement for the country? And yes, this is a serious question.
 
2013-07-04 11:38:57 PM

jayphat: I see alot of people pointing out the difference between military and police. As a point of question, at the time of the writing of the constitution, who was doing law enforcement for the country? And yes, this is a serious question.


When the sh*t got seriously, my guess is the regular British army.  Fun fact, Paul Revere never said "The British are coming!"  They WERE British.  He said "The regulars are upon us."  Redcoats.  Regular army.
 
2013-07-04 11:42:23 PM

DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. For those looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.


1.5/10. Put some effort into it. Is that too much to ask ? Sheesh .
 
2013-07-04 11:46:59 PM

bunner: jayphat: I see alot of people pointing out the difference between military and police. As a point of question, at the time of the writing of the constitution, who was doing law enforcement for the country? And yes, this is a serious question.

When the sh*t got seriously, my guess is the regular British army.  Fun fact, Paul Revere never said "The British are coming!"  They WERE British.  He said "The regulars are upon us."  Redcoats.  Regular army.


Regular law enforcement was done by constables, modeled after the British system of policing.

The Military was there to ensure compliance to the crown, not compliance to the everyday law.
 
2013-07-04 11:49:15 PM

OgreMagi: If consider the time when the Constitution was written, police forces did not exist.  Armed agents of the government enforcing the law were all soldiers.


That is completely, unabashedly false.

The Early Colonial policing was done by constabulary, wardens and sheriffs, and by groups of men deputized and empowered during times of need.
 
2013-07-04 11:52:52 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?

So what, are you somehow trying to say that that was some sort of one time incident, that it can never happen again and that no criminal would ever dare use a high powered rifle capable of penetrating body armor and vehicles?

You argue like a teenager.  You use extreme examples, unlikely events, and bad logic.

You argue the police need more firepower because criminals don't follow the rules.  I agree.  And because the criminals almost always target non law professionals (us civilians), we have an even greater need for that fire power.  You just argued that the people being targeted need better weapons.  So are you going to back off on that argument now, or are you going to go for some more "really stupid logic", which is your specialty?


Those extreme examples are called sarcasm.   Of course, given the fantasy world that you seem to be living in I should not have expected you to pick up on that.

Also, where in all of Hades have I been arguing that the police need more firepower because criminals do not follow the rules?  Is Intelligence your dump stat?  Armored vehicles != more firepower.  Oh wait, dump stat.  Let me try that again.  The police having armored vehicles is not the police having increased firepower.  Armored is NOT the same as armed.  Those APCs are unarmed.  Of course, why should you bother with the facts.  You see an armored vehicle and instantly jump to "The police have tanks!  Wharrgarble!"
 
2013-07-04 11:55:59 PM

jayphat: I see alot of people pointing out the difference between military and police. As a point of question, at the time of the writing of the constitution, who was doing law enforcement for the country? And yes, this is a serious question.


There were no professional police departments at the time.  Boston PD is the nation's oldest, founded in 1838.

Law enforcement would have come from quite a few sources, including elected officials such as Sheriffs and the general population.  Clearly, it sometimes came from the military.  For example, the Whiskey Rebellion was put down by federalized militiamen.
 
2013-07-04 11:56:09 PM

eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

OK here we go.........

I've driven them.  First hand experience.

Not too bright, are you?  Did you see the part that I had highlighted?  I will give you a hint, it was this part:  First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.Where is your proof of that?  Or are you saying that you drove the APC at the protest?


ok you win I'm wrong, APC's drive like Ferraris at speed on pavement.

You know some criminals are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, I think all police departments need nuclear weapons too.


 I was asking you for proof that the APC in the picture you posted was, as you claimed, was used for intimidation at a protest.  So, do you have the evidence?  Or did you just make that up?
 
2013-07-04 11:56:26 PM

Mock26: The police having armored vehicles is not the police having increased firepower.  Armored is NOT the same as armed.  Those APCs are unarmed.  Of course, why should you bother with the facts.  You see an armored vehicle and instantly jump to "The police have tanks!  Wharrgarble!"


You're talking to someone who seems to think we're just one inch away from this happening in the United States.

3.bp.blogspot.com

/are those T-62s?
 
2013-07-04 11:58:27 PM

Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.


The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.[5].

The police can surely be considered agents of the state. If you still are not willing to call this a 3rd ammendment violation then it is surely a 4th ammendment violation.
 
2013-07-04 11:58:39 PM

fnordfocus: For example, the Whiskey Rebellion was put down by federalized militiamen.


That's not entirely the whole story.
 
2013-07-04 11:59:05 PM

fnordfocus: There were no professional police departments at the time.  Boston PD is the nation's oldest, founded in 1838.


Which is where the Oirish got their come up. Nobody wanted to be a cop in Boston.  Boston was a mess.  The micks took the job.  Also the origin of "paddy wagon".
 
2013-07-04 11:59:34 PM

eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them,  IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.

Wow.  You really are stupid.

And you appear to have gathered your reality from Steven Seagal and Bruce Willis movies.


I am not the one talking about LAPD apache attack helicopters, so if anyone is getting their reality from the movies it would be you.
 
2013-07-05 12:04:12 AM

pedrop357: Mock26: And how do you propose to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess? Do you think a strongly worded letter would work? Maybe a stern lecture with some finger wagging and brow furrowing? OR MAYBE AN ALL CAPS POST ON THE INTERNET?

The fact that it may or not be difficult to get criminals to obey the law has never been a factor when people like you push gun control, so I see no reason why criminals' obeyance of the law should be used as a way to block laws from being applied to the police.

if you weren't so single-minded, you might realize that another option to stop infringing upon the rights of non-police officers such that they're ability to buy/possess/bear arms is identical to those of the police.


Where have I said anything about gun control?  I am a gun owner and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  I was merely pointing out that the police having APCs in response the criminals being able to acquire high powered firepower does not make them into a military or even a quasi-military organization.
 
2013-07-05 12:04:54 AM
The dude calls his mommy!

Don't fight the cops, they will kill you and burn your house down.

Call a lawyer and the TV news immediately if this ever happens again.
 
2013-07-05 12:08:08 AM
remember,there is no progression or pattern to any of these unconnected events
anyone implying otherwise must be insane
you don't want people to think you're insane, do you?
see, we are here to help
everything is fine
those were bad people doing bad things
they got what they deserved
you're not a bad person, so bad things won't happen to you
we are making the world safe for everyone
it is good work
 
2013-07-05 12:09:15 AM

OgreMagi: DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. For those looking for someone to blame, look in the mirror.

I agree.

Vote third party.  I don't care which third party.  Just stop voting for the status quo.  Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.


infamous.net
 
2013-07-05 12:09:54 AM

CBob: remember,there is no progression or pattern to any of these unconnected events
anyone implying otherwise must be insane
you don't want people to think you're insane, do you?
see, we are here to help
everything is fine
those were bad people doing bad things
they got what they deserved
you're not a bad person, so bad things won't happen to you
we are making the world safe for everyone
it is good work


*shudder*
 
2013-07-05 12:20:12 AM

hardinparamedic: Mock26: The police having armored vehicles is not the police having increased firepower.  Armored is NOT the same as armed.  Those APCs are unarmed.  Of course, why should you bother with the facts.  You see an armored vehicle and instantly jump to "The police have tanks!  Wharrgarble!"

You're talking to someone who seems to think we're just one inch away from this happening in the United States.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]

/are those T-62s?


Yes.  Those are T-62s.  But that was also THE MILITARY and took place in COMMUNIST CHINA.
 
2013-07-05 12:21:29 AM

Mock26: Yes.  Those are T-62s.  But that was also THE MILITARY and took place in COMMUNIST CHINA.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-07-05 12:22:38 AM

Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


I know I'm late to the party, but if you're going to take that word literally, then that means it doesn't apply to the Marine Corps, Navy, or Airforce.  Or those Coast Guard guys.  just sayin.
 
2013-07-05 12:25:15 AM

hardinparamedic: Mock26: The police having armored vehicles is not the police having increased firepower.  Armored is NOT the same as armed.  Those APCs are unarmed.  Of course, why should you bother with the facts.  You see an armored vehicle and instantly jump to "The police have tanks!  Wharrgarble!"

You're talking to someone who seems to think we're just one inch away from this happening in the United States.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 300x300]

/are those T-62s?


Not that, but we are way past this:

www.beirutnightlife.com
 
2013-07-05 12:32:50 AM

OgreMagi: Not that, but we are way past this:


A cautionary tale. If you're going to get geeked out on PCP, don't do it while black and in the one place which makes the south look racially tolerant.
 
2013-07-05 12:37:35 AM

hardinparamedic: Mock26: Yes.  Those are T-62s.  But that was also THE MILITARY and took place in COMMUNIST CHINA.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 480x360]


Sorry, misread your post.
 
2013-07-05 12:38:27 AM

Mock26: hardinparamedic: Mock26: Yes.  Those are T-62s.  But that was also THE MILITARY and took place in COMMUNIST CHINA.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 480x360]

Sorry, misread your post.


It's totally okay. I'm guilty of it too, recently.
 
2013-07-05 12:54:34 AM
Late to the thread and haven't read all of the posts, so my point may have already been covered.

The cops wanted in to use this guy's home as a look out/surveilance post for a neighbor in a domestic abuse case, right?  So, by busting in, creating a big scene there and at the the guy's parents' home nearby, aren't they pretty much blowing their cover?  It sure sounds like they have now lost the element of stealth on this and are just doing it out of spite for getting refused.
 
2013-07-05 12:55:24 AM

Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?


Yes. An armored vehicle is not the only way to prepare for that one particular situation that happend once and I think there are a lot of other options available that don't involve turning our police into soldiers which we should consider first.  Like tasers this new police equipment will be sold to us as safer and used judiciously and then be turned on us at their slightest whim, which is how they use tasers now.  As the incident the article describes clearly shows, many police forces have no self restraint and zero respect for anyone who isn't in blue.  Your opinion clearly comes from a place of trust and sympathy for our police forces and I see that, but there are many who do not share your faith in the police, and many of them for good reason.
 
2013-07-05 01:10:05 AM

UseLessHuman: An armored vehicle is not the only way to prepare for that one particular situation that happend once and I think there are a lot of other options available that don't involve turning our police into soldiers which we should consider first.


Except that those situations occur nationwide every year, and those armored vehicles are a way to get medical aid to victims who would otherwise be left to bleed until the shooter or shooters were neutralized, or can provide a distraction and cover for an entry team rather than a free target.

UseLessHuman: Like tasers this new police equipment will be sold to us as safer and used judiciously and then be turned on us at their slightest whim, which is how they use tasers now.


A lot of departments have taken away tasers from their people due to the potential for abuse and torturous use. Others have gotten worried about being the causative factor in SICDS.

UseLessHuman: As the incident the article describes clearly shows, many police forces have no self restraint and zero respect for anyone who isn't in blue.  Your opinion clearly comes from a place of trust and sympathy for our police forces and I see that, but there are many who do not share your faith in the police, and many of them for good reason.


Not really. You can have "respect", so to speak, for the job they do and the principles they are supposed to uphold, while not trusting individuals or even departments because of their past behavior.

I have a great deal of respect for the police, to be quite honest. I could not do their job, and I honestly would not want to. Frankly, given some of the people they deal with, I wouldn't be able to keep my cool.

That said, I'm not stupid. There's no way I'd volunteer information to the police, or let them into my car or premises without a warrant. There's no way I'd openly talk to a cop before having a lawyer by my side. At the point they become the adversary, you stop being nice and helpful, and start being smart and using the justice system.

That said, the place in our society to argue it out is not with a cop who - probably - has had all of a day on constitutional law and principles as part of his POST course. It's in front of a judge with a lawyer.
 
2013-07-05 01:28:11 AM

Ima4nic8or: If that story is even remotely accurate I hope that the guy collects about $10 million from that police department and that all of the cops involved lose their jobs.


paid leave for the cops.

undisclosed, confidential settlement for the victims

/happens all the time
 
2013-07-05 01:31:13 AM

CourtroomWolf: A better question would be how many deaths/injuries could the militarization of police prevented in shootouts like this vs. how many deaths/injuries have been caused by military style SWAT raids.


I'm sure they don't track stats like that. You know, no real reason to do that.
 
2013-07-05 01:33:30 AM

hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.


The M113 and 557 pictured above were and still are used to move troops on the battlefield. Of course the army stopped using them because .30 cal rounds will penetrate one side of the vehicle and bounce around inside. So If the cops want to use them so be it.
I had a chunk of 7.62 mm that was accidentally discharged penetrate one I was riding in and the round skipped around and hit three guys before coming to a stop in my forearm. So let the cops use them.
 
2013-07-05 02:10:31 AM

m00: So the cops did all this to gain a command post for a domestic violence case? Really? Something's fishy here.


The DV case probably involved a drug ring. It's Vegas, that's not exactly a nice corner of Nevada.

/And drugs drive profits, so.
 
2013-07-05 02:21:30 AM

Milo Minderbinder: No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.


Fluid: The Third Amendment says "no soldier" rather than "no policeman", though.


If you want to get picky, enlisted army personnel are called soldiers. In the navy they're sailors and in the air force they're airmen.

I kind of doubt that the third amendment excludes military branches other than the army, or officers though; and I similarly doubt that forcing people to quarter armed and sworn agents of local governments would be excluded too.
 
2013-07-05 02:28:50 AM
Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.
 
2013-07-05 02:31:41 AM

lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.


The good cops were both busy.
 
2013-07-05 02:33:06 AM

lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.


That is exactly why I stopped trusting the police and always assume they are lying.  When has there ever been a news story which stated, "internal affairs was tipped off to the abuse and corruption by fellow police officers."  I don't remember ever hearing a story like that, though there has to have been a few if there is no "thin blue line".
 
2013-07-05 02:46:52 AM

OgreMagi: lucksi: Isn't it time that there should be one good officer along all the bad apples who speaks out or stops shiat like this? Because the bad apples are the vast minority, or so I am told.

That is exactly why I stopped trusting the police and always assume they are lying.  When has there ever been a news story which stated, "internal affairs was tipped off to the abuse and corruption by fellow police officers."  I don't remember ever hearing a story like that, though there has to have been a few if there is no "thin blue line".


I've heard of some, but most are usually a cop who was on scene and not actively bad filing a report implicating the active bad cops.

The unicorn of 'good cop' incidents would be finding an incident where the good cop actually stopped the bad cops from abusing, hurting, or killing the suspect.  No matter how many cops are at the scene, the best that can be hoped for is that some of the cops will stand idly by and do nothing instead of assisting in the victimization.  The bad cops will hurt or kill while you while the "good" cops do nothing.

The math and laws of randomness and/or probability do not support this idea that the bad cops are a minority.  What are the odds that the only bad cops on the force all happened to be on the same shift, in the same beat/sector/precinct and all got dispatched (or self-dispatched) to that incident?  If they aren't the only bad ones, just how many more are there?
 
2013-07-05 03:15:34 AM

hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.


It's explicitly allowed in Indiana.
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report