One cop killed, others injured serving "no knock" warrant

[WHAMPOM]

Read the affidavit then. The cops performed extensive surveillance on the location to corroborate what the informant told them.

- Merg

Falsifying evidence is a rampant tactic to get a warrant issued. "I dun seen six foot pot plants through a quarter inch crack in a window blind from two hundred yards." and through three houses sitting in the way too. Cops don't lie? Where did the six foot pot plants go?

 

[Genx87]

There are many products that are banned, the list of other poisons that are not allowed to be sold for consumption is pretty large, thankfully the general population helps out with the enforcement side of those things as they tend to not have fun side effects before death.

Saying that enforcing laws causes problems and that we would be better off just legalizing things is an absolutely lame and mentally lazy excuse for trying to get something legalized. I mean people still get murdered all the time even though we have laws against it. Would we be much better off we legalized murder and taxed contract killers instead of wasting our time trying to stop them? Think of it, less people in jail, more money in taxes, life would be improved.

Enforcing prohibition of a demanded substance absolutely is the cause. Why is this even in contention? You would have to show us where the high profit motive of the black market is not causing war between suppliers.

Murder is taking a persons liberty. Terrible analogy is terrible.

 

[Genx87]

I have no doubt that production would increase, but I think that demand would also increase to the extent that supply in the country would not meet demand. Also, it's not like cocaine is something that can really grow in the environment up here. Now, weed on the other hand...

You base this on what exactly? History hasn't shown this to be the case.

How would you do the regulation? With regard to less death, I'm not so sure about that. I could see an issue with allowing a drug addict get as much of the drug that they want for what would be minimal cost now. I can definitely see the number of OD's increasing, which then puts more pressure on the health system.

The simple fact cartels arent waging war on our streets to supply us with drugs would cause less death. Our health system is already under pressure from drug abuse. What would you rather spend billions on? Expanding health care or fighting a useless war?

I will agree there will most likely be less burden on law enformcement and a significant increase in tax revenue. As for safer drugs, I'm not so sure about that. If the Government starts to regulate the content of the drugs to be sure they are "safe", that will increase the cost of the drug. That will then create a black market for cheaper versions of the drugs that are not as "safe". If the Government stays out of regulating the drugs, we'll have what we have now then.

- Merg

No more than it costs to regulate the food on your table is safe for consumption.

 

[The Merg]

Falsifying evidence is a rampant tactic to get a warrant issued. "I dun seen six foot pot plants through a quarter inch crack in a window blind from two hundred yards." and through three houses sitting in the way too. Cops don't lie? Where did the six foot pot plants go?

And you know this is a rampant tactic because? Oh right, the media keeps reporting it over and over and of course the media is always right. Plus, the media reports all the times that a search warrant is approved for which all the information is valid.

Plus, I said this before, what reason does the cop have to lie in the affidavit? Is it really worth putting that lie in if it might lead to them losing their job or their life?

Are there some cops that might lie? Sure. Any profession is going to have their bad apples. But, just because the cops make a mistake or screw up, does not mean that they intentionally did so.

- Merg

 

[ViviTheMage]

The politicians elected on the promise to be hard on crime in a time of steadily decreasing crime(last forty years)brings about the need to invent some. You will spend more time in prison for stealing ten dollars then a banker who steals a hundred billion.

You're comparing apples and oranges though. Policing is based mostly on what politics are warranting. If Obama wants 'war on drugs' then that's how it trickles down to the local PD. If Obama wants 'war on white collar crime' then you get stiffer, harder rules, that's how policing works in our current society.

I was just following orders. So I gassed a few Jews? I didn't pass that law.

Yeah, I hear ya. There really is nothing I can say to that except I hope it never gets to that point for any government.

 

[The Merg]

The simple fact cartels arent waging war on our streets to supply us with drugs would cause less death. Our health system is already under pressure from drug abuse. What would you rather spend billions on? Expanding health care or fighting a useless war?

Gotcha. I was referring just the number of deaths due to the drug use increasing.

No more than it costs to regulate the food on your table is safe for consumption.

I would hope it would be that easy, but this is the Federal Government.

<offtopic>So, the Government should legalize drugs since I should be able to put into my body what I want to put into my body, but the Government should regulate what I put into my body? I love circular arguments. </offtopic>

- Merg

 

[Genx87]

Gotcha. I was referring just the number of deaths due to the drug use increasing.



I would hope it would be that easy, but this is the Federal Government.

<offtopic>So, the Government should legalize drugs since I should be able to put into my body what I want to put into my body, but the Government should regulate what I put into my body? I love circular arguments. </offtopic>

- Merg

How is this a circular argument? There will be no unregulated drug consumption in any civilized country. So it makes complete sense to discuss legalization will result in a regulated market. Currently what we have is an unregulated black market. The results speak for themselves. Death, torture, misery, unsafe drugs, cartels wielding the power of a small country.

 

[BoberFett]

We're not talking about morality here, which is where that comes into play. I thought we were discussing the straight legality of no knock warrants and drug laws.

- Merg

Breaking into innocent people's homes and assaulting them, terrorizing their children, killing their dog, based on flimsy evidence of a small amount of drugs is absolutely a morality issue.

 

[The Merg]

How is this a circular argument? There will be no unregulated drug consumption in any civilized country. So it makes complete sense to discuss legalization will result in a regulated market. Currently what we have is an unregulated black market. The results speak for themselves. Death, torture, misery, unsafe drugs, cartels wielding the power of a small country.

I'm not saying that I would disagree with having a regulated legal market, but by having a regulated legal market, you are saying that you want something to be legal, but at the same time restricted. I suppose it would be more of a libertarian view that would find that circular and would be against that.

- Merg

 

[Genx87]

I'm not saying that I would disagree with having a regulated legal market, but by having a regulated legal market, you are saying that you want something to be legal, but at the same time restricted. I suppose it would be more of a libertarian view that would find that circular and would be against that.

- Merg

Libertarians don't take the anarchy route.

 

[The Merg]

Breaking into innocent people's homes and assaulting them, terrorizing their children, killing their dog, based on flimsy evidence of a small amount of drugs is absolutely a morality issue.

No. That would be a straight legal and Constitutional issue.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

Libertarians don't take the anarchy route.

I don't think I was trying to imply the anarchy route, but rather that the Government should have no say at all as to what I put into my body. If the Government regulates it, then they are having a say.

Anyways, I think we're getting a bit off-topic here (although, I'm gathering that is not unusual here ).

- Merg

 

[ViviTheMage]

Breaking into innocent people's homes and assaulting them, terrorizing their children, killing their dog, based on flimsy evidence of a small amount of drugs is absolutely a morality issue.

I think these are embellished by the media, it would be interesting to know how many no knock warrants actually result in a poor outcome such as these.

Nothing on UCR, but I did find this:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

I am not sure if it's everything, and I still cannot find a number per year.

 

[BoberFett]

No. That would be a straight legal and Constitutional issue.

- Merg

So then as long as something is legal by the letter of the law, it's not a morality issue? In that case, slavery and the Holocaust were legal issues as well, not morality issues.

Think about what you're saying before spraying words.

 

[The Merg]

So then as long as something is legal by the letter of the law, it's not a morality issue? In that case, slavery and the Holocaust were legal issues as well, not morality issues.

Think about what you're saying before spraying words.

No. I'm saying that not every legal issue is a morality issue. Speeding is illegal, but it's not morally wrong.

- Merg

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by The Merg
We're not talking about morality here, which is where that comes into play. I thought we were discussing the straight legality of no knock warrants and drug laws.

- Merg

Breaking into innocent people's homes and assaulting them, terrorizing their children, killing their dog, based on flimsy evidence of a small amount of drugs is absolutely a morality issue.

This Merg guy is clearly a LEO shill

 

[The Merg]

Originally Posted by The Merg
We're not talking about morality here, which is where that comes into play. I thought we were discussing the straight legality of no knock warrants and drug laws.

- Merg



This Merg guy is clearly a LEO shill

I shill for no one. I speak my mind as I see things.

Call names as much as you want. I won't and haven't stooped to that level.

I thought we were having a cordial discussion (mostly).

- Merg

 

[BoberFett]

Well his avatar appears to be a unit patch of some kind, so he's probably military.

But go spread your buffoonery elsewhere Dave.

 

[dmcowen674]

I shill for no one.

Call names as much as you want. I won't and haven't stooped to that level.

I thought we were having a cordial discussion (mostly).

- Merg

Your posts say otherwise.

So do you work for Law Enforcement or not?

A simple yes or no question.

 

[Darwin333]

wait castle doctrine apply here?

cops word against his, article states cops announced who they were...doubtful but i wasn't there.

Even if they said "police" before they broke down the door, its very likely he was asleep. Door gets broken down, fight or flight kicks in, and he protected himself.

4 cops shot, 1 dead, 1 severely injured, all because they want to go all Rambo on drug raids. Turn off the water and electricity, surround the house, knock on his door (can even use one of those bulletproof shields if you think he is going to fire through the door) demanding that he exits the house, wait for him to come outside, arrest him with overwhelming force, and everyone goes home and has a nice day.

Absurdly few of these assholes actually want to go down in a hail of gunfire and if they do the police can control the outside of said assholes home FAR easier than the unknown conditions inside of the home. Cutting off water and power makes the living conditions rather shitty and prevents the suspect from flushing evidence. Perhaps he can destroy evidence some other way but remember, this is all about officer safety right?

Hell, simply staking out his house and arresting him on his way to his car by surprise is far safer for the officers as well but then they don't get to get all dressed up and use all of their cool toys like flashbang grenades and stuff. It's not their fault if they throw said grenade into a sleeping babies crib either, baby should have known better not to be sleeping there in the first place.

 

[Rebel_L]

Enforcing prohibition of a demanded substance absolutely is the cause. Why is this even in contention? You would have to show us where the high profit motive of the black market is not causing war between suppliers.

Murder is taking a persons liberty. Terrible analogy is terrible.

We restrict and tightly control many things in society that there is a demand for. Some are banned outright, some have tight controls (like narcotics, many of which are not banned just controlled by the medical profession). Cigarettes, alcohol, other drugs, and weapons, are probably the most common controlled and banned items if you don't consider the controls for food safety (where the demand is not so much for unsafe products, but cheaper products). Then we laws that restrict us specifically for personal safety, things like seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc. (We also have laws for things other than personal safety of course)

As a society we have created a large set of rules and we have a social contract with other members of society to follow them in order to get along, survive, and thrive. We have processes in place for changing these laws as we recognize that our general view on things changes over time and the laws need to be able to adapt. Everyone under this social contract agrees to give up things they may want to have or wish to do at times, in order to participate in this thriving social structure. Those that do not agree to follow the social contract we call criminals our rules even has rules on how to handle that situation.

The problem with the war on drugs is not the laws or the enforcement of them, it is the unwillingness of those that want change to follow the social contract. Alcohol prohibition involved a large change to the social contract in a very short time frame and that did not go over well. Drug laws are currently maintaining the status quo making the problems rather unrelated other than in seeing what tactics organized crime uses to take advantage of society. That criminal elements take advantage of society wherever it is easiest for them should be expected, and thinking that organized crime will disappear rather than find another way to exploit society and continue to do so is naïve. If individuals of society do not hold up their end of that social contract there is no one to blame but those individuals.

 

[Darwin333]

In the case of drug raids its to ensure nobody has time to destroy the evidence. Though in this case I think we've proved thats poor logic.

They either got the wrong guy or the guy WAS able to destroy the evidence despite the swift invasion. So yeah, this crap needs to stop. It got an officer killed, and you can blame the civilian "criminal" to make it look good, but those of us who pay attention to the news will remember what really happened.

The sheer amount of innocent people injured and killed in these types of raids alone should demand they be stopped. Just turn the damn water off or wait to catch them outside, its rather easy to come up with much better solutions then putting people in situations that forces them to make split second decisions to protect their and their families lives.

 

[piasabird]

They should charge the judge with murder.

 

[piasabird]

Why don't they stake out the house and wait till the suspect leaves and then break in. They should design a robot that can break the door down.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Your posts say otherwise.

So do you work for Law Enforcement or not?

A simple yes or no question.

Yep, you're onto something. I asked the same question and he danced around it. He is affiliated with law enforcement even if the coward won't admit it.