Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family, kill family dog

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Disgusting? That's why they're police and you're a bag of meat.

and that judge is a douche. These things happen all the time in NYC and I don't see any outrage. I guess since it's 'middle america' this wasn't ok...

You sure like talking about meat don't you. Big, hot, police man meat.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
You sure like talking about meat don't you. Big, hot, police man meat.

Hey, who's the one posting dick sucking pics, drawing pics of oral sex, etc...? Either you're 12 years old or you enjoying doing these things....
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Bag of meat?

I'm the contractor who was responsible for migrating all of the Government of Pakistan's most important website infrastructure to the US during the beginning of the Iraq war. At the time Pakistan had 2 T3 lines serving their entire country, and because Pakistan aligned themselves with the US, their government, finacial, and military websites became targets, and a single DDOS attack of over 100Mbps from outside of pakistan would cripple their entire country.

I worked with the government to migrate all of these targets to the US, secure them, monitor then, manage them, etc. It was $6million+ worth of contracts. Sites included their most top secret military sites. I worked closely with the FBI amost daily through the process. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm not just a bag of meat, and I'm not intimidated by the job police officers do. I highly respect them, but it's out of their "service" to the public.

I don't know WTF that has to do with police work. Just because you move data around means you know what it's like to be police?
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
It's not that. Day in, day out, they put their lives on the line to protect and serve. What do they get in return? Contempt and hostility. Not from everyone, just smart-asses and the younger generation who grew up on drugs and rap. One of my uncle is an FBI agent. The shit he's told me he's seen would make any of you smart-asses's blood curl. Just as well because being police isn't for everyone.

Yea, look how these guys put their lives on the line to protect and serve the people of their community. They prevented a tiny amount of pot from being smoked.

Also, people of every age who aren't simpletons like yourself distrust the police. Everyone should.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Yea, look how these guys put their lives on the line to protect and serve the people of their community. They prevented a tiny amount of pot from being smoked.

Also, people of every age who aren't simpletons like yourself distrust the police. Everyone should.

Yeah cause this is what all police do every day, all day. Look in the mirror, fool, cause you're the simpleton.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
With out the war on drugs these fucks would be working in construction instead of "living the dream" of being a ninja wacko hell bent on saving us from ourselves through the use of force, death and intimidation.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
I don't know WTF that has to do with police work. Just because you move data around means you know what it's like to be police?

It has to do with you not knowing me and calling me "a bag of meat" and that's why I'm not a cop. I found that offensive, as if you feel I don't have the mental capacity (aka just a bag of meat) to understand the job. Fortunately, I was able to convince a muslim governement, during a time of war, to trust my company with all of their confidential data. This took an extreme amount of planning, due diligence, and research on my part. Something I find completely lacking in the efforts displayed by the columbia police during that raid. I consider myself smarter than the average cop and if I didn't know what else to do with my life, I have absolutely full confidence that I could go through police training and do the work of a police officer, including a swat team.

I could have done more research on the home I was planning to invade by sitting outside of it smoking doobs.
 
Last edited:

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
hahahahaahh :D fuckin A.

Well, it's true.

Did you see the Freedom Watch vid from Fox News where the judge rips the raid and talks to the mayor? You can see it in the mayor's face he is more than embarassed by this. He knows the town is progressive. He knows they already decriminalized pot in columbia. I really felt sorry for him, because it's pretty clear the swat activity was in the wrong.

I don't fault him either. He was just elected and it took place before he was elected. Yet he has to clean up the mess. You can tell in his face he's thinking "I didn't sign up for this" and he's overwhelmed by how ignorant his administration has been made out to be over the actions of these few pyschotic cops.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well, it's true.

Did you see the Freedom Watch vid from Fox News where the judge rips the raid and talks to the mayor? You can see it in the mayor's face he is more than embarassed by this. He knows the town is progressive. He knows they already decriminalized pot in columbia. I really felt sorry for him, because it's pretty clear the swat activity was in the wrong.

I don't fault him either. He was just elected and it took place before he was elected. Yet he has to clean up the mess. You can tell in his face he's thinking "I didn't sign up for this" and he's overwhelmed by how ignorant his administration has been made out to be over the actions of these few pyschotic cops.
I don't blame the people who sent SWAT on the raid, as from the intelligence they had reason to believe this man was a dealer. Dealing is I believe still a felony, and dealers may be reasonably expected to possibly be violent and well-armed. You have to honor the threat. But police in any raid have the responsibility to exercise restraint and should not be shooting pets on the grounds that they can and that the pets are distracting. Police also have the responsibility to realize that any raid might well be on a perfectly innocent family and should conduct themselves accordingly. Most cops do this automatically; these cops (or at least one of them) are simply douche bags.

Also, quantities sufficient for a dealing charge are not quickly destroyed without evidence. There was absolutely no need for a no-knock warrant in the middle of the night, as this man could easily have been picked up going to or from work with little or no danger or stress to anyone.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I don't blame the people who sent SWAT on the raid, as from the intelligence they had reason to believe this man was a dealer.

They got the info from a CI, they didn't do ANY follow up to gather more intel, and waited eight days to serve the warrant. This is one of the most unprofessional cluster fuck of a raid I have ever seen.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Was the shooting illegal? Cause,if it was, the shooter would be criminally responsible. I just don't see that here. But, go and blame and blame the police that are carrying out the raids if it'll make you feel better. You assholes need to learn where to point the blame when something goes wrong. Yeah, the politicians, majors, government lawyers, judges, etc... But it's so easy to blame those you can see rather than those you cannot. Blame the gun holders but not the power behind the gun. Sometimes dealing with the public is like dealing with a bunch of yo-yos.

EDIT: Unfortunately, your lawyers are not as stupid.

I agree to a point. With that said, if you want to be a trigger puller (and EVERY member of SWAT does, thats why they are SWAT) then you bear some responsibility as well. Don't like it then don't be a trigger puller. It really is that simple. We, the public, are getting damned tired of the circular finger pointing when they fuck up. When the police lose the trust of the people they are supposedly protecting, what exactly does that make them?

As I have said time and time again, if SWAT didn't do their due diligence and spend a few friggen hours of intel gathering so that they knew the situation they were entering then they acted irresponsibly and in my opinion are incompetent to do their jobs. It really isn't that hard to figure out a woman and child live in a house if you actually give a shit about knowing. They didn't, they had their big meeting at HQ, drove out to the house and busted down the door which resulted in unnecessarily endangering the lives of innocent women and children. Why is that ok to you?

I am curious, do you have any children?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
No they're not. Do you think a soldier is allowed to question the legitimacy of a war, a mission? No. He has his rules to obey and that's all that concerns him. He isn't paid to think about why he's doing this. He's paid to do it and do it without breaking any rules. JHC, this is common sense.

Cops are not soldiers for a very good reason. It doesn't matter how much they want to pretend they are soldiers or how much they try to look like soldiers they are in fact NOT soldiers.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Cops are not soldiers for a very good reason. It doesn't matter how much they want to pretend they are soldiers or how much they try to look like soldiers they are in fact NOT soldiers.

Soldiers engage the enemy. Cops protect their citizens and enforce law.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
I agree to a point. With that said, if you want to be a trigger puller (and EVERY member of SWAT does, thats why they are SWAT) then you bear some responsibility as well. Don't like it then don't be a trigger puller. It really is that simple. We, the public, are getting damned tired of the circular finger pointing when they fuck up. When the police lose the trust of the people they are supposedly protecting, what exactly does that make them?

As I have said time and time again, if SWAT didn't do their due diligence and spend a few friggen hours of intel gathering so that they knew the situation they were entering then they acted irresponsibly and in my opinion are incompetent to do their jobs. It really isn't that hard to figure out a woman and child live in a house if you actually give a shit about knowing. They didn't, they had their big meeting at HQ, drove out to the house and busted down the door which resulted in unnecessarily endangering the lives of innocent women and children. Why is that ok to you?

I am curious, do you have any children?

So very true. They just didn't research their target. dangerously irresponsible.

As I stated earlier. I could have sat outside that house, high as all hell on pot, and I still could have staked out that house better and learned about the family, etc.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
So very true. They just didn't research their target. dangerously irresponsible.

As I stated earlier. I could have sat outside that house, high as all hell on pot, and I still could have staked out that house better and learned about the family, etc.

but thats boring. These cops are living the dream. Killing things.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
It's not that. Day in, day out, they put their lives on the line to protect and serve. What do they get in return? Contempt and hostility. Not from everyone, just smart-asses and the younger generation who grew up on drugs and rap. One of my uncle is an FBI agent. The shit he's told me he's seen would make any of you smart-asses's blood curl. Just as well because being police isn't for everyone.

I appreciate and deeply respect what most officers do day in and day out. You are right, they do put their lives on the line but they choose to do so. It is when they put the lives of innocent civilians on the line that I get bent out of shape. Those innocent civilians had no choice in the matter. The SWAT team CHOSE to go into the house without intel they had plenty of time to gather. If they were that concerned with their "buddies" life they would have spent an hour or two of their own time gathering intel (I do it all the time for MY employees) and this situation would have wound up different. I can almost guarantee if the guy had 4 or 5 buddies with AKs in the house that killed half the team on entry you would be screaming bloody murder about the lack of intel before going in, including the SWAT leaders responsibility to his team. Since it was just those lowly civilians that got terrorized its no big deal though.

The really sad thing is, the ONLY thing this situation will change is some police departments will no longer video tape raids because those videos can be obtained via the freedom of information act. Something I hadn't considered up until now, the police department had the manpower to send someone in behind the team whose only job was to video tape yet they couldn't spend even a few minutes going through the trash to see a child might be in the house?


Every last one of my foreman, who work in construction, have more responsibility for the men that work under them and the situation the foreman puts them in (or allows them to enter) than you claim the SWAT leader has for his. If one of my men get hurt I am ultimately responsible but that does not absolve his foreman (his immediate supervisor who is on the ground) of his responsibility. I don't employ a single foreman, nor would I, who would ever send his crew to work without accessing the worksite conditions. Why is it that my construction crews are more concerned with the safety of their fellow workers AS WELL as other trades/people than a SWAT team is? The true answer to that question is, as you say, very unfortunate.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
It has to do with you not knowing me and calling me "a bag of meat" and that's why I'm not a cop. I found that offensive, as if you feel I don't have the mental capacity (aka just a bag of meat) to understand the job. Fortunately, I was able to convince a muslim governement, during a time of war, to trust my company with all of their confidential data. This took an extreme amount of planning, due diligence, and research on my part. Something I find completely lacking in the efforts displayed by the columbia police during that raid. I consider myself smarter than the average cop and if I didn't know what else to do with my life, I have absolutely full confidence that I could go through police training and do the work of a police officer, including a swat team.

I could have done more research on the home I was planning to invade by sitting outside of it smoking doobs.

Don't take everything I say here personally. I certainly don't do the same for you'll.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,721
20,277
146
Yes, but SWAT operates more like a military team than police. If you don't like that, it's fine, but SWAT are not normal cops.

They're still cops no matter how you spin it, and they still need to do their homework before knocking down doors in the middle of the night.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
The most damning article against prohibition EVER. The associated press just stood up and completely destroyed the war on drugs.

Even norml.com has this on their front page right now, and they are stunned at how good this piece is.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-trillion-war-drugs-failed-meet-goals/


AP IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals
MEXICO CITY

MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and wi...


MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.

"Nothing happens overnight," he said. "We've never worked the drug problem holistically. We'll arrest the drug dealer, but we leave the addiction."

His predecessor, John P. Walters, takes issue with that.

Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs. Drug abuse peaked nationally in 1979 and, despite fluctuations, remains below those levels, he says. Judging the drug war is complicated: Records indicate marijuana and prescription drug abuse are climbing, while cocaine use is way down. Seizures are up, but so is availability.

"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

___

In 1970, hippies were smoking pot and dropping acid. Soldiers were coming home from Vietnam hooked on heroin. Embattled President Richard M. Nixon seized on a new war he thought he could win.

"This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

— $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

— $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

— $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

— $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

— $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

___

From the beginning, lawmakers debated fiercely whether law enforcement — no matter how well funded and well trained — could ever defeat the drug problem.

Then-Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who had his doubts, has since watched his worst fears come to pass.

"Look what happened. It's an ongoing tragedy that has cost us a trillion dollars. It has loaded our jails and it has destabilized countries like Mexico and Colombia," he said.

In 1970, proponents said beefed-up law enforcement could effectively seal the southern U.S. border and stop drugs from coming in. Since then, the U.S. used patrols, checkpoints, sniffer dogs, cameras, motion detectors, heat sensors, drone aircraft — and even put up more than 1,000 miles of steel beam, concrete walls and heavy mesh stretching from California to Texas.

None of that has stopped the drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year — almost all of it brought in across the borders. Even more marijuana is sold, but it's hard to know how much of that is grown domestically, including vast fields run by Mexican drug cartels in U.S. national parks.

The dealers who are caught have overwhelmed justice systems in the United States and elsewhere. U.S. prosecutors declined to file charges in 7,482 drug cases last year, most because they simply didn't have the time. That's about one out of every four drug cases.

The United States has in recent years rounded up thousands of suspected associates of Mexican drug gangs, then turned some of the cases over to local prosecutors who can't make the charges stick for lack of evidence. The suspects are then sometimes released, deported or acquitted. The U.S. Justice Department doesn't even keep track of what happens to all of them.

In Mexico, traffickers exploit a broken justice system. Investigators often fail to collect convincing evidence — and are sometimes assassinated when they do. Confessions are beaten out of suspects by frustrated, underpaid police. Judges who no longer turn a blind eye to such abuse release the suspects in exasperation.

In prison, in the U.S. or Mexico, traffickers continue to operate, ordering assassinations and arranging distribution of their product even from solitary confinement in Texas and California. In Mexico, prisoners can sometimes even buy their way out.

The violence spans Mexico. In Ciudad Juarez, the epicenter of drug violence in Mexico, 2,600 people were killed last year in cartel-related violence, making the city of 1 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, one of the world's deadliest. Not a single person was prosecuted for homicide related to organized crime.

And then there's the money.

The $320 billion annual global drug industry now accounts for 1 percent of all commerce on the planet.

A full 10 percent of Mexico's economy is built on drug proceeds — $25 billion smuggled in from the United States every year, of which 25 cents of each $100 smuggled is seized at the border. Thus there's no incentive for the kind of financial reform that could tame the cartels.

"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the nonprofit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City.

McCay is one of the 13,000 members of Medford, Mass.-based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others who want to legalize and regulate all drugs.

A decade ago, no politician who wanted to keep his job would breathe a word about legalization, but a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

California voters decide in November whether to legalize marijuana, and South Dakota will vote this fall on whether to allow medical uses of marijuana, already permitted in California and 13 other states. The Obama administration says it won't target marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state laws.

___

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.

And yet both countries continue to spend the bulk of their drug budgets on law enforcement rather than treatment and prevention.

"President Obama's newly released drug war budget is essentially the same as Bush's, with roughly twice as much money going to the criminal justice system as to treatment and prevention," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. "This despite Obama's statements on the campaign trail that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue."

Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users.

About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment.

"For the first time ever, the nation has before it an administration that views the drug issue first and foremost through the lens of the public health mandate," said economist and drug policy expert John Carnevale, who served three administrations and four drug czars. "Yet ... it appears that this historic policy stride has some problems with its supporting budget."

Carnevale said the administration continues to substantially over-allocate funds to areas that research shows are least effective — interdiction and source-country programs — while under-allocating funds for treatment and prevention.

Kerlikowske, who wishes people would stop calling it a "war" on drugs, frequently talks about one of the most valuable tools they've found, in which doctors screen for drug abuse during routine medical examinations. That program would get a mere $7.2 million under Obama's budget.

"People will say that's not enough. They'll say the drug budget hasn't shifted as much as it should have, and granted I don't disagree with that," Kerlikowske said. "We would like to do more in that direction."

Fifteen years ago, when the government began telling doctors to ask their patients about their drug use during routine medical exams, it described the program as one of the most proven ways to intervene early with would-be addicts.

"Nothing happens overnight," Kerlikowske said.

___

Until 100 years ago, drugs were simply a commodity. Then Western cultural shifts made them immoral and deviant, according to London School of Economics professor Fernanda Mena.

Religious movements led the crusades against drugs: In 1904, an Episcopal bishop returning from a mission in the Far East argued for banning opium after observing "the natives' moral degeneration." In 1914, The New York Times reported that cocaine caused blacks to commit "violent crimes," and that it made them resistant to police bullets. In the decades that followed, Mena said, drugs became synonymous with evil.

Nixon drew on those emotions when he pressed for his War on Drugs.

"Narcotics addiction is a problem which afflicts both the body and the soul of America," he said in a special 1971 message to Congress. "It comes quietly into homes and destroys children, it moves into neighborhoods and breaks the fiber of community which makes neighbors. We must try to better understand the confusion and disillusion and despair that bring people, particularly young people, to the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs."

Just a few years later, a young Barack Obama was one of those young users, a teenager smoking pot and trying "a little blow when you could afford it," as he wrote in "Dreams From My Father." When asked during his campaign if he had inhaled the pot, he replied: "That was the point."

So why persist with costly programs that don't work?

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, sitting down with the AP at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, paused for a moment at the question.

"Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

"If you think about it in those terms, that they are fighting for lives — and in Mexico they are literally fighting for lives as well from the violence standpoint — you realize the stakes are too high to let go."
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Thanks for the article TechBoyJK. Just to add another avenue of thought...

I wonder if the instability that the War on Drugs has created in Mexico is at least somewhat responsible for the massive number of illegal immigrants in this country? And I'm not just talking about couriers. I'm talking about the fact that the War on Drugs has set Mexico up as a staging location for violent drug cartels. Mexico literally has a war going against drug cartels who make their vast fortunes off of selling drugs to Americans. Dirty cops and politicians are everywhere, which has to make it harder to run legitimate businesses, and is at least partly responsible for hurting honest people. Maybe the far right should try to balance the fact that their drug war is possibly partly to blame for the influx of millions of illegal immigrants. They could almost be considered refugees. Maybe if we ended the war on drugs, the Mexican economy could improve and some of those people would go home on their own.

Food for thought...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
They got the info from a CI, they didn't do ANY follow up to gather more intel, and waited eight days to serve the warrant. This is one of the most unprofessional cluster fuck of a raid I have ever seen.
Certainly true, all the way around it was screwed and heads need to roll. However police can always raid the wrong house; wholesale shooting of pets is always wrong, as the occupants are presumed innocent even while being raised. Only if dog poses a clear and present danger should it be shot - and then preferably by someone who can hit that at which he fires.

Incidentally local radio just reported an elderly woman suffered a heart attack when police led a late night, no-knock warrant tactical raid in the middle of the night - to the wrong house.
 
Last edited:

Cheesetogo

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2005
3,824
10
81
They're still cops no matter how you spin it, and they still need to do their homework before knocking down doors in the middle of the night.

SWAT doesn't run the investigations. Obviously whoever decided that the house needed to be raided didn't do their homework, but that's not SWAT's job. If a pilot is given coordinates to drop a bomb, and the bomb ends up killing innocents instead of terrorists, would you blame the pilot, or the person who ordered the attack?
 
Last edited: