This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

[RoyalTea]

all this and they found enough marijuana for a misdemeanor charge.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...h-that-led-to/

[wildcatlh]

It's sad how this post will be completely ignored. This is the kind of thing that I read about in school. That is, I read about it happening in Nazi Germany. Or Communist Russia. This happens in the United States of America. Every single day. This happened over A JOINT.

This country's priorities are beyond screwed up.

[kvrdave]

Well there's two posters who don't think about the children

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by wildcatlh

It's sad how this post will be completely ignored.

well, I guess I could have given this thread a more sensational headline. "SWAT TEAM MURDERS 7 YEAR OLD BOY'S PUPPY (YouTube link)" would probably get more hits.

[CaptainMarvel]

In Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, they served warrants at houses, video taped the search, and then released the video tape to the public while the incident is under review? I never knew they were so progressive and open under those regimes.

Where are the search warrant affidavits the first two posters reviewed to see whether the police had good reason to believe he was dealing drugs? That's why they conducted the search... not because of a "single joint." I understand in some people's opinions, it wouldn't matter if they found a joint or a major growing operating, but to people not opposed to the "war on drugs" as a matter of principle, saying this all "happened over a joint" is acting as if the ends invalidate the means.

I don't know what their search warrant was based on, and I'm pretty sure neither do you. If the warrant was based on probable cause (which a judge said it was to be issued), then the police did their job. Your dislike for the underlying law doesn't invalidate their duty to enforce it, nor does their having not found anything more than a small amount of illegal drugs invalidate the warrant after the fact.

[wildcatlh]

My dislike for the underlying law has nothing to do with my anger at what happened. It's the fact that they went in, guns blazing, to where there was a 7 year old, SHOT A CORGI (what's it gonna do, yip you to death) to arrest someone for a non-violent crime. That's my issue. My issue is that for some reason, we've dispensed with all sanity when it comes to drugs; many police departments now have SWAT raids for all drug warrants.

As for "serving a warrant"... when you don't knock and announce, or when you knock and announce but leave zero time for someone to actually answer the door... I'm not really seeing why it's any better. You have any idea how many criminals bash in peoples' doors screaming "POLICE!"? If someone were to bash in my door in such a way... why on earth would I trust they are who they say they are?

Let me ask you. Lets say there was a major grow operation in there. Lets just assume that. There wasn't, obviously, but lets say there was. Why do you still go in guns blazing? I mean... there's no chance he's going to flush a major grow operation. Going in guns blazing is going to INCREASE the likelihood of violence, not decrease it. It makes both the police and the innocent people in the house less safe. I don't get it.

There is no possible end that could justify the means used here.

[Red Dog]

To me no amount of drugs suspected of being on the property would validate having that kind of policy of enforcement and engagement. That kind of policy serves more to preserve evidence than it does to protect life (of the police and occupants of the property).

[Dr Mabuse]

The entire philosophy behind SWAT-style drug raids is that the death of a mother, a child, or the family pet is an acceptable risk to prevent flushing.

[maxfisher]

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel

In Communist Russia or Nazi Germany, they served warrants at houses, video taped the search, and then released the video tape to the public while the incident is under review? I never knew they were so progressive and open under those regimes.

Where are the search warrant affidavits the first two posters reviewed to see whether the police had good reason to believe he was dealing drugs? That's why they conducted the search... not because of a "single joint." I understand in some people's opinions, it wouldn't matter if they found a joint or a major growing operating, but to people not opposed to the "war on drugs" as a matter of principle, saying this all "happened over a joint" is acting as if the ends invalidate the means.

I don't know what their search warrant was based on, and I'm pretty sure neither do you. If the warrant was based on probable cause (which a judge said it was to be issued), then the police did their job. Your dislike for the underlying law doesn't invalidate their duty to enforce it, nor does their having not found anything more than a small amount of illegal drugs invalidate the warrant after the fact.

Who is this responding to? Given the thread's title and content, it seems to be a critique of the system, but clearly you feel someone's singling out police officers.

[kvrdave]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

The entire philosophy behind SWAT-style drug raids is that the death of a mother, a child, or the family pet is an acceptable risk to prevent flushing.

You had me agreeing until the mere implication that it wasn't okay to kill a dog.

[wildcatlh]

Originally Posted by maxfisher

Who is this responding to? Given the thread's title and content, it seems to be a critique of the system, but clearly you feel someone's singling out police officers.

Probably to me, more for my posting history than what I said here.

I don't blame these particular officers, except to the extent that they don't question these policies. I blame the system. I blame the "tough on crime" politicians. I blame the internal affairs bureaus that always seem to find the officers did nothing wrong. I could go on.

[kvrdave]

And you will.

[DonnachaOne]

Wars on abstract things don't go too well.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel

Where are the search warrant affidavits the first two posters reviewed to see whether the police had good reason to believe he was dealing drugs? That's why they conducted the search... not because of a "single joint." I understand in some people's opinions, it wouldn't matter if they found a joint or a major growing operating, but to people not opposed to the "war on drugs" as a matter of principle, saying this all "happened over a joint" is acting as if the ends invalidate the means.

I didn't say that they did all this for a single joint. I said they did all this and they only found enough weed for a misdemeanor charge.

I'd like to believe that for the police to be authorized to use this kind of force, they should be absolutely certain that they're going to find what they were expecting to find.

Supposedly, the police said they didn't expect a child to be in the house. They were certain that there was a major stash of marijuana, but they were blindsided by the fact that a seven year old boy was inside.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally Posted by wildcatlh

My dislike for the underlying law has nothing to do with my anger at what happened. It's the fact that they went in, guns blazing, to where there was a 7 year old, SHOT A CORGI (what's it gonna do, yip you to death) to arrest someone for a non-violent crime. That's my issue. My issue is that for some reason, we've dispensed with all sanity when it comes to drugs; many police departments now have SWAT raids for all drug warrants.

As for "serving a warrant"... when you don't knock and announce, or when you knock and announce but leave zero time for someone to actually answer the door... I'm not really seeing why it's any better. You have any idea how many criminals bash in peoples' doors screaming "POLICE!"? If someone were to bash in my door in such a way... why on earth would I trust they are who they say they are?

Let me ask you. Lets say there was a major grow operation in there. Lets just assume that. There wasn't, obviously, but lets say there was. Why do you still go in guns blazing? I mean... there's no chance he's going to flush a major grow operation. Going in guns blazing is going to INCREASE the likelihood of violence, not decrease it. It makes both the police and the innocent people in the house less safe. I don't get it.

There is no possible end that could justify the means used here.

"Nobody is attacking the officers. We're implying they're jackbooted Nazis, but nobody is attacking them."

First, I reject your repeated characterization that they went in "guns blazing." They had guns out, but no shots were fired until the pit bull. And I'd probably have shot a pit bull too if it showed aggression. That's the risk of having an aggressive dog that will attack intruders; some intruders are allowed to be there (police with warrants/ firemen), and the dogs can't differentiate or submit. The corgi, I can't explain. It suffered one shot and lived; maybe it was poor judgment, or maybe it was next to or under the pitbull while the pitbull was shot and took a stray bullet.

Second, the purpose of a SWAT raid is not, as claimed, simply to prevent destruction of evidence. It's also to ensure officer safety when dealing with a subject likely to be armed. The alternatives are 1) never serve search warrants ( which I'm sure some here would prefer) or 2) send regular officers in without the specialized training that SWAT teams get. The first option isn't feasible, while the latter would lead to far worse results. These are almost always dynamic situations, and they aren't going to be made better by somebody with less training, which is what you get if you don't use SWAT. That's all beside the fact that even if a grow operation isn't easily destroyed (which I'll concede for this discussion only), there are items of evidence such as paper or electronic records that ARE easily destroyed.

Pretend this isn't a product of the "unjust war on drugs"; if they believed he was building a stockpile of illegal automatic weapons, would you have the same criticisms? If so, fair enough, and I can agree to disagree. But drug dealers are almost universally well armed, so why should you approach this any differently from a safety standpoint? My suspicion is that criticisms of the police action here is less about their methods and more about using their methods as a convenient tool to undermine the war on drugs.

[maxfisher]

Originally Posted by wildcatlh

Probably to me, more for my posting history than what I said here.

I don't blame these particular officers, except to the extent that they don't question these policies. I blame the system. I blame the "tough on crime" politicians. I blame the internal affairs bureaus that always seem to find the officers did nothing wrong. I could go on.

Oh, I figured as much. It just seemed like an irrelevant response to the thread and irked me. I also noticed he didn't point out another important difference between America and Communist Russia/Nazi Germany. Here, a police officer can find his duties morally reprehensible and resign, without fearing for his or his family's lives.

[Red Dog]

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel

Second, the purpose of a SWAT raid is not, as claimed, simply to prevent destruction of evidence. It's also to ensure officer safety when dealing with a subject likely to be armed.

Read what I said again. That's not what I claimed.

That kind of policy serves more to preserve evidence than it does to protect life (of the police and occupants of the property).

The primary goal should be to maximize safety. I don't see how the paramilitary style invasion with guns drawn does that.

The only time such tactics should be used is when there already exists imminent danger to a human life.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally Posted by RoyalTea

I'd like to believe that for the police to be authorized to use this kind of force, they should be absolutely certain that they're going to find what they were expecting to find.

Okay, that seems completely reasonable to me, if we can then skip trial. I mean, if police have to have "absolute certainty", which is such an insanely high standard that we don't require it anywhere in the law that I know of and which exceeds what we even need to convict somebody in a criminal trial, there's no point to a criminal trial.

Except the pesky Constitution, which requires a criminal trial and which also specifies that "probable cause" is all that's needed for a search warrant.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel

Second, the purpose of a SWAT raid is not, as claimed, simply to prevent destruction of evidence.

Not to interrupt yet another blind defense of all things police officers do... but 'yes', 'no knock' SWAT raids were created precisely for that reason. You should look into it some time.

'We are following orders' is no excuse for/of human activity BTW.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally Posted by Red Dog

Read what I said again. That's not what I claimed.

I didn't say you made the claim. Mabuse explicitly made the claim.

The primary goal should be to maximize safety. I don't see how the paramilitary style invasion with guns drawn does that.

The only time such tactics should be used is when there already exists imminent danger to a human life.

It would seem the overwhelming weight of police and military experiences worldwide with searching homes for potentially dangerous subjects would seem to disagree with your tactical assessment. What are your qualifications again on the issue?

I know when I'm lawfully going into the home of somebody I expect to be armed to arrest him or gather evidence that will send him to jail for years, it seems like I'm in imminent danger. Maybe I've got it all wrong though.

[RoyalTea]

Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel

Okay, that seems completely reasonable to me, if we can then skip trial. I mean, if police have to have "absolute certainty", which is such an insanely high standard that we don't require it anywhere in the law that I know of and which exceeds what we even need to convict somebody in a criminal trial, there's no point to a criminal trial.

Except the pesky Constitution, which requires a criminal trial and which also specifies that "probable cause" is all that's needed for a search warrant.

The intelligence gathered for this search warrant included no mention that a child was inside (link). Do you think that such a fact makes a difference, or was it inconsequential?

How can they be certain that there was a large stash of marijuana, but had no clue that there was a kid in the house?

[Red Dog]

I said "already exists imminent danger." You barging into the home with guns drawn is creating imminent danger where it did not previously exist. But I'm not qualified, so.....

[JasonF]

Realistically, what kind of danger does a pit bull pose to law enforcement officials wearing the sort of gear that the officers in the video were wearing?

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

Not to interrupt yet another blind defense of all things police officers do... but 'yes', 'no knock' SWAT raids were created precisely for that reason. You should look into it some time.

Perhaps you could take more effort to know what you're talking about? Officer safety or the destruction of contraband are BOTH grounds for no knock warrants under Wilson v Arizona.

We aren't talking about a no-knock in this case anyway.

'We are following orders' is no excuse for/of human activity BTW.

True. Any more than you disagreement with a law makes enforcement of a law immoral.

[CaptainMarvel]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Realistically, what kind of danger does a pit bull pose to law enforcement officials wearing the sort of gear that the officers in the video were wearing?

A lot? Most of the police gear is designed to blunt impact, not penetration or crushing. And that gear only covers certain areas, not all over. And all the dog has to do is delay the officers enough for the offender to retrieve a weapon for it to be a danger.

I've had people in full padding designed to prevent dog bites get attacked by our bite dogs who say how terrifying it is, or say how much they can feel it through the padding.

There's a reason drug dealers and other thugs around here keep pit bulls. They can flee unmolested through their backyard, while we get mauled.