3 ms·

If you're being raided in the middle of the night, there's basically 1 of 2 scenarios: 1. You're a bad -- and presumably dangerous -- person. 2. There's been

by k3n 13y ago

If you're being raided in the middle of the night, there's basically 1 of 2 scenarios: 1. You're a bad -- and presumably dangerous -- person. 2. There's been a clerical error and they never should have raided your house in the first place. For scenario 1, a dog is a weapon. It doesn't really matter how big or mean the dog is, it can be a distraction just long enough for you to reach for a weapon. If the officers feel threatened by the dog when they enter, then I'm fully supportive of them putting it down in the interest of their own safety. For scenario 2, it's sad that happens, but there is always going to be cases of mix-ups like that. I can't blame the officers enacting the raid in this situation either, as they actually believe they're executing for scenario 1.

sp332 13y ago
That's an argument for killing any dog in the area when the cops raid your house, no matter how they behave.
ck2 13y ago
I love how people defend cops until sooner or later in their life they finally have that event, to their complete and utter disbelief, where they are completely screwed over by someone in a law enforcement position, who has way too much power over them and has zero hesitation to abuse that power - because there are so many people who will then rise in their defense regardless, because of course you had to be a bad person (or it was a "mistake" oh well).
glenra 13y ago
Scenario 3: You're thought to be doing something illegal but not in the least bit dangerous, like growing marijuana. And the cops do a midnight raid just because they can on the pretext that you might "destroy evidence" if they merely came up and knocked on the door at a civilized hour like civilized people. The vast majority of no-knock raids are simply not justifiable in terms of risk to the officers or risk to the public. It's more a question of "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" when the PD has an otherwise bored SWAT team lying around that needs a little practice.
- k3n 13y ago
  I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. Yes, many times they are, but that's no guarantee. I do agree a lot about no-knock raids, though I'm not sure what alternatives there are. It seems you're trying to say that they really no functional purpose, which I'd disagree with; every single person I know that has dealt with drugs would flush them in an instant if the police showed up and politely knocked. I've personally witnessed it. Point being, that you've helped to reiterate, is that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement.
  - glenra 13y ago
    >I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. I think it's more presumptive to think that they are dangerous, absent strong evidence to think so. > I'm not sure what alternatives there are. One alternative is to regard a man's home as his castle. Police have no business breaking in merely because they suspect somebody possesses the wrong plant material. If drugs get flushed, so be it - there is no moral imperative that says the cops have to be able to make their case at all, much less based on what they find doing a search. The alternative is patience. Stake the place out. Come bother the homeowner when they are arriving or leaving or checking the mail. Reserve "no-knock" for hostage situations, kidnappings, and apprehending people who are actually known to be dangerous - it should be a very last resort, not a first resort. The vast majority of no-knock raids serve no purpose except to help the police feel good about themselves. > Point being [...] that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement. Why not both? Let's conclude there is a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs and there are larger issues in law enforcement.
rl3 13y ago
That's some breathtaking logic you have there. Perhaps you should consider a third scenario: that the vast majority of no-knock SWAT raids are a gross misapplication of force. The use of paramilitary-style tactics in situations where such force is not warranted unnecessarily increases the risk to both officers and citizens.[1] I don't think tragic outcomes are acceptable when they're often the result of inadequately-trained small municipal police departments acting out their Call of Duty fantasies with the help of DHS grants.[2] 1. http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112 http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-i... 2. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/ http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m...
- k3n 13y ago
  Since when did the topic devolve into whether particular SWAT raids are appropriate? I'm not going to argue against that because I largely agree with you. You can put the pitchfork down now.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    How could a discussion about the causalities inflicted during no-knock swat raids possibly exclude the fact that so many of these raids are completely unjustified? That's like trying to discuss drunk driving without talking about alcoholism. Drunk driving is a manifestation of one of the many ways alcoholism hurts others. In this case, the cops are drunk on power,immunity, and fantasies of paramilitarism, not cheap boxed wine.
  - rl3 13y ago
    To be fair, you did state that people on the receiving end of no-knock raids are either universally bad and have it coming, or clerical errors are to be blamed. I was merely responding to that particular dichotomy. Also, even when shooting a dog is justified from a tactical perspective during the course of a raid, it becomes an unnecessary tragedy when the decision to use that level of force (i.e. the no-knock raid) turns out to be bogus in the first place. It is certainly relevant to the topic at hand.
jlgreco 13y ago
> there's basically 1 of 2 scenarios: What utter bullshit. Here are just a few more: 3. You're a presumed "bad" person, but a no-knock raid is completely unwarranted. They shoot your fleeing dog in the back. 4. There has been a clerical error, and you were mistaken for a presumed "bad" person, but a no-knock raid was completely unwarranted in the case they anticipated anyway. They shoot your fleeing dog in the back. You are being willfully ignorant if you think these scenarios don't play out, and if you think the cops never deserve blame. I linked you to one such scenario. Click the link and read. > " The other dog was shot twice, including once in the back of the leg which bolsters Calvo's argument that the dog was fleeing and that the force used was "unbelievably excessive".[13] This version of events was also confirmed by the later testimony of a law enforcement officer present at the raid.[21]" > "In depositions, law enforcement personnel admitted that at least one of the dogs was running away when shot.[26]"

by k3n 13y ago

sp332 13y ago

That's an argument for killing any dog in the area when the cops raid your house, no matter how they behave.

ck2 13y ago

I love how people defend cops until sooner or later in their life they finally have that event, to their complete and utter disbelief, where they are completely screwed over by someone in a law enforcement position, who has way too much power over them and has zero hesitation to abuse that power - because there are so many people who will then rise in their defense regardless, because of course you had to be a bad person (or it was a "mistake" oh well).

glenra 13y ago

Scenario 3: You're thought to be doing something illegal but not in the least bit dangerous, like growing marijuana. And the cops do a midnight raid just because they can on the pretext that you might "destroy evidence" if they merely came up and knocked on the door at a civilized hour like civilized people. The vast majority of no-knock raids are simply not justifiable in terms of risk to the officers or risk to the public. It's more a question of "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" when the PD has an otherwise bored SWAT team lying around that needs a little practice.

k3n 13y ago
I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. Yes, many times they are, but that's no guarantee. I do agree a lot about no-knock raids, though I'm not sure what alternatives there are. It seems you're trying to say that they really no functional purpose, which I'd disagree with; every single person I know that has dealt with drugs would flush them in an instant if the police showed up and politely knocked. I've personally witnessed it. Point being, that you've helped to reiterate, is that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement.
- glenra 13y ago
  >I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. I think it's more presumptive to think that they are dangerous, absent strong evidence to think so. > I'm not sure what alternatives there are. One alternative is to regard a man's home as his castle. Police have no business breaking in merely because they suspect somebody possesses the wrong plant material. If drugs get flushed, so be it - there is no moral imperative that says the cops have to be able to make their case at all, much less based on what they find doing a search. The alternative is patience. Stake the place out. Come bother the homeowner when they are arriving or leaving or checking the mail. Reserve "no-knock" for hostage situations, kidnappings, and apprehending people who are actually known to be dangerous - it should be a very last resort, not a first resort. The vast majority of no-knock raids serve no purpose except to help the police feel good about themselves. > Point being [...] that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement. Why not both? Let's conclude there is a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs and there are larger issues in law enforcement.

rl3 13y ago

That's some breathtaking logic you have there. Perhaps you should consider a third scenario: that the vast majority of no-knock SWAT raids are a gross misapplication of force. The use of paramilitary-style tactics in situations where such force is not warranted unnecessarily increases the risk to both officers and citizens.[1] I don't think tragic outcomes are acceptable when they're often the result of inadequately-trained small municipal police departments acting out their Call of Duty fantasies with the help of DHS grants.[2] 1. http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112 http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-i... 2. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/ http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m...

k3n 13y ago
Since when did the topic devolve into whether particular SWAT raids are appropriate? I'm not going to argue against that because I largely agree with you. You can put the pitchfork down now.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  How could a discussion about the causalities inflicted during no-knock swat raids possibly exclude the fact that so many of these raids are completely unjustified? That's like trying to discuss drunk driving without talking about alcoholism. Drunk driving is a manifestation of one of the many ways alcoholism hurts others. In this case, the cops are drunk on power,immunity, and fantasies of paramilitarism, not cheap boxed wine.
- rl3 13y ago
  To be fair, you did state that people on the receiving end of no-knock raids are either universally bad and have it coming, or clerical errors are to be blamed. I was merely responding to that particular dichotomy. Also, even when shooting a dog is justified from a tactical perspective during the course of a raid, it becomes an unnecessary tragedy when the decision to use that level of force (i.e. the no-knock raid) turns out to be bogus in the first place. It is certainly relevant to the topic at hand.

jlgreco 13y ago

> there's basically 1 of 2 scenarios: What utter bullshit. Here are just a few more: 3. You're a presumed "bad" person, but a no-knock raid is completely unwarranted. They shoot your fleeing dog in the back. 4. There has been a clerical error, and you were mistaken for a presumed "bad" person, but a no-knock raid was completely unwarranted in the case they anticipated anyway. They shoot your fleeing dog in the back. You are being willfully ignorant if you think these scenarios don't play out, and if you think the cops never deserve blame. I linked you to one such scenario. Click the link and read. > " The other dog was shot twice, including once in the back of the leg which bolsters Calvo's argument that the dog was fleeing and that the force used was "unbelievably excessive".[13] This version of events was also confirmed by the later testimony of a law enforcement officer present at the raid.[21]" > "In depositions, law enforcement personnel admitted that at least one of the dogs was running away when shot.[26]"