Then you are not from New Jersey. It’s practically a term of endearment. Of course one quote taken from a whole post can be interpreted in many ways. I’m sure it could be written better. But I saw nothing to conclude that the writer felt more for dogs than people as you suggest. It was a hypothetical sutuation were the police went into a house. The writer said she would be most worried about her aggresive dog. Had nothing to do with the lady in Atlanta. If I am wrong I would apologize but I doubt it from everything else that was written. To attribute motivation to someone where it doesn’t exist is wrong or dishonest.
I read the dog quote the same way Loach did. If I say “I’m worried my cats might die if my house catches fire” that doesn’t mean I’m valuing my cats above people elsewhere who may be in burning buildings.
Yes Waco turned out so well. How many children were killed? Of course that is an extreme example and one that doesn’t quite fit here since the ATF attempted entry first but met a heavily armed group that was tipped off.
Lets see if my inferior communcations skills can do this justice. Entry techniques have been developed to use the element of surprise. The hope is that no force will be needed, it will happen so fast that the house and people inside it will be secured before anyone has a chance to decide to put up a fight. The worst injury should be maybe a bruised wrist from handcuffs.
Since most people here don’t believe in any drug laws I won’t even bring up destruction of evidence. Allowing someone to barricade themselves in a house is very dangerous. To do it safely you have to use a very large ammount of police officers. If this became the normal tactic you would need a much larger number of police officers than you have right now in most communities. Despite however much intelligence or surveillance
good on you. but, she was talking about the tactic. She continued to blame the people who died for not complying quickly enough, vs the tactic itself being bad. and actually said that the thing she was most concerned about was the dog. if she’d demonstrated some measure of sympathy for the dead people, I’d not have made the comment. she didn’t. it was always their fault.
shit. I didn’t hit submit, I swear. Anyway. No matter how much you think you know about the house or who is in it you can’t know everything. If someone is barricaded in a house you don’t know if granny or a child or anyone else is in there. You might have a pretty good idea but you don’t know for sure. You don’t know for sure if he has a weapon or how many. In a typical suburban setting you would have to clear the street to the front and rear. You would have to clear every house which might be in the line of fire. You have to shut down the entire neighborhood and officers need to keep every out of the perimeter. The house itself must be surrounded and all exits covered. Anyone covering the house is extreme danger. Typically the officers would have to be easily within 100m which would be a very easy shot for anyone with a rifle. Especially someone shooting from a dark room. Multiply this by however many search warrants or arrest warrants need to be executed in the country.
If the tactic of shooting blindly into a door to get someone to surrender becomes the norm imagine the Pit threads then. And I would be right there against it. Never shoot blindly. You better have a good idea what is on the other end of that bullet before you pull the trigger.
Right there is the connection that doesn’t exist. Right between the period and the uncapitalized first word of the next sentence. Maybe some high school debater can come in with the latin term for what you are trying to do but it’s pretty clear you are speaking out your ass. Go ahead and disagree about the tactic but there was no place where she placed the life of a dog over the life of the woman killed in the OP. At the time she wasn’t talking specifically about the incident in the OP. Again she said that if they came into her house she would be most concerned about her dog. If she meant it the way you think she did then I would be right there with you.
Loach
I take your point about Waco although that situation is hardly representative of anything. After you mentioned it I went and read the Wikki articles on it. The whole situation sounded incredibly badly handled by the FBI, ATF, and the loons inside the buildings.
One of my point to Lissa was that, in general, people who look out the window and see loads of police surrounding them, will surrender peacefully. I admit that there will be exceptions to this as there is to anything else.
The other point I was making to Lissa was that the more often the police act like an invading army, the more often they need to do so. People are, more and more often, seeing the police as an enemy instead of a helpful part of the community. Paramilitary operations like this feed that perception. As an example, take some of the posts seen here tonight.
Regards
Testy
:rolleyes:
try again. She was defending the tactic. her ‘main concern’ was that if that tactic would be used on her home, she personally would be safe 'cause she’d immediately comply, but her dog would be dead. The tactic, when used in other situations results in dead people. she has no concern about that. she’s verbalized that lack of concern, the people who died,died, not because of a flawed tactic, but because they failed to comply. she’d survive the flawed tactic 'cause she would comply. but her dog would die. that results in concern for her.
and I repeat. I’m much more concerned about the people who die from this flawed tactic, not some hypothetical dog if it were used against her. I’d still object to the tactic should it be used on her and her dog, though.
and, let’s be honest. the tactic is to ensure that evidence not be lost. since they have probable cause to enter in the first place, they have some evidence, and want additional to beef up charges. so, the point of this tactic is to add additional years in prison for the suspect. certainly there’s better, easier, safer ways to accomplish this (wait til they leave, for example?)
Assaulting an empty house is no fun.
I mean, you get to dress up in your ninja clothes and break down the door and everything, but you don’t get the chance to beat someone with a night stick.
You are not living up to your name. You need to be much more testy. As you say it may be that most of the time people will give up peacefully. Maybe not. However it is those exceptions that are important. You have to weigh the consequences of what will go wrong and the frequency of when it will go wrong. I’m telling you the surround and wait will go wrong more often and have a greater cost. The tactics that are in use now have been created using the lessons learned from dead officers over many years. These tactics are not set in stone either. They evolve as situations and society evolves. Right now this is the best choice. Not a great choice, particularlly for the officer on point.
Whatever. It was never implied that the poster values dogs over people. If that were the case I would be agreeing with you.
Let’s be honest. The tactic is used to ensure officer safety first, then in order to use the least force necessary to apprend the suspect and secure evidence. It is used so the subject doesn’t have time to grab a weapon, doesn’t have time to think “shit I don’t want to go back to prison.” Obviously it doesn’t go off perfectly every time. Most of the time that it doesn’t work perfectly it is a police officer that pays the price so you should be happy about that.
Do we have to resort to accusing people of being happy about cops dying because they don’t like maximum-force raids as a first option for law enforcement?
Assaulting an empty house would be useless. What good is evidence without a suspect? When used in drug cases these tactics are not being used to try to arrest some guy with a joint. They are used to go after pushers. I get it, they are not really criminals because it is only drugs right? A non-violent crime commited by non-violent small businessmen. I’m sure if drugs became legal there would be a new dawn in America and all those criminals would instantly become productive members of society.
What the fuck does maximum-force mean? In the OP it was three guys who didn’t fire until shot at. That’s maximum force? I’m sure a police force like Atlanta could come up with a lot more force then that.
apparently. and he also apparently doesn’t understand that since my refrain has been consistently “I’m concerned about people dying”. that would include cops.
he accuses me of intentionally misconstruing someone’s words then pulls this bullshit. whatever asshole. you really are a waste of time.
Unsurprisingly, you missed the core of my point and attacked the semantics.
You accuse others of being happy of seeing police officers die, because they objected to the tactics used.
There have been several people in this thread who aren’t concerned about lives as long as it’s someone with a badge. I looked back through the last couple of pages and you don’t seem to be one of them, at least as you have written in this thread. I apologize for painting you with the broad brush. Heat of the moment. I may still be a waste of time but I do know I was wrong for that sentence.
What was the core of your point? That police like to go into houses so they can beat up people? I thought that was just snark and didn’t need a comment.
Oh if you meant what I said to wring then I addressed it to him and didn’t think I needed to address you about it.
No, that was my other post, which was pretty snarky, I admit.
Specifically, I asked if we had to accuse people of being happy about police dying because they objected to the tactics at hand. You objected to the way I described the tactics, which were tangenital to the point, which was that it was unjustified to smear people in the fashion you were doing.