She should also know about the magical geas over the neighborhood that insures that a gang-banger who attempts to say those words would be unable to do so, for his tongue would surely burn with fire.
Oh, wait. That’s not how it works in the real world.
That’s pretty sick, Apos.
I can’t imagine anyone besides extreme law and order crazies bordering on police state fascism advocates being happy about the direction law enforcement has been headed for 20 years.
This is the silliest argument by bogus analogy I’ve seen on this message board, and that’s saying something.
Obviously, refraining from stealing stuff while others around you are doing so does not put you at risk of getting squashed inside a ton of metal. Driving 55 while others around you are driving 70 does.
The more accurate description is "when you’re at risk of (literal) highway robbery. Yeah, I can see why that causes upset and tension.
I think the point about citizen-police relations being shredded by speed-trap revenue extraction is spot on.
She got one of the cops three times, and the other two once, with a revolver.
Damn. She must have had some practice sometime. Geez. And if what the informant is saying is true…
Cops need to respect citizens. Even 88 year old ladies.
If somebody breaks into my house, I’m not going to assume that he’s blind.
If the homeowner is lucky enough to have that delay, fine; it makes it that much easier to take out the threat.
Yeah, it could take days of sustained intensive search to find the home entertainment system and the computer. :rolleyes:
Taken together, these statements imply that, yeah, in the abstract sense the citizens have some theoretical prerogative to rein in the cops, but in actual practice they should never presume to second-guess their betters.
That’s my neck of the woods. This incident has had a definite and indelible effect of my opinions.
Loach & Lissa
I’ll admit that you two aren’t responsible for either of the massive screwups cited above. Further, I enjoy debating/discussing things with both of you. Neither of you assume that your opponent is Satan incarnate just because he disagrees with you. (Something that seems to happen frequently in the Pit) On the other hand, you’ve both defended paramilitary tactics used by the police as being safer and resulting in fewer loss of lives all around. This would be a good time to make that point.
In the case of the OLS (Old Lady Shooting) the police accepted the word of an informant that there were drugs in the house and security cameras being monitored constantly and as a result, hauled out the SWAT team and obtained a knock-and-enter warrant with the further result that they killed an old lady and damn near got killed themselves. My own (admittedly slim) knowledge of police informants is that they are generally scum-bags and have some overriding reason for running to the police with information, either money or some kind of bust held in abeyance. In other words, they are a poor and unreliable source of information.
As a direct result of calling out the big guns based on unreliable information, the police are now standing around with egg all over their faces and an old lady is at ambient temperature. It would seem that such warrants are not as difficult to obtain (at least in some circumstances) as I would have assumed and hoped.
The dead optometrist is a screw-up of epic proportions. Instead of using the SWAT team, it sounds more like they could have simply called him and told him to come down to the station. This leaves aside the whole part about the investigator pushing him to bet more. (As on OBTW, that may not technically be entrapment but seems amazingly unethical) Seriously, the guy is a successful optometrist. Did they think he would engage in a suicidal shoot-out with the police over a gambling bust? The initial statement that the Fairfax police “serve nearly all their warrents that way” is also troubling. The article mentions that they have since backed away from that statement and I suspect it was nothing more than a clumsy, spur-of-the-moment, lie to excuse their actitivities. At the same time, it is obvious that the Fairfax police do use the SWAT team in an incredibly inappropriate manner. This example would seem to be perfect evidence of that. No guns involved or even present in the house, no gangs, no prior history of violence. In fact, no reason at all except the police decided to use overwhelming force on a piss-ant gambling bust.
Now, it’s easy to say that people occasionally screw up and that these two instances are simply examples of that. That much is obvious but I don’t think these situations can be simply “hand-waved” away like that. My point to you is that the police should not be engaging in such tactics at all without overwhelming evidence that officers or bystanders are in danger. In neither of these cases was that obvious. Nor can it be excused by saying the police have to enforce all the laws. I admit that they do. The problem is that this type of enforcement is both inappropriate and dangerous.
A further point to you both is that these kinds of incidents are very nearly unavoidable while this type of enforcement is an easy option. Tempers and emotions are running incredibly high and when something goes wrong, it tends to wrong in the worst possible manner.
In both these cases, the survivors of the deceased and a stack of lawyers are going to experience windfall profits. While that is OK, it is not my concern. My concern is that, while this style of law enforcement is an easy option, I or anyone else, can suddenly become embrioled in a life-or-death gun battle with the police.
Regards
Testy
It is interesting that if they enforce all the laws that the informer wasn’t arrested for buying drugs, or selling them, or whatever he was doing. Maybe they should keep their more dubious informers in ‘protective’ custody until after the raid.
Uzi
If I recall the article correctly, the informer is in protective custody now. I assume that is because the powers-that-be in the police force are concerned that someone will influence him to flip-flop (again) on his testimony.
I take your point that, if everything we’ve been told is true, the guy has confessed to buying crack cocaine and should be arrested. He seems to be able to skate on that due to some legalistic/legislative slight-of-hand.
Like I mentioned, the motives of informants are rarely pure. Maybe they do it for money, to keep a bust in abeyance, or to get even with someone. That has been my (very limited) experience with informants. Regardless of their motives, they are rarely a good (reliable) source of information and will say whatever someone wants to hear.
That someone applied for (and got) a knock-then-enter warrant and called out the SWAT team on this kind of evidence shows a damming lack of judgement on the part of the police and the judge that issued the warrant.
Regards
Testy
So are we to conclude that US citizens are helpless in the face of their overpowering police state, or that a substantial proportion of US voters are bordering on police state fascism advocates?
More along the lines of apathetic, conditioned not to become involved in government, trust authorities, and such, younger people growing up in an environment where it wasn’t uncommon, gradual change over time invoking the frog boiling analogy, other stuff.
Well, unfortunately, yes.
IMHO? As to the former, yeah, pretty much; as to the latter, probably yes, at least until what’s been talked about in this thread happens to them or their loved ones. Again, IMHO.
You obviously have no idea how the informant thing works, do you? If they give bad information, they don’t get whatever they were promised, whether it was avoiding prosecution or a lighter sentence or whatever. They are rewarded for results, not information.
Don’t Call Me Shirley
Fine. I’m willing to accept that they receive whatever was promised based on results. In this case it would seem that the information on the old lady was bad and thus the results were poor and whoever Mr. Informant is, he’s not going to get his reward. But that really isn’t the issue, is it?
It would seem that, based on unverified information, the police were willing to get a knock-then-enter warrant and call out the SWAT team. Based on this and some other instances cited above, it would seem that information from informants is somewhat unreliable and should not be acted upon without some other form of verification.
Frankly I don’t give a damn where the information comes from. The main thrust of my argument is that the police should not be acting like assault forces. The fact that they have done so based on poor information just makes it that much worse.
Regards
Testy
Actually, according to CNN this morning, the informant never gave them any information. The police said he did and got the warrant, then after it went bad they contacted him and tried to coach him on what to say. Linky.
So you apparently also believe that, in the real world, it is common for criminals breaking into your house to begin by shouting their intentions as loudly as possible.
Uh-huh.
Regards,
Shodan
Er… what?
If they shouted that they were police, they wouldn’t be shouting their intentions - they would be attempting to lie to gain control over the situation.
The point is that you act as if saying “POLICE!” is a foolproof method of determing whether or not someone is a police officer. Clearly it is not - it’s a potential tactic a criminal to use to induce the surrender instinct that the police intend.
If not as if breaking down the door is stealthy. If they feel like they could gain the upper hand by yelling “POLICE!”, why not? The point is that someone simply shouting “POLICE!” is not unambiguous, definitive information about their intentions.
Assuming Don’t Call Me Shirley’s link is correct that is pretty much what happened, isn’t it? Armed thugs broke into her house yelling, “Police!”.
Don’t Call Me Shirley
Yeah. I read that and it may be true. My own thought was that possibly the guy did give them information and is now denying it because of the way it turned out.
If we assume he DID give them the information, the APD is going to be fairly pissed at him. No security cameras, no dope, and no dealers. It’s no longer a matter of just getting a lighter sentence or some money. The informant saying that APD tried to coach him MIGHT just be his way of trying to distance himself from the whole affair.
OTOH, if we assume the informant did NOT give them the information then where does that leave us? Why would the APD be there at all? Did they get some other kind of tip and blame it on this guy after it went bad? That seems a bit convoluted to me, too much like some kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy.
I’m pissed at the Atlanta PD right now but I don’t assume they’ve started a policy of executing old ladies on a random basis. If they weren’t responding to a tip from this guy then they need to come clean about why they were there at all.
Regards
Testy