I work in a poker room. We have armed security guys and a sheriff present most nights. They are the guys standing between me and thee. When I notified management that if and when they decided to cut a guy off on my table that they should have at least 3 guards and one sheriff, I was proven right as it took all of them to take him to the ground. I might note I’m a female about 115lbs.
I’m reading this saga knowing that I have a grandmother who has a pistol and regularly uses it to kill squirrels and other vermin. Also knowing that my husband bought drugs from a guy who does it openly, regularly and often who has never been busted. Also knowing that I work with a Cops Wife who never drives less than 20 miles over the speed limit, brags about what kind of asshole cop would give her a ticket and generally takes advantage of every perk given.
The War on Drugs is our civil war. It is making it more and more ok for us to be more like a police state. An earlier thread had a discussion about whether or not you should allow cops to “look around” your house and if you fail to do so you are some how a “suspect.” This is not working. There must be a better way. There has to be.
I’ve been open elsewhere on these boards about my conflicted feelings WRT cops (even though extended members of my own family are currently, or have been, police officers/sheriff’s deputies), but I can honestly say that I don’t disagree with anything that you’ve said here.
Having said that, I totally get where people with opposing views are coming from. And for what it’s worth–and even though I don’t claim to know what’s really in people’s hearts–I get the sense that much of what you’re seeing here that could be categorized as anti-cop is a distrust of authority in general, and of cops in particular. (I haven’t met too many people in positions of authority–cop or civilian–who always wield that authority wisely and fairly, and I’m guessing that the same is true of many of the people who appear to you to be anti-cop.) (Please note that I said “many,” not “all.”)
Add to this what I, and others, believe to be the very real existence of a thin blue line, where, if a cop does something out of line, especially to a civilian, other cops know good and damn well that they’d better not play the role of canary for Internal Affairs or any other investigative/oversight body, or else there’ll be holy hell to pay. The result of this? Many bad cops go unpunished, and the public? Well, where’s the public supposed to put its trust?
As you might imagine, this feeling that cops can do just about anything they want with, if not total, then near-impunity **frustrates ** and **frightens ** the hell out of people who just want to be treated like more than sub-human by the cops, and who have no defense should a cop who’s having a bad day, or a cop who doesn’t like blacks/gays/liberals/whatever, decide to take his shit out on a citizen. And by “defense,” I mean that citizens can’t defend themselves in the moment, either verbally or physically, since that can easily lead to getting their asses kicked or, worse, shot. (And, honestly, if a cop unjustly kills me and then gets punished? So what? I’m still dead. Unjustly. And Mama mourns.)
So what’re people supposed to do?
I don’t know–and I’m not suggesting that you do, either, and I totally get that you acknowledge the existence of bad cops–but I do know this: Regardless of my issues with cops, I’ve never seriously wished death on them either as a whole or individually, 'cause that’s just not cool. (I have, however, wished terrible, horrible, indescribably painful things short of death on cops who I believe have clearly acted inappropriately, especially when they’ve *unjustly * cause physical harm or death to someone, or–as has been done to me–when they diminish the humanity of an innocent person.)
It’s interesting that you proffered the anti-black analogy in response to E-Sabbath (who I think made some very good points), because whenever I’ve thought about my feelings WRT cops, I’ve often thought about the potential parallels WRT how I’ve been the victim of racial prejudice. And I’ve felt like shit for having these conflicted feelings. I mentioned this to a (white) friend one day several years ago, and she said something to the effect of, "Well, Li’l Pluck, knowing you, I know you feel like shit for having these feelings. The thing you need to keep in mind, though, is that **you ** don’t have a gun and a badge and permission to shoot people, and cops do, so what you feel is not the same as having a racial prejudice against someone. " Mind you, she wasn’t condoning my feelings–she was simply saying that she understood them within the context of the imbalance of power, authority, and, far too often, the public’s perceptions WRT someone like me versus the cops.
I have a feeling that this will be a lifelong struggle for me (not that it pops up every day–hardly), and I accept that, but I can’t help but wonder if the other side of the coin will be a lifelong struggle for cops, because I’ve *never * heard a single one own up to some of the claims that I (and other Dopers on this board, and the public in general) continue to make. (I am aware of that book written last year(?) by the former police chief in Seattle–can’t recall the title right now–but I’m also aware that, IIRC, he’s been severely lambasted by other cops for it.)
So, yeah, like I said, I agree with you, but it’s very, very easy for me to see the other side of this issue, too.
Anyway, thanks for your well-considered post. Then again, your posts are always well-considered (which is one of things I really, really appreciate about you), so no surprise there.
If you had bothered to actually read all the posts, you would have found that many people are actually angry at stupid police procedures and tactics that unnecessarily expose all parties to risk - including the cops.
Kindly take your broad “you’re all cop haters” brush and shove it up your ass, you condescending bitch.
It’s bad law, is why. If there is a law that is entirely honored in the breach, it should be struck down. The average speed of, say, the Sprain Brook Highway is 70 MPH. Every single car on it during the daily commute is doing 65 or above. To make what all people do illegal, is wrong, and the law should be changed.
As I said, “I am seeing a lot of”, hence not every poster. A lot, and every, have different meanings.
Thank you for exemplifying how rational discourse is impossible with people who have irrational thought patterns. When faced with cogent arguments they must retreat to name calling and blind anger mixed with hatred.
And even if you establish that the house is owned by an elderly woman, how do you establish that her possibly violent friend or relative or whoever sold the drugs earlier in the day is not there? Or that the harmless old home-owner won’t shoot you?
And again, 7:00pm is hardly the middle of the night. I keep reading misstatements about the facts of the case, and never misstatements that might tend to exonerate the police. Funny, doncha think?
7 PM is not the middle of the night. However, at this time of year it is well after sunset, and it is dark out. Hell, I had a salesperson pound on my door at 5:30 PM last week and my heart about beat out of my chest from the adrenaline of “who’s pounding on my door in the dark?!”
I have no idea why she pounded, but I sure didn’t buy anything from her.
This morning I see reports that according to police indeed it **was ** a no-knock warrant and the woman fired upon entry, not “while they approached”; although the police insist that they did announce themselves immediately before busting down the door (**not ** knock-shout-count-to-three-kick, either) and that the team’s outfits had identifying marks in sight (the latter may cover procedural formality but IMO, in the rush of a moment when one’s not thinking straight, as a bunch of armed men charge yelling through your door, it may not have time to register).
However, the story from the family does give me pause, in the sense that they claim she was extremely reclusive and never allowed anyone in, and that she asked for her groceries to be left on the porch rather than open the door while anyone else was there… such a degree of terrorizing leaves the doubt as to a situation of elder abuse that placed her in the line of fire.
Then again, where is the guy that made the sale, according to police, from within the property earlier that same day? Of course, that one does have a good explanation: if indeed he had been there, but got lucky and stepped away in the nick of time, then for damn sure he would make himself scarce, real fast, the moment this went down.
This is really confusing in part because, due to the ongoing investigation, the actual documentation (the warrant, the sworn statement that led to the warrant, any wiretap tapes or surveilance pics, recorded radio traffic) is NOT to be made public. We’re dealing with halfway info all around.
Firing at an intruder without identifying them first is just plain stupid. What if it was her drunk grandson who had forgotten his keys? It happens toofrequently.
You can tell someone has some pretty hostile intent without positively identifying them. Busting down a door, and aggressively running into the house, while being armed, for instance, seems pretty hostile.
My reading of the relevant quote isn’t that the guy necessarily made the sale from within that property. Let’s go to tape:
The above, to me, does not say that the officers had performed a successful undercover narcotics purchase at the house on Neal Street. Rather, my first impression, giving the phrasing, was that the undercover purchase was made somewhere else entirely, and the guy selling the drugs mentioned in the course of the transaction that he lived at that house on Neal Street. On which information the police then got a warrant to search the address as a suspected (or “known”) drug house.
At the very least, I don’t think that possibility can be ruled out.
Just the quick comment that, while it goes against the First Law of the Pit (“Never use reasoned argument where hyperbole is possible”), there is nothing incongruous in the position that (1) many police do do good, dedicated, and dangerous work, and (2) there are such things as “bad cops” who will abuse their role and the people with whom they come in contact. It is not being disrespectful to the good cop to say that something needs to be done about the bad cop – hell, given the freedom to speak his mind, the good cop will agree with you.
That said, both Smiling Bandit in post #151 and Paul in Saudi in post #159 said things I agree with and which bear rereading and re-emphasizing.
Whereas breaking into a house without identifying yourself or knowing whether what you seek is there or who’s on the other side is…the mark of genius, I guess.
Someone who breaks through your front door is an intruder. If you counted, over the course of the years, the people who break into your house vs. the people who get in peacefully and with your permission, I think you’d find your friends on one side of the ledger and people who mean you harm on the other. So let’s back up a bit. Firing at armed intruders, whether policemen or criminals, is likely to get you killed. Not firing is less likely to get you killed. The only difference is that criminals have a big disincentive (prison or the death penalty) to kill you and the police (who will have union-hired lawyers to argue the points you’re making, and who control all the physical evidence) have a smaller one.
I wouldn’t keep a firearm on a bet, much less use it. But the people who do think it’s stupid not to fire at an intruder, do so because their friends (including the government) are already prohibited from intruding for no good reason.
In mine, it doesn’t. Hesitation can mean the difference between using the element of surprise to mount a successful self defense, and being harmed or killed by the intruder.
Anyone who comes into my house either has a key or uses the door bell. Any other means of entry means intruder, which means threat of bodily harm or death to me.
I’m just not willing to give an intruder, potentially armed, any extra time in which he/she/they could hurt or kill me. I have a door bell for a reason. If someone does not have a set of keys to my house, they can either use the bell and be let in, or break in and take their chances of getting shot.
Identifying/appraising your target only takes a few seconds, and if you think about it, gives you a better chance of making a kill-shot. The intruder will be off-guard during that time as well, trying to determine if there’s anyone in the room. Even if they are approaching you during those couple of seconds, look on the bright side: a closer target is an easier shot.
Considering that true home invasions are so rare, there’s a better chance that the person entering your home is a law enforcement officer or a family member than someone who intends you harm.
Despite the legitimate expectation that someone should knock, I wouldn’t want to kill a member of my family if they burst through the door because they were drunk or playing a prank or whatever. People are stupid and they do stupid things, especially while intoxicated.
As a responsible gun owner, I consider it my duty to be certain of my target rather than just firing wildly in panic. If it is the cops, it might save my life and keep an officer from being injured or killed. If it is an intruder giving that split-second appraisal before firing helps ensure that I’ll hit my target and disable them with one shot (rather than possibly hitting my posessions/dogs/other family members with stray bullets.)
