Enjoy shooting your son when he comes back drunk one night. There’s a reason there needs to be an imminent threat, not just a potential one, to allow self defence.
Considering processes that might reduce the chances of deadly mistakes is reasonable, and your dismissal of such suggestions is bullshit.
No, we are specifically debating whether or not the officers should double check.
So, hypothetical. Police show up at the address on the warrant. They see that it is a day care, and they see kids running around and playing.
Should they proceed to execute the warrant, or should they double check to make sure that they really are supposed to be busting down the door of this day care?
If my son breaks down the door with several of his friends, and they all charge into my house, up my steps, and he charges into my bedroom with flashlights in my eyes, I’ll put him down just out of principle.
A day care centre that’s operating at night, when it’s too dark to recognise police uniforms? Seems pretty fucking suspicious to me, they should probably continue with the raid.
A few deadly mistakes by the police is an acceptable price to pay for a functional justice system. Your suggestions of days worth of extra checks for every warrant would render the system in many ways non-functional, and make everyone’s life worse.
Firstly, that proves you’re a fucking idiot. And secondly, that has nothing to do with what you said, which was shooting anyone who came through your door unexpectedly.
You really think that police don’t plan ahead, verifying windows & doors on a building to prevent people shooting at them or escaping???
I never fucking said that, god damn it! You stupid son of a fucking bitch!
Please read my posts. In ever single instance, I have said people that break down my door. Not just people coming in unexpectedly, but breaking down the door and charging in. Show me one of my posts where I said you should shoot people who happen to wander in unexpectedly.
What you just said proves that you are a dishonest fucking idiot. (But that could be said of pretty much all your posts, so no prize for today.)
So, you think it’s wrong for people who aren’t expecting a police raid to shoot the cops who are performing the raid? That’s a good start. Hopefully all the other nutjobs here will agree.
I haven’t suggested “days worth of extra checks”. If checking public records against warrants took, on average, one hour, would you still oppose requiring that cops do it?
What does that have anything to do with what I said?
I asked if the police would serve a no-knock to a running daycare if that is what their warrant specified, not whether they would plan ahead to make sure that no children escaped.
You’ve never heard of pre-dawn raids? What time do you think those are?
You know day cares around here start taking kids at 4:30am.
Pre-dawn raids seem to be around 5-6am, based on news reports.
You are in favor of not bothering to double check with a supervisor, and to go ahead and put these kids lives in danger rather than spend a couple minutes making sure.
I suppose if any of the kids happens to make any furtive movements, they should be taken down by the cops too. Just because he’s a toddler doesn’t mean he can’t make one of your boys in blue crap his pants in fear.
Check public records for what, exactly? Are you suggesting that if the person named on the warrant isn’t publicly listed as living at the address the warrant shouldn’t be carried out?
What you are requiring is that the police performing the raid redo a significant amount of the entire investigation in many cases, and that’s ridiculous.
It’s not about “bothering” to check, it’s about not allowing suspects to escape or evidence to be destroyed.
I mean, I know you think that uniformed cops are somehow indistinguishable from anyone else, but having a bunch of them outside a place that’s about to be raided making phone calls and Googling people’s names and addresses seems like it might tip people off that something’s about to happen.
These checks should be done before that point, by the investigators and the judge, not the cops on the ground.
Also, do you really think it’s impossible that a day care centre could be a front for an illegal operation?
And to make it very clear, I would fucking hope they would. Why on earth would you expect them not to?
In some cases, yes. If the case says that Bill Smith sometimes stays with his grandmother, Ellie Smith, and he always stays the night and stores his drugs before big deals go down Thursday nights, and public records say that someone else lives at this address and Ellie Smith lives across the street, then yes, they shouldn’t carry out the raid at that address.
Wouldn’t that be a good and positive thing that my hypothetical second-check revealed?
No I’m not. I’m suggesting common sense checks that might catch a lot of the sorts of mistakes that courts sometimes make.
Because they’re human beings with judgment and the capacity to say “hey, maybe something’s wrong here?”. In the Navy everyone, even the lowest-ranked sailor, had the power and even the responsibility to speak up if they thought something was wrong. If they didn’t, and something went wrong, they could be subject to severe punishment, even jail time.
Depends what the “something wrong” is. If it’s “we’re about to bomb South, not North Korea, when the orders say bomb the North” they should speak up. If the “something wrong” is “I think it’s wrong to bomb North Korea because it’s bad for world stability” or “I heard that Kim Jong-Un is currently in China, we should bomb them instead” they should definitely not be saying it.
You are constantly arguing for the latter and claiming it’s the former.
Any checks need to be done well before the missiles are being aimed, or before the cops are on the way to the address.