I’ve suggested checks before the cops are on the way, and you’ve dismissed them out of hand (as well as totally mischaracterized them).
My suggestion isn’t a 100% always-works solution. But it’s a way that cops could add value to the verification of the correct address. As a cop, I’d certainly want to do that, just as a Navy officer I wanted to make sure that valve lineups or other routine operations were done correctly, and I’d go down into the engineering spaces and personally verify that they were correct just to add value and be certain. Sometimes I’d find a mistake and correct it. Sometimes the cops might as well.
This right here proves you are an out of touch fucking moron. It is absolutely not acceptable to have any additional deaths. The justice system is designed that way. We allow convicted murders appeals prior to killing them.
If we want the cops to kill people, we would allow and even encourage them to kill people who are blood covered above a body or who have graphic images of infant porn on a computer. There should be no collateral damage. There should be no innocent deaths.
It’s not a matter of “should”. There shouldn’t be air crashes, with the amount of check performed before flights, but there are. Let’s eliminate air travel! It would prevent planes crashing.
Or, perhaps even more directly connected, let’s have a load of unnecessary security theatre before boarding a plane, despite the fact that it doesn’t actually help anything, just makes flying more difficult. Let’s make the police do the same thing! Let’s make every interaction take twice as long, and have every party involved be pissed off, nothing could go wrong!
Try thinking things through just a tiny bit before posting, it’s not actually painful.
I’ve not mischaracterised them, I’ve pointed out what they would need to entail to get the effect you want, and stated my opinion that they would unacceptably slow down police operations.
Because there are a bunch of children running around and about that could be injured or killed if the raid is conducted.
But then you’ve gone on about how you don’t care about the police killing children, especially if the police find themselves in a position to crap their pants at the sight of a toddler with a binkie.
So, yeah, thank you for making it clear me that you would hope that they conducted the raid and killed as many children as possible.
Or, just perhaps, conduct the raid and expose the child pornography or people smuggling activities that were the reason for the raid in the first place…
Oh, silly me, the only reason to serve a warrant on such a place would be for the purpose of killing kids :smack:
After air crashes, the crash is investigated, and panels are formed, and people come up with reasons why this crash was avoidable, and how to avoid similar incidents in the future.
This is why airplane travel is safe, and gets safer all the time.
If you are trying to defend an industry that refuses to acknowledge mistakes, much less learn from them, then pointing to an industry that acknowledges and learns from their mistakes is not a good analogy.
No they wouldn’t. I’m suggesting easy and quick checks of public records, which cops do multiple times each day. It wouldn’t slow anything down. If you’re talking about lengthy, complicated checks, then you’re arguing with a straw man. Please please PLEASE try to address my actual points and assertions.
If I’m right that public records checks are easy and quick, then why would you oppose ensuring that cops do such checks before executing warrants? What’s the downside?
Lead SWAT: “Hey, Lieutenant, are we really supposed to be raiding this child-care facility?”
Lieutenant: “Hold on a sec. Oh shit, no, that’s next door – you’re supposed to be raiding the crack house at XY Main street. Hold off while we get to the bottom of this fuckup!”
Alternately:
Lead SWAT: “Hey, Lieutenant, are we really supposed to be raiding this child-care facility?”
Lieutenant: “Yes. We have reason to believe they’re filming kiddie porn in the basement.”
Second checks add value. They don’t mean “disregard orders”. They mean verify, and if something seems wrong, call your supervisor and make sure everything’s okay. If something’s wrong, then you might have just saved lives. If everything is okay, then go ahead and nothing is lost except a minute.
It boggles my mind how anyone could possibly oppose this philosophy.
I’m not opposing second checks. I’m opposing unnecessary twelfth checks at inappropriate times, which you should have figured out now from the amount of times I’ve posted it.
Although, given the level of reading comprehension demonstrated by supposedly intelligent people on this board, I’m starting to think maybe they are necessary after all. Let’s have weeks of discussion over what a very clear point means before we do anything!
No, I’d much rather that didn’t happen. But if the choice is between a few dead children and many, many dead children - that is, the choice between having a police force or not - I’ll obviously choose the former.
It boggles the mind that this is a controversial view.
If you had said from the beginning “I believe such checks are already being conducted, and I support such checks”, rather than arguing that the checks I was suggesting were stupid and wastes of time, then it would have been clear.
It’s like you can’t even give one tiny iota even when I suggest something reasonable. Not every discussion needs to be a fight to the death. There really might be common ground here, especially for reasonable and common sense ideas, if you don’t reflexively dismiss anything offered by those on the “other side” of the issue.
And if the choice is a few dead children, or a slight inconvenience to the officers as they called in and double checked they had the right address, I would choose the later, you are insisting on the former.
It does boggle the mind that you find this controversial. Well, not so much when taken into account how much you hate anyone who isn’t wearing a uniform.
We are not talking about a slight inconvenience, we are talking about expecting SWAT teams to redo an entire investigation to make sure there’s been no mistake. Then someone else to recheck that. And so on.
Or, we accept that there will be some mistakes, and attempt to reduce them as much a we can without making it impossible for the police to do their job.
As nothing is perfect, and as the US is full of guns, sometimes people will get killed. When that happens, it needs to be investigated, and if anyone is professionally or legally responsible they need to be dealt with appropriately.
Are you really not aware that warrants can’t be issued on a whim, they have to be approved by a judge? You seem to think that cops just show up randomly, guns blazing, and anyone with any sense knows that’s not the case.
You are not suggesting anything reasonable, you are suggesting that the police should not do their jobs as there’s a tiny possibility their instructions may be incorrect. It’s abundantly clear that no amount of checks would be enough for you. Why don’t you come out and say that you think no-knock warrants generally are an unacceptable risk? There is no way to make them perfect, wasting hours or days failing to make them perfect is pointless. Either accept that sometimes they will go wrong or say they shouldn’t happen at all.
The same applies to everything. Nothing is without risk, a balance always must be found between safety and practicality.
Can you quote anyone in this thread that said that?
I said, call it in, and make sure with the supervising officer that the address is correct.
That’s not redoing an entire investigation, that’s making a single phone call.
You think that the inconvenience of a single phone call is too much to protect lives of children?
(Now, sure, if the supervisor comes back and says, “Hell no, that’s a day care, you can’t raid that, the address is wrong.” Then there may need to be a bit of a redo on the investigation, but if the supervisor says, “Yes, they are holding children hostage there.” Then you can go right on in.)
We can do that, but you refuse to acknowledge that cops make mistakes, and do not think that they should do anything different to prevent the same mistakes from occurring in the future.
I’ll agree, but you think that the investigation should be done by the cop’s friends and co-workers, and think that the outcome of that investigation is fair.
Perfection is unattainable, but that is no excuse for your acceptance of mediocrity.