Do you believe that anybody here expects the police to pause during a raid to go and interrogate the informants, detectives, and judges?
They either believe that or don’t understand the consequences of what they are demanding. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the sort of checks they demand would require the sort of interrogations you suggest, there’s no good reason not to understand it.
So yes, I think they do believe that, and indeed at least two people have claimed that when in the military they not only did the equivalent but were expected to do it. Which is obvious nonsense that would have gotten them thrown out pretty quickly, but whatever.
No additional checks performed when a team is at the door of the house the warrant says they are to raid could possibly be non-disruptive.
That’s the problem. You want extra checks, but won’t accept that those will come with consequences. Until you accept that - which you should because everything comes with consequences - there’s obviously not going to be a reasonable discussion.
You have described several checks that should happen well before the team is sent out and which are therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
Sounds good to me – I never suggested this.
Where have I said there couldn’t be consequences? I welcome any such discussion.
Why are they irrelevant? Are you saying that they already occur? If so, please cite. Or are you saying you agree with such checks?
There needs to be some way to keep it from happening. A federal database? But that only works if people use it. How about yanking their “license” if there even is such a thing.
Not ALL unions are corrupt. But, yeah the rotten ones need some “corrective action”. But before we get into the “but other people do it too” line, let’s all keep in mind that Bob the Electrician (union) or Jake the Carpenter (union) or Harry the Driver (union) aren’t authorized to carry weapons and use deadly force. They don’t conduct these no-knocks. They don’t bust in the wrong house and shoot the wrong guy. They don’t lie to judges and swear out false warrants. They don’t shoot down unarmed people in bed. They don’t shoot unarmed people in the back and then drop a taser next to the corpse (on video for god sake). Etc, etc etc.
So let’s forget the other unions and concentrate on police unions.
No, let’s not, because it’s a perfect example of how unions allow a small group of people to override the wishes of everyone else. Dangerous drivers or corrupt builders kill people.
You can’t call for police unions to be treated differently from other unions without being a hypocrite. They all need their powers and influence massively reducing, at present they are an affront to democracy. Just as corporations exercising political power are.
Reading the OP’s and Steophan’s posts in this thread is like reading the worst Jekyll & Hyde script of all time. Nobody is so stupid they actually believe the extremist views either one of those two posters has put here. Now, it was fairly obvious from the get-go the OP is a lying sack of troll, but Steophan has certainly responded in kind. It took him some time to ramp it down, but not all that much time.
Maybe it’s more a Hydel & Hyde script.
It’s “extremist” to believe you shouldn’t shoot people if you don’t know who they are?
No sane person could possibly consider “don’t shoot cops who are doing their jobs” an extremist position. “Fuck unions, they do way more harm than good these days” is more controversial, but well within the bounds of normal views.
It’s just amusing to see people who usually love unions disparaging the police union, or people who normally hate guns finding ever more fantastical situations where it’s OK to shoot a cop. There’s a lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
You’re trolling too hard here. Ease back a little.
Welcome back, Monty. I backed up many things with cites. You are an ignorant fucking ass who thinks people want to attribute words to you. Unfortunately you are not that special.
Yep, you’re still a liar.
You are as fucking stupid as Steophan. What do you think I am lying about?
Way to take down the straw man! Hopefully one of these days you’ll address my actual words. It might take considering that my suggestion might just possibly be reasonable (which means accurately characterizing it), rather than reflexively dismiss anything coming from someone on the “other side”.
Is there no possibility of any sort of middle here that you may have excluded?
We either have cops with no-knock warrants shooting people in their beds, or we have anarchy. We either have unions that prevent any employee from being fired for any reason, or we have no worker representation whatsoever?
You seem not capable of understanding that there is indeed miles and miles of space between those positions.
I’ve been the one presenting the fucking middle ground on the warrant issue for the whole fucking thread. My entire position is “cops make mistakes sometimes but are still necessary, we should try to minimise those mistakes without stopping them from doing their job, and oh, don’t fucking shoot them when they are doing that job”.
That is the fucking middle ground. Occasionally, someone gets shot in their bed or whatever, and that’s part of the price we as society pay for having laws and cops and judges. It’s not an unacceptable or extreme price, as without those things millions more people would be killed.
I’ve said any such shootings should be fully investigated, and where appropriate people should be fired or convicted, and the victims compensated. That, somehow, is unacceptable to a bunch of fucking idiots here, who seem to expect perfection from the police while allowing other people to be so fucking stupid as to not even know what a police uniform looks like. The whole thing is fucking ridiculous.
As for unions these days, they have one legitimate purpose these days - to represent their members and ensure that companies follow the rules. There are minimum wage and health and safety laws now (which I fully agree wouldn’t exist had unions not fought for them) that make most other activities unnecessary. As it is, apart from that one thing, they help bad workers and harm good ones, and that is not a good thing. Well, unless you are lazy, incompetent or corrupt, I guess.
I’ve addressed your words many times. That you disagree with my answers doesn’t actually mean I’ve been dismissing them.
You have repeatedly suggested things that would have negative as well as positive consequences, and refuse to consider those negative consequences, let alone discuss whether they outweigh the positive ones.
No one in this thread has disagreed with this “entire position” you describe. The disagreement has been about how we might minimize mistakes, what counts as cops “doing that job”, in what situations someone’s uncertainty and reasonable fear might reasonably justify the use of deadly force, and other details.
Bullshit. I welcome discussion about possible negative consequences, and I even thought you had good questions that were worth discussing at one point.
Once again, my position is that there are very easy and non-disruptive checks that police officers could do before they conduct raids that might minimize mistakes made by courts in warrants and such, and that perhaps such easy and non-disruptive checks ought to be required. If you continue to say that I want cops to redo investigations, or stop in the middle of a raid, or some other bullshit that’s contrary to the previous sentence, you’re just deliberately lying about my position.