SWAT uses flashbang on sleeping 12-year-old girl

[phylodog]

If we accept this because a given activity is now illegal, what happens when more things are made illegal, perhaps even those which are the subject of constitutional rights (some of which are already being violated)?

Obviously the answer is to keep electing morons into office while flipping the bird to the cops and blaming them for the world's problems.

 

[hornadylnl]

But it sounds so much better to use an emotionally charged one-liner that has nothing to do with the situation. It's a great method to win others to your side.

Burn my daughter with a flash bang due to bad police work, bogus tip, what have you, winning people to your side is going to be the least of your worries.

Do you feel that an officer has no moral obligation to weigh his actions? Yes, throwing a flash bang into a suspected meth lab (still haven't received a single justification for this logic) is nowhere on par with genocide. But yet you want to absolve leo's of all moral responsibilities in situations like this because the courts have said it's legal. Where would you draw the line? If guns become illegal, will you ignore orders to confiscate them? Excuse me if I don't believe you when you say you won't participate in confiscation.

 

[hornadylnl]

Obviously the answer is to keep electing morons into office while flipping the bird to the cops and blaming them for the world's problems.

I vote third party.

 

[steveh_131]

Look, there are major differences between a drug raid and sending people to their deaths for their ethnic heritage.

We have ruled one is legal, and the other is not.

Huh? Their deaths were 'legal' in their nation, as well.... How is that a difference?

An action is either morally acceptable or it isn't. Your job description doesn't change the moral outcome.

Example:

I would feel morally comfortable with kidnapping a rapist and locking him in a cage. I would feel equally comfortable with this as a police officer.

I would not feel morally comfortable with kidnapping a plant-owner and locking him in a cage. I would feel equally uncomfortable with this as a police officer.

You and you alone are responsible for the morality of your actions. Disconnecting the two results in bad things. Nazi's are an extreme, but applicable example of this.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Obviously the answer is to keep electing morons into office while flipping the bird to the cops and blaming them for the world's problems.

I didn't suggest absolving the morons in question of responsibility. I am also not given to believe thaty just because something can be done legally that it should be done. I am also very concerned at how far 'following orders' will lead in the future. It is also interesting to consider how we define dangerous. You may use a reasonable description when considering your operations. Conversely, you can be assured that there are some in circulation would consider anyone who is not a quadriplegic to be dangerous. Unfortunately history seems to prefer gravitation toward the lowest common denominator to be the way to bet.

 

[GBuck]

Burn my daughter with a flash bang due to bad police work, bogus tip, what have you, winning people to your side is going to be the least of your worries.

Do you feel that an officer has no moral obligation to weigh his actions? Yes, throwing a flash bang into a suspected meth lab (still haven't received a single justification for this logic) is nowhere on par with genocide. But yet you want to absolve leo's of all moral responsibilities in situations like this because the courts have said it's legal. Where would you draw the line? If guns become illegal, will you ignore orders to confiscate them? Excuse me if I don't believe you when you say you won't participate in confiscation.

Ask most and they will tell you they would not "round up" the guns. The guns are protected by the second amendment. The right to create and distribute drugs is not.

 

[steveh_131]

Ask most and they will tell you they would not "round up" the guns. The guns are protected by the second amendment. The right to create and distribute drugs is not.

So their standard for imprisoning people is whether or not their alleged activity is specifically protected by the constitution?

 

[phylodog]

I didn't suggest absolving the morons in question of responsibility. I am also not given to believe thaty just because something can be done legally that it should be done. I am also very concerned at how far 'following orders' will lead in the future. It is also interesting to consider how we define dangerous. You may use a reasonable description when considering your operations. Conversely, you can be assured that there are some in circulation would consider anyone who is not a quadriplegic to be dangerous. Unfortunately history seems to prefer gravitation toward the lowest common denominator to be the way to bet.

I've argued on more than one occasion that you don't want the police to be the end all - be all when deciding what should or should not be legal. Be careful what you wish for. Just as opinions vary widely here, they will within any police agency and you may find that the police officer who shows up at your daughter's door doesn't think there is anything wrong with her husband beating her ass.

This country is founded on a system. The police officer's role in that system is not to write law. It is not to interpret law. Those responsibilities fall to the elected officials, judges and attorneys. Misplacing the blame when you don't appreciate how things have panned out is complete and utter horse**** unless the topic at hand is such a clear violation of the oath a police officer takes it would be obvious to a blind and deaf mute. While some of you may feel that the legality of plants falls into that category I do not. Blame me all you want, I don't accept it.

As far as what following orders will lead to in the future, marijuana has been illegal since 1937. This isn't something which has gotten worse in recent years. The war on drugs hasn't gotten worse in recent years. No knock warrants have not gotten worse in recent years. They've all been on the decline since the mid 1990's. What has gotten worse is the quality of the media coverage and the support for the laws making substances illegal.

If the citizens of this country decide they've had enough and get off their asses to get the laws change I would applaud it. Until then I guess I'll just hang around and put on my flameproof suit.

 

[level.eleven]

Just to clear up some false information, swat raids are on the rise. Dramatically, as a matter of fact. Just look at the money being thrown to enforcement. Billions more per year.

Kraska found that the number of SWAT deployments in America increased from 3,000 per year in the early 1980s to around 50,000 by the mid-2000s. That’s about 135 SWAT raids per day. The vast majority of those are for drug warrants.

The Deadliest Rhetoric - Reason.com

Of course, there is also the prison population. A cursory glance at the data reveals a sharp spike with the onset of the war. We all know the US locks up more people per capita for drug offenses than any other country on planet Earth.

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some lawmakers are catching on and are introducing swat accountability legislation.

http://www.mackinac.org/15242

And of course, who can argue that asset forfeiture isn't out of control?

 

[steveh_131]

This country is founded on a system. The police officer's role in that system is not to write law. It is not to interpret law. Those responsibilities fall to the elected officials, judges and attorneys. Misplacing the blame when you don't appreciate how things have panned out is complete and utter horse**** unless the topic at hand is such a clear violation of the oath a police officer takes it would be obvious to a blind and deaf mute. While some of you may feel that the legality of plants falls into that category I do not. Blame me all you want, I don't accept it.

You are the final check on this system. You're still responsible for the morality of your actions. Enforcing tyranny makes you a tyrant.

As far as what following order will lead to in the future, marijuana has been illegal since 1937. This isn't something which has gotten worse in recent years. The war on drugs hasn't gotten worse in recent years. No knock warrants have not gotten worse in recent years. They've all been on the decline since the mid 1990's. What has gotten worse is the quality of the media coverage and the support for the laws making substances illegal.

I beg to differ.

I would call that worse.

If the citizens of this country decide they've had enough and get off their asses to get the laws change I would applaud it. Until then I guess I'll just hang around and put on my flameproof suit.

I'm trying to, but every time I want to vote for someone who would change it, someone tells me I'm 'wasting my vote'.

 

[Rookie]

I've argued on more than one occasion that you don't want the police to be the end all - be all when deciding what should or should not be legal. Be careful what you wish for. Just as opinions vary widely here, they will within any police agency and you may find that the police officer who shows up at your daughter's door doesn't think there is anything wrong with her husband beating her ass.

Believe me, I've been there, and it sucks to know you're completely right and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[phylodog]

Just to clear up some false information, swat raids are on the rise. Dramatically, as a matter of fact.

Kraska found that the number of SWAT deployments in America increased from 3,000 per year in the early 1980s to around 50,000 by the mid-2000s. That’s about 135 SWAT raids per day. The vast majority of those are for drug warrants.

The Deadliest Rhetoric - Reason.com

Of course, there is also the prison population. A cursory glance at the data reveals a sharp spike with the onset of the war. We all know the US locks up more people for drug offenses than any other country on planet Earth.

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of course, who can argue that asset forfeiture isn't out of control?

More unbiased reporting, forgive me if I choose not to be misled by your "experts"

SWAT deployments does not equal no knock warrants

How about bothering to provide some factual statistics to the crimes the incarcerated Americans are serving time for? Perhaps how many fell "victim" to no knock warrants? Please provide a reputable source if you can find one.

 

[phylodog]

You are the final check on this system. You're still responsible for the morality of your actions. Enforcing tyranny makes you a tyrant.

You're correct. Banning a plant doesn't fit my criteria for drawing a line in the sand.

My flame suit wears like pajamas. Go find your majority and get the tyrannical laws changed, like I said I'll applaud your efforts. Hell, I'll vote in your favor.

 

[Bunnykid68]

How expensive are these flame suits you speak of?

 

[Rookie]

Tax payers cover them. He doesn't know.

 

[phylodog]

Tax payers cover them. He doesn't know.

No way dude, the lowest bidder process sucks. I provide my own.

 

[level.eleven]

More unbiased reporting, forgive me if I choose not to be misled by your "experts"

SWAT deployments does not equal no knock warrants

How about bothering to provide some factual statistics to the crimes the incarcerated Americans are serving time for? Perhaps how many fell "victim" to no knock warrants? Please provide a reputable source if you can find one.

Swat deployments aren't transparent but in one state, Maryland. That took a raid on a government official's house to pull off. Thus the use of the word survey. This would indicate the number is even higher.

Your next question is answered in the link I provided.

Incarceration for drug offenses has increased 12-fold from 40,000 in 1981 to nearly 500,000 by 2010, accounting for two-thirds of the rise in the federal inmate population since 1985. As of 2006, 49.3% of state prisoners, or 656,000 individuals, were incarcerated for non-violent crimes. As of 2008, 90.7% of federal prisoners, or 165,457 individuals, were incarcerated for non-violent offenses. By 2003, 58% of all women in federal prison were convicted of drug offenses. - I assume the Bureau of Justice Statistics is a reputable source. Do you object?

Your final question can be answered by the first. We don't know. Swat records aren't kept very tidy.

 

[phylodog]

Swat deployments aren't transparent but in one state, Maryland. That took a raid on a government official's house to pull off. Thus the use of the word survey. This would indicate the number is even higher.

Your final question can be answered by the first. We don't know. Swat records aren't kept very tidy.

Ours are very tidy but then again no one cares what we do. I should accept the responsibility for what others do.

 

[steveh_131]

You're correct. Banning a plant doesn't fit my criteria for drawing a line in the sand.

I'm not certain what you mean by this. You're saying that you feel morally comfortable with imprisoning someone for the ownership of a plant?

Ours are very tidy but then again no one cares what we do. I should accept the responsibility for what others do.

I don't speak for anyone else, but I don't think this at all. You are responsible for what you do. Not for what anyone else does.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Huh? Their deaths were 'legal' in their nation, as well.... How is that a difference?

An action is either morally acceptable or it isn't. Your job description doesn't change the moral outcome.

Example:

I would feel morally comfortable with kidnapping a rapist and locking him in a cage. I would feel equally comfortable with this as a police officer.

I would not feel morally comfortable with kidnapping a plant-owner and locking him in a cage. I would feel equally uncomfortable with this as a police officer.

You and you alone are responsible for the morality of your actions. Disconnecting the two results in bad things. Nazi's are an extreme, but applicable example of this.

Burn my daughter with a flash bang due to bad police work, bogus tip, what have you, winning people to your side is going to be the least of your worries.

Do you feel that an officer has no moral obligation to weigh his actions? Yes, throwing a flash bang into a suspected meth lab (still haven't received a single justification for this logic) is nowhere on par with genocide. But yet you want to absolve leo's of all moral responsibilities in situations like this because the courts have said it's legal. Where would you draw the line? If guns become illegal, will you ignore orders to confiscate them? Excuse me if I don't believe you when you say you won't participate in confiscation.

Officers obviously have the same moral obligation to weigh their actions as we do. Where you and I seem to be missing each other is at this line you're wanting to draw. There is no moral issue here, in this instance, that I can find. They performed a routine drug bust, but an unforeseen accident occurred. That is not a moral fault. Nor can anyone here specifically state that negligence has occurred. I have brought this point up multiple times without retort.

The line is way before genocide, and the line (for most I'm sure) is before confiscation of arms, but the line is not before apprehending drug producing criminals.

So their standard for imprisoning people is whether or not their alleged activity is specifically protected by the constitution?

Their standard is whether or not the actions are legal. Being a Jew is legal, being a drug manufacturer is not. Owning firearms is legal, being a drug dealer is not. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

On the flip side, the law cannot overwrite the Constitution, and they have sworn to uphold the Constitution. If the law attempts to supersede, then they have a moral obligation to consider their actions. This was not one of those cases.

You are the final check on this system. You're still responsible for the morality of your actions. Enforcing tyranny makes you a tyrant.

See above. Explain how this is tyranny.

Furthermore, your graph showing the number of incarcerations proves literally nothing except showing we have more inmates.