Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Federal government doesn't order SWAT raids on suspected dealers; that is local police jurisdiction unless this was on an Indian reservation or something.
I guess you never heard of the DEA or ATF? Both federal agencies that do swat type raids.
Ironic that in the War on Drugs, the biggest threat is the police themselves. Look at what they've become. Overly aggressive and militarized. Killing innocent people and then magically nothing happens to them and they are free to do it again. I'm an educated white guy in a middle class area and I do my best to avoid any interaction with police. You can be the nicest guy, completely innocent, and still end up with a ruined life thanks to one bad cop. You can't tell them apart, so it's wise to assume they are all just itching to destroy you ...
Guess what comes up if you Google "Pinal County AZ drug helicopters"? Not an explanation of what the county has and where they got it. Rather you will find page after page of websites extolling the exploits of the Pinal County sheriff and his gang of drug ops personnel. They have their own media operation (including posting videos on YouTube) and they take full advantage of every Tea Party and ultraconservative blog and website that wants to join in with breathless descriptions of their glamorous equipement and exciting escapades. Every illegal border crosser they capture with a couple of pounds of marijuana is described as if he is Pablo Escobar.
We definitely DO have problems in Arizona with the illegal importation of drugs (dangerous drugs, too, but mostly marijuana). I do not deny that. But addressing it is the responsibility of the FEDERAL government. Our border with Mexico is guarded and patrolled by well-trained and well-equipped members of the USBP. It's not an out-of-control situation that endangers the general public.
Yet that's the message constantly being disseminated by local law enforcement agencies to justify their aggressive build-ups of armaments and manpower. And the message is reinforced by politicians who exploit the fearful to gather donations and votes. Arizona's desert is not filled with headless bodies. Phoenix is not the kidnapping capital of the world. People who believe that hype are playing right into the hands of people who can't wait for an excuse to play with their dangerous toys.
So we need to have people fire at police first? Are you saying it's okay to point a gun at LEO and not expect to be fired upon? If you pack deadly force you damn well better expect it in return. Not everything was perfect in this case, but he pointed a gun at officers, so you better expect to be fired upon.
No, not if the officers are identifying themselves first! If there is commotion in the yard, bangs going off, and you see sketchy looking people coming across the yard with weapons, would a person not think that they need to defend their home?
Just like that video from the Salt Lake Tribune a few posts up, with the innocent man shot to death in his house in that raid- it shows many cops are SCUM.
They put their child in a home of a known felon, and drug dealer. Would you do that?
I'd have a hard time with it - is it better to be in a shelter or on the street after your house burns down? Or do you take the chance that nothing bad will happen before you can get into a new place? They had no way of knowing the police were going to come in with flashbangs and all that, and neither did the felon. Element of surprise, you know.
I read about that yesterday. Poor baby, I hope he recovers well. He could very well be brain-damaged from the concussion, or deafened from the bang. Not to mention the burns on his face.
No-knock warrants are problematic; I disagree with their rising usage, especially given the militarization of our police departments. Oversight and accountability are lacking in these raids, too - "Oops, wrong house. Gee, we blew up your stuff/shot you/shot your dog ... but we had a WARRANT!"
I have always been pro-law enforcement. But these gestapo-like tactics are slowly changing my mind. That and all I read about the militarization of our policemen and women.
We, the people, are the losers on the so-called War on Drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curzon_dax
1) We aren't talking pigs, we are talking human beings. In this case a baby. The woman's house had burnt down and this was her family. Lord knows none of us have a perfect family, and sometimes we need them.
2) Police are a part of the executive branch. In a case like this they are supposed to apprehend a suspect and then bring the suspect to a court of law so that the suspect can be afforded the opportunity by trial. Police absolutely have the right to defend themselves, but we have seen how no-knock warrants remove the power and responsibility of judgement from the appointed judge and place it into the hands of police officers. The escalation of force happens on the side of government once police are authorized to use breach tactics.
3) According to this Christian Science Monitor article no knock warrant issuance has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to over 50,000 in 2005. What have been the results of it? Why are these governmental entities not justifying their use of force against innocent citizens?
Those numbers are quite shocking. I'm not a fan of the no-knock warrant. Perhaps if they were going after a serial killer but not for some pills. Jesus. A grenade thrown into a baby's crib.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceAndLove42
Even so it's ridiculous they act like they're going after Bin Laden just for drugs. So what if there are drugs? The EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL drugs sure do warrant flash bangs and gestapo tactics.
These are scum pigs that should know what "over kill" is.
I'm starting to agree with you. CD is influencing me in this regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
But not in the house. The guy was NOT in the house and arrested elsewhere.
The police USED to do this thing like making sure the guy was in the house first and no innocent victims would be in harm's way.
That was before we all became suspected terrorists and the local LE's got DHS terrorist training and the judges said "Go ahead and break the doors down".
So yeah..we WANTED all this protection. We wanted the cops to catch the bad guys quicker.
Now we get this type of collateral damage..just like in the ME.
Don't even try to excuse it off because this is what you wanted and now you got it.
I'm just waiting to read about mistaken drone bombings on homes next and don't think that won't happen.
I agree with you HT and don't like where we are headed with this. We just spent a week in London with cameras watching our every move! I was with my teenage son so it's not like we had anything to hide but . . still creepy.
What happened in this 'raid' though - is simply inexcuseable. We have all become pawns in the mighty 'War on Drugs'. If an innocent party or two dies in the quest for dealers . . . . oh well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EHCT
Here's the thing. Why do the choices have to be: 'either the police knock on the garage door of a known stash house not knowing that 5 heavily armed dealers are waiting for him' OR 'the SWAT team serves a 'No Knock Warrant' with the prospect of innocent people getting hurt'? What about better surveillance and gaining intelligence? If incarcerating these dealers is so important that they have to blindly throw flash bangs into people's houses, why can't they employ better surveillance strategies that would enable them to catch the actual criminals walking in or out of these houses btw I don't have the answer, I'm just posing the question]? Surely if this house was such a hotspot where deals were known to routinely happen there'd be some point during a given day in which the suspect they were actually trying to arrest would be entering or leaving the property. Heck, the guy that they were looking for in the OP's post wasn't even there at the time they tried to enter. Seems to me that would be a lot safer for all involved than blindly blasting your way through doors.
Of course nobody wants to see an uptick in drug activity in the neighborhoods that they live in. My issue is that by the time these No Knock Warrants are put through, the drug activity in the area has become so rampant and out in the open that they could've rounded up the targetted suspects long before the use of flash bang grenades and other such military tactics. Another thing is that many times they are relying on CI's that are basically criminals themselves. The information is bound to be outdated or missing some bits and pieces of important details [i.e. there may be children in the house]. I wouldn't trust these dudes to wash my car, but law enforcement will use this spotty info to bust someone's door down.
This is part of the reason why you hear more people warming up to the idea that some of these recreational drugs should made legal. I'm not totally sold on the idea myself. But the theory is that the war on drugs is pretty much a fight that is causing more collateral damage and ruined lives than the actual drugs the law is trying to stop people from getting their hands on. Any way you want to look at it, it's obvious that the war on drugs isn't actually working as far as keeping the drugs out of the hands of the consumers. I mean there are high school kids who can get their hands on these drugs at the snap of a finger. Granted, these last few points aren't directly tied to law enforcement per se, but their use of increasingly lethal tactics to fight the failing war on drugs is part of the sentiment.
Like I said, I don't necessarily feel this way but it's becoming increasingly hard to argue with the theory that legalization can do something that law enforcement can't seem to do...and that's take the drugs and profit away from the black market. There's going to eventually come a time where a different approach is going to be necessary. As law enforcement increases the use of their militarized tactics, it only serves to drive the criminals to become more innovative and take more risk. As the criminals take on more risk, it results in driving up the price for their products. So here's the question: If the profit margin for trafficking these illicit drugs continue to increase, do you think (a)this will shrink the black market thereby stemming the flow drugs in this country...or...do you think (b)that this will only serve to entice more criminals to try their hand at making fast money? Past history has shown that (b) is the answer which means that unless something changes, law enforcement will respond with even more force that will inevitably spill over into affecting the daily lives of innocent people [i.e. illegal searches, police intimidation, flash bangs thrown into houses, etc...]. When does the cycle stop?
You know, I am starting to feel that the tactics used and the underwhelming results . . . need a closer look. Are we really 'saving' the American people with these militarized tactics?
After our house burned down in Wisconsin a few months ago, my husband and I packed our four young kids and all our belongings into a gold minivan and drove to my sister-in-law’s place, just outside of Atlanta. On the back windshield, we pasted six stick figures: a dad, a mom, three young girls, and one baby boy.
As it turns out, the person they were looking for was the nephew of the father - and of his sister. And this occurred at the sister's house, which the nephew sometimes visited. So, for those of you who were blaming the parents for associating with criminals (and not blaming, you know, the LEOs who threw a flash-bang grenade in a crib), the individual in question (who, again, was not even there) had in the past visited someone else's house, with whom they just happened to be staying because theirs burned down.
But, hey, I guess just because you don't know the facts is no reason not to blame the parents of a child when an LEO severely injures that child... Heaven forbid you hold the LEO accountable, right?
Look, I think drugs harm people. That's why I don't smoke. And I think certain drugs should be illegal. But we don't need to act like it's high treason to sell drugs. It's not.
And there is no - no, no, no - excuse for what happened here. And it is squarely on the idiots who invaded a house in which children were obviously present (the yard was strewn with toys) without a warrant in search of someone who wasn't even there.
And anyone who thinks living in a state where this sort of lawless violence is perpetrated against the innocent is worth it has some seriously screwed up priorities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Heaven forbid you hold the LEO accountable, right? 
