It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SWAT kills two dogs in front of children during a house raid over a marijuana posession.

page: 15
88
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Im just tired of seeing these cops exhibit not remorse, no regrets and no morals for some of the things they have been caught doing on tape. Its like they have no conscience. Drones with the ability to pull the trigger kill something and forget about it the next day or laugh over it at lunch.

Just like the black kid who got shot in the head in the subway who was on his belly not resisting. Or the cop who pulled over the speeding people who where trying to get their dog to the vet. All he had to do was escort them then write a ticket to them for speeding after they got it to the vet instead of letting it die.

Yes write them a ticket!!! But also sympathize with them.

Why be a non caring a@@hole?




posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Man I gotta say some folks will defend the "system"unto death, someone elses of course. We have heard they deserved it because of a bit of an herb, he is a "felon" ,they were serving an arrest warrant. Then a bunch of crap about the poor dog and controlling the situation.
No, this is not the country I was raised in and I am not sure when it changed. Perhaps like frogs in the pot we didn't feel the heat rise until it has begun to boil.
But now here we are with one group so fierce that another comply with their way they regularly abuse and kill to enforce it.
And all done so slickly that their potential future targets still cheer.
I was raised by a WWII vet and know a bit of history. The seed of fascism is sown and growing rapidly watered by blood and tears and tended by cheerleading wannabes.
N.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaBravoSierra
Only two choices to choose from? Hmm didnt realize it had boiled down to that. At what point were you in the individuals house to actually see for yourself the events that took place? Oh wait I know, you were on the entry team right? No..I got it...you were video taping it. I should have known. The fact is not one person here was on either side of the door during the event as it took place, the video leaves alot to interpretation especially the fact that the camera wasnt even in the same room as the dog and the officer so there is no way of truely knowing if the dog was ready to attack the officer or not. But please, if anyone WAS there and actually WITNESSED the event with their own eyes...feel free to speak up.


I got an idea for you and others that see nothing wrong with this video.

If you have real young children and a wife pull this video out and make them watch it 3 or 4 times. If you don't have young children or a wife find a friend that does and show it to his wife and young children without telling him.

Seriously, if you're going to sit here and defend this and say the SWAT guys are just doing their job. Do what i said above. Be a man, like you claim to be, and stand behind what you say, and see how it plays out for your or your friends wife and young children.

Then come back and spew this garbage!



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


I actually agree with legalization of Pot. I've had no issue with that. I also agree SWAT should not be used to gather up a Pothead. What it is about though is responsibility and common sense.

The dog though, was killed by its owners. They put their kids and dogs at risk knowingly. Why they had a Pit Bull instead of a good dog for children however is obvious.

Mostly though, I worry about children in the hands of irresponsible, adolescents who have not even matured past party mode yet. Those kids in a house with gunfire going off. They must bear the responsibility for bringing that to their home through their immature, irresponsible behavior.

That dead dog could have been a dead child. All so a child in an adult body can party.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by curious_soul
 


Its cause and effect.

The adults (parents) in that house chose to have drugs in their home. They were involved enough in the drugs that it ended up in a tip going to the police they had large amounts of drugs. Were it not for their behavior, the SWAT Team would have never been there. Their children would have never been placed in such danger.

Cause and effect. You can't single out the effect and ignore the cause.

The SWAT Team likely did overreact. That does not take away the culpability of the parents putting their children in danger by allowing it in their home. That does not change the fact the parents were concerned enough to have a Pit Bull in a home with children. Pit Bulls are not family pets, nor were they ever meant to be family pets.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Really you think that I am that weak minded to allow the decisions of others to sway mine? I think not. This is still America and by god if I disagree with what YOU say or how YOU think...thats absolutely perfectly fine. I still and always will defend the officers for doing their job. I for one don't view animals as more important than people.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DeltaBravoSierra
 





Really? Can you provide proof of this statement?


I'm not a lawyer, and I don't have the inclination or time to go look up case law for you, but it has been upheld several times.

The Constitution of the United States, as well as each State's Constitution has provisions against illegal search and seizure, and the presumption of innocence.

Other incidents upholding that presumption that already have case law to support:
Cops cannot shoot a fleeing suspect.
The Castle Doctrines.
Cops killed without properly identifying themselves.
Cops killed by other cops during raids and/or arrest encounters.
Rules governing undercover operation and commission of crimes.
Procedural rules for entering private property to stop the commission of a crime or an immediate threat to an individual such as domestic violence or kidnapping.

If this had been a teenage boy, or a roommate of these people, and he was woken up from a dead sleep in the middle of the night, and he defended himself against armed intruders, regardless of their police affiliation, he would have been justified in using lethal force in self defense inside his own home. The dog should be no different. Even if the police subsequently found evidence of a drug crime, it would not meet all the requirements allowing forcible entry and lethal force.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Interesting you dont have the time to look up case law or anything else, but you took the time to list other junk without really backing up your statement. It would have just been easier to say, no I do not have proof to back up this statement. Good try.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Never meant to be family pets watch this video and learn something

www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by ker2010
 


The dog though, was killed by its owners. They put their kids and dogs at risk knowingly. Why they had a Pit Bull instead of a good dog for children however is obvious.

Mostly though, I worry about children in the hands of irresponsible, adolescents who have not even matured past party mode yet. Those kids in a house with gunfire going off. They must bear the responsibility for bringing that to their home through their immature, irresponsible behavior.

That dead dog could have been a dead child. All so a child in an adult body can party.





First a pitty is a great family dog when raised with children, cocker spaniels are far more likely biters.
As to the rest of your weak "for the sake of the children" crap,it has caused more families grief than helped any children. The danger came when a simple arrest was made into a tactical exercise. How hard is it to have a squad car waiting in the morning for him to leave and pinch him?
No, military invasion tactics were used to secure a misdemeanor and shots were fired. Pretty insane response that could have been handled on the street in daylight with just a detective and squad car.
N.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaBravoSierra
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Interesting you dont have the time to look up case law or anything else, but you took the time to list other junk without really backing up your statement. It would have just been easier to say, no I do not have proof to back up this statement. Good try.


Fair Enough.

"I don't have proof to back up that statement."

However, the proof does exist and is easily accessible, so much as to be considered common knowledge. Even a public defender would be able to access the case law and defend the actions of the people in that home. Any decent ambulance chaser will get a pretty good payout in a lawsuit. The SWAT team violated protocol, even on good intel. If it was bad intel, they violated protocol even further by not validating the intel before acting upon it.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Perhaps SWAT did act on bad intelligence but we are only truly seeing part of the entire picture i.e what brought SWAT there in the first place. Perhaps SWAT had to act quickly because of the tip they received as in trying to catch the drugs in the house at the same time as the owner. The fact remains that if the officer who shot the dog viewed it as an immediate threat (which we have all come to agree no one posting here was actually there to argue if the dog was or was not a threat) the officer neutralized the situation as it arose.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
It's like guns gave the guys born with inadequacy issues a way to get back for centuries of embarrassment under the real warriors. Genetic trash only here long enough to teach us what real freedoms are about. This video is sickening, but if enough people can see it and are repulsed by it, hopefully it will be a stepping stone towards being able to topple the towers of tyranny.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Bunch of wankers!! And all because of marijuana, a drug that hundreds of thousands of people consume every day without hurting anyone. I've seen CEOs, mothers, dads, lawyers, politicians, and so many different people smoke...yet politicians just don't get it. Alcohol's fine, cigarettes are fine...but weed isn't? Why is that? It's not more/less harmful than alcohol/cigarettes!!



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The Constitution of the United States, as well as each State's Constitution has provisions against illegal search and seizure, and the presumption of innocence.


True, unless you have a warrant...



Cops cannot shoot a fleeing suspect.


Actually we can depending on the circumstances. You just better be darn sure of those circumstances and whats actually happening at the time of the suspect fleeing.


The Castle Doctrines.


This doctrine is different from state to state dpending on various laws.....I HIGHLY recommend, as an officer, for people to be aware of their laws and how this doctrine is implied in your state...ESPECIALLY the duty to retreat and stand your ground clauses....they are NOT all the same.



Procedural rules for entering private property to stop the commission of a crime or an immediate threat to an individual such as domestic violence or kidnapping.

If this had been a teenage boy, or a roommate of these people, and he was woken up from a dead sleep in the middle of the night, and he defended himself against armed intruders, regardless of their police affiliation, he would have been justified in using lethal force in self defense inside his own home. The dog should be no different. Even if the police subsequently found evidence of a drug crime, it would not meet all the requirements allowing forcible entry and lethal force.


This is why being on SWAT the intel and surveillance are critical. It all comes down to intention and execution and obviously if its a NO KNOCK or KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE warrant. The knock and announce warrants are in hopes to NOT have the occupants firing at the officers. As I said in an earlier post, the outcome of this search warrant shows me that the officers DID NOT have solid intel or they DID NOT move on the house fast enough. In all my years of being on SWAT we only hit ONE house that had already moved the stolen goods out before we got there...that was on us, but we follwed up and got the goods the next day. As for the dogs...I already made my opinion clear.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj1975
 


The validity of the warrant and the circumstances of the shoot are certainly important matters for the court. At the time the incident is happening, the officer has a very delicate balance between his own safety, the execution of the warrant or stoppage of the crime, and the rights of the citizen. I don't want to downplay that point at all! MOST officers do an extremely good job at balancing those competing interests.

Now, it seems this warrant may have been rushed through. Fault=Judge. It seems it may have been executed without much validation. Fault=Police/Detectives. It seems at least one of the officers involved was either trigger happy or skittish and scared. Fault=That guy.

The Fault certainly does not lie with the family or dog that was in possession of a small amount of hash. Even had it been an amount that was suitable for distribution, it still would not have justified this level of warrant or execution. Maybe the faulty intel indicated a major drug ring bust complete with weapons and cash. Maybe that would have justified a no knock warrant, but it is still iffy, and the responsibility is still on the police to verify the validity of the information before putting multiple lives, including their own lives, at risk!



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj1975
 

You seem the reasonable sort and I wish to make clear given the climate today I greatly honor your position as a LEO but it is because you are a reasonable sort who recognizes error and accepts it but does not condone it. That is pretty huge for LE and I for one want to recognize you for it. That said I am considered a federal criminal for using cannabis as medicine. That an herb can make people like you and I be on such opposing legal sides is preposterous and offensive as I am a law abiding citizen in every other way.
That bit of fluff said there is an increasing body of LE that is far different than how you portray yourself, who have a distinct "us vs them" attitude and who are increasingly using force over reasonability. Some of the posters radically defending this invasion seem to almost get some kick from seeing "the scum" get what's coming even if the "scum" is innocent or of little threat.
N.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by N.of norml
You seem the reasonable sort and I wish to make clear given the climate today I greatly honor your position as a LEO but it is because you are a reasonable sort who recognizes error and accepts it but does not condone it. That is pretty huge for LE and I for one want to recognize you for it. That said I am considered a federal criminal for using cannabis as medicine. That an herb can make people like you and I be on such opposing legal sides is preposterous and offensive as I am a law abiding citizen in every other way.
That bit of fluff said there is an increasing body of LE that is far different than how you portray yourself, who have a distinct "us vs them" attitude and who are increasingly using force over reasonability. Some of the posters radically defending this invasion seem to almost get some kick from seeing "the scum" get what's coming even if the "scum" is innocent or of little threat.
N.


Well thank you for that and let me be clear. I really don't care about MJ and people who get high EXCEPT for the branching out effect I have seen and dealt with on the job.

What I mean is, YES, there are MILLIONS of people who smoke a joint once in awhile and never harm a fly, have jobs, etc...and I as a LEO never deal with them or have to worry about them. My concern is having seen people only care about the high. They HAD a job, HAD this, HAD that, and now they just care about the MJ and their high/good times. MANY of them now on welfare and THAT is where I get pissed. If you wanna smoke a blunt, or they legalize MJ....thats fine...I, even as a LEO, don't care...but when MY TAX DOLLARS support SOME peoples habit, thats where I get a little negative. I think MANY agree...drug test for social funds assistance and the rest is fine by me.

I have let so many people go for having 1 or 2 blunts. As I said, I don't care, especially since I gotta deal with toothless unpredictable meth/crack heads daily. When I was on narcotics you learn real quick that MJ is truly the least of our worries in LE....BUT it is fun to take a CI FUNIONS who you know is high on weed and watch him eat them...
ahhhh the days of being a narc.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

I actually agree with legalization of Pot. I've had no issue with that. I also agree SWAT should not be used to gather up a Pothead. What it is about though is responsibility and common sense.

The dog though, was killed by its owners. They put their kids and dogs at risk knowingly. Why they had a Pit Bull instead of a good dog for children however is obvious.

Mostly though, I worry about children in the hands of irresponsible, adolescents who have not even matured past party mode yet. Those kids in a house with gunfire going off. They must bear the responsibility for bringing that to their home through their immature, irresponsible behavior.


That dead dog could have been a dead child. All so a child in an adult body can party.



I got an idea since you're doing all this worrying. How about you spend some time with some Canadiens or people from the Netherlands who have children, where pot is legal, who can manage their lives while smoking pot, and you'll gain some insight on how dumb you really are and how much you don't know? Just because you were a self admitted junkie who couldn't deal with their life doesn't mean others can't, or they're ANYTHING like you. While you're taking this stand on what drugs are legal you might want to look at all the perscription drugs that are going around and stay away from that coffee in the morning because you never know what drugs the government might make illegal next since 99% of the general public never get a vote on what is or is not legal.

Also, for someone who stands so strong behind taking responsibilty, why do you continue with this delusional fantasy that someone else besides the members of a SWAT team PULLED THE TRIGGER'S that shot and killed them dogs?

As far as you're latest comment about cause an effect and the suggestion that committing a misdemeanor should and will cause death to you're pets and possibley the terrorization of your family. Please watch that speed limit because i would really hate to see the cops pull you over and shoot your pets and terrorize your family right in front of your face because you took you're eye off that speedometer.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
These are the same kinda C.O.P.S that busted a "legit" Pharmaceutical Distributors in California, helping folks who could barely hold a glass of water or put a speech together. Its that go get the bad guy ideal, I'm sure either one of these coppers where living in his complex or banging someone there; and simply caught a whiff walking by. This poor man and his family (especially the dogs). I hope that something is learned here and also coming to realize can you trust a cop. My answer is NO.



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join