Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
How many more have to die?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Via Radley Balko, I learn that three brave Atlanta police officers have been wounded in a gunfight with an armed, suspected drug dealer, who was also killed:
Three Atlanta police officers were shot and wounded and an elderly woman killed at a house in northwest Atlanta Tuesday night.

The woman, who relatives say was 92-years-old, opened fire on the officers from the narcotics division at a house at 933 Neal Street, according to officials. Authorities say they received a tip of drug activity taking place at the home and officers were headed to the house with a search warrant.

Relatives identified the elderly woman as Katherine Johnston.

The woman's niece, Sarah Dozier, says that she bought her aunt a gun to protect herself and that her aunt had a permit for the gun. Relatives believe Johnston was frightened by the officers and opened fire.

"They kicked her door down talking about drugs, there's no drugs in that house. And they realize now, they've got the wrong house," Dozier said. "I'm mad as hell." Officials say they had the correct house and that the warrant they had was legal.
Of course, they do. After all, if you can't trust police officials, who can you trust? Frankly, I'm getting awfully tired of these vicious pushers, with their walkers, and oxygen tanks, and their vials of crack cocaine, playing their Glenn Miller and Tommy Dorsey at all hours of the day and night.

Divider


Actually, that's not really very funny is it? But I have to try and find some humor to deal with it, or else simply boil over with the rage I feel at seeing this.

How many people have to die before we start banning no-knock warrants in all but the most extreme circumstances.

The police—in a "War on Drugs" that has been heartily supported by both Democrats and Republicans—are bursting through doors in the middle of the night, ready to shoot first, and ask questions later.

As Billy Beck puts it:
We are talking about the mentality that did not hear the sound of its own conscience as it rounded up other human beings and loaded them into cattle-cars at rifle-point. And it does not matter, dear reader, whether you especially don't enjoy the example of the point, or whether you're ready to flag it with "Godwin" and "move on" or what. It is what it is.

How far does it have to go before it goes as far as it can?
Not much farther. Frankly, I'm surprised that we haven't yet seen police reports containing the term "shot while escaping". We are using Gestapo tactics to make midnight, surprise raids, kitted out in full military regalia, to serve warrants on suspects of non-violent offenses. In the course of doing so, they are killing citizens whose only offense is, when woken up suddenly at night by men breaking into their homes, having the temerity to defend themselves. This is simply outrageous, and if it doesn't shock your conscience, then you are a moral cripple.

After having spent half of my adult life as a sworn law enforcement officer, I find I am becoming more anti-police every day.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What this country needs is a whole slew of modern Battles of Athens. Someone needs to put these pigs in their place and remind them that decency and civility apply to even them. We tolerate some of the wildest, most psychopathic behavior from law enforcement such as allowing the local Kommando Korps to raid a home over mary j seeds found in a trashcan. No civilized person can support that or feel much of any pitty for the people do.
 
Written By: MikeT
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com
The police are rarely punished for misconduct like this. Almost never. A good example is the prison guards in Florida who beat a 14-year old, on film, who died and the cause of death was ruled natural causes by the coroner.

It’s understandable that the public supports the police because they have a tough job, but gunning down a 92-year old in a drug raid wouldn’t seem to be part of the job description.
 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
I was a little on edge when I asked the police for a warrent when they wanted to search my house, supposed for a missing person. I got the "if you have nothing to hide..." I had to ask several times. Relieved that they left and they never came back with the warrent.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://hathor-sekhmet.blogspot.com
Actually you "boys" are focusing on the wrong thing here, the dead 92 y.o. She shot, they shot..no foul on either side. They kicked in her door, she defended herself...all three of them got shot, they defended THEMSELVES. Sorry, guys once the bullets start flying, moral judgments about actions, TAKEN DURING THE FIREFIGHT, are pretty much moot.

The problem wasn’t what happened when the door went down, but with what happened PRIOR to the standard issue meeting the door. Some CI informs the Police/Puh-leece/Poh-Leece/P’leece/Militsia/Miilicents that drugs is bein’ dealt from an address. Now most CI’s are low-rent scum-suckers and you wouldn’t trust them with the money to go buy you a Coca-Cola, BUT we will take their word that this address is dealing drugs?! OK informants are useful and necessary, but doesn’t it behoove the Millicents, to at least OBSERVE the address for evidence of suspicious activity prior to serving the warrant? I mean in this case you’re likely to see a 92 y.o. granny...was there a constant parade of strangers in and out of Granny’s apartment? Was there ANY OTHER evidence, besides the CI’s word, that drugs were being dealt?

So I think the answer is to make the Police Department liable, civilly, for actions taken during NO KNOCK WARRANTS. No Knocks have their place, but a liability attached to them, might do wonders in focusing attention on using them ONLY when ABSOLUTELY necessary and after a little diligence to support any given specific use.

And MikeT. you might want to tone down the rhetoric, because well you sound like some drug dealing Anarchist, and well that doan play well on Main street. Being a Peace Officer IS a tough and potentially dangerous job and it doesn’t need a tremendous amount of second-guessing by angry folks like you. I’ll use the Chicken hawk meme here, YOU go out and deal with what they deal with and then see how useful words like yours are.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
McQ,
The police are us. It is us who authorize them to bust down doors to arrest pot-dealers, "search and seize" motorists’ possessions, cordon off rowdy protesters at Presidential inaugurals, etc.

So, it seems your beef really is with America’s voters, and her myriad legislative schemes governing police interdiction of narcotics and the capture of fugitives in violation of anti-drug legislation.

As I see it, the problem is largely semantic. If we are fighting a "War" on drugs, then the unfortunate 92-year old victim of this policing error is correctly termed "collateral damage." And "Drug-warriors" should see the innocent victim as the cost of running a war.

The waters are muddied further by an inescapable paradox. If a full half of our citizenry is demanding "drug" coverage for seniors, "drug" discounts from Canada, and "drug" prescriptions for everthing from hyper children to yellowing toe-nails, then America is engaged in a "War" against things we call "drugs" when the populace is actually demanding more of them.

Kofi Annan, President of the U.N., recently had this to say about another American war-front, the one in Iraq:
"America is trapped in Iraq. She cannot stay and she cannot leave."
Although he is wrong as usual about Iraq, Kofi’s words do apply accurately to America’s domestic "War on Drugs."

It is a sorry epitaph, that a 92 year-old lady’s shooting makes Kofi right for a change. But the dynamics are too similar not to mention them: any retreat from aggressive interdiction in the war on drugs will be called a "defeat" by "Drug-warriors." Any increase in aggressive enforcement, with its concommitant collateral damage (ie. innocent gun-shot victims), will qualify as "Jack-booted oppression." We are truly trapped.

America’s politicians could fix the problem by calling the "War on Drugs" what it really is: a coercive attempt to regulate the drug market.
-Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
Joe wrote:
And MikeT. you might want to tone down the rhetoric, because well you sound like some drug dealing Anarchist, and well that doan play well on Main street.
Wait ’til a few more grandmas get ventilated. If someone started killing police officers right now, I could care less. Heat. Kitchen.

They can can always get honest work instead.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
McQ,
The police are us.
Steve ... I didn’t write this piece.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ooops! My bad, McQ.

Dale, don’t hate the cops. The police are us!
-S
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
What is the stance of the supposed gurus of NeoLibertarianism with respect to fully informed juries?

A) The people and state deserve juries who will decide solely on the facts of the case, ones who will uphold the laws as written and adjudicated by the courts.

B) The people in their capacity as jurors should affirmatively pass judgement on the facts of the case, the law, and the application of the law, and the defendant deserves to have what argument they think will be most compelling made to the jury on their behalf.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
OK Tom...my point, both substantive and PR is Peace Officers are generally sympathetic characters, to the public...As the Beatles sang:
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
You want to change the system, fine. You wanna bad mouth the Peace Officer Profession, well fine, too, but I’m fairly certain you won’t get the changes you want. So pick one, bad mouthing or change...

You and MikeT come off like the smelly hippie anti-war protestors, nasty argumentative folks, that whilst they may SOME good points, are SO objectionable you can’t bring yourself to agree with on ANYTHING.
I could care less. Heat. Kitchen.

They can can always get honest work instead.
You say that NOW, safe and sound... as they used to say in the 1970’s "When you get mugged, call a Hippie." So the next there’s a bank robbery or a traffic accident or YOUR house has a burglary whatcha gonna do if they have all gotten "Honest Work", Tom?

OH and,
I could care less
means that you care...you mean to say "I couldn’t care LESS." Otherwise your statement says you COULD care less, ergo your current state of caring is not at a low ebb, but is actually GREATER then some OTHER state of caring.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Not 10 minutes ago as I was walking my dogs in Downtown Atlanta for their morning constitutional, two rookie cops on foot beat walked by, across the street. I couldn’t resist...

"DUDES" (they turn to look) I make a exaggerated shrugging motion with my hands out "A NINETY-TWO YEAR OLD WOMAN???"

Silence for a few seconds.They looked at each other and the black cop shrugged back in exasperation. The little Marshall Mathers looking cop with him who was on a cell phone, yelled back "have a nice day, sir" without too much sarcasm.

My response: "Please be careful and responsible out here!" (I wanted to add, "and watch for them grannies!" but I didn’t. My point was made. The avg Joe on the street is NOT happy over this.

Now, since we have a bad vagrant problem in our neighborhood, I welcome the beefed up foot patrols in my neighborhood. Frankly, if it were not for the threat of lost convention revenue, this would just be another crime ravaged, run down section of a major metro downtown area.

There have been 12 police related shootings in the area in the last few months and the cops are ALWAYS no-billed (if the event occurs during their active duty as officers).

Atlanta is no longer a safe place to take your family, OR own a gun.
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://goplobby.org
Joe,

Tsk, tsk. Such a weak little mind you apparently have that you have to resort to such half-assed rhetorical tricks as name calling in a vain attempt to make a point. And conflating anti-war protesting with outrage over police state tactics? Damn dude, your brain needs some serious rewiring if that’s how your brain handles logic. I’d just as soon as punch Cindy Sheehan in the face as agree to go with her to South Korea to protest our troops.

But then, the reason that I admire and respect our military is that they hold themselves to an extremely high standard. They operate the way government should operate. Cops that go on these raids seem to have a curious inability to militarize their reconaissance and surveillance capabilities alongside their arsenals.

I have two solutions for this, none of which involve violence, but neither of which will be supported by people like you. Fully demilitarize the police or adopt a state-level version of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the police so that any SWAT officer who wrongly kills a civilian will face the standards of the military, not civilian law, since clearly they fancy themselves soldiers.
 
Written By: MikeT
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com
JOE IS RIGHT in saying that the core of the problem lay in what happened before the police arrived. There have been too many reports of the wrong house being broken into.

But after they arrived, odds were heavy for some violence to ensue. While selling pot is a nonviolent crime in itself, it often comes in a package of other illegal activites and the arms to protect the business.

There is a conundrum: if the woman didn’t own a gun, she might have become the victim of a crire, but if she didn’t have a gun, she would not have been shot by the police. She was in lose-lose situation.










 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
Joe wrote:
You wanna bad mouth the Peace Officer Profession, well fine, too, but I’m fairly certain you won’t get the changes you want.
Bad mouth!? Pulling cr@p like this, my mouth can’t make them look worse.
"You say that NOW, safe and sound... as they used to say in the 1970’s "When you get mugged, call a Hippie."
I expect them—vainly, since they haven’t been for more than 100 years—to be peace officers who I can call if there’s a mugging. Instead, they’re off gallivanting around in their light infantry gear blowing away the elderly for their supposed stash.
So the next there’s a bank robbery or a traffic accident or YOUR house has a burglary whatcha gonna do if they have all gotten "Honest Work", Tom?
If the cops who want to be in positions to shoot people under these circumstances have found honest work, I expect there will still be police who will be peace officers who can be called in actual emergencies. To conflate the two situations, to think you can’t have one without the other, that’s an error I’d like to see you admit.

I’d love to see you put a lot of effort into trying to show they are one and the same.
I could care less.
Has a colloquial meaning I’m sure you understood, and you’re just being meritricious. That’s your privelege.

And as it happens, I could care less. I think a big problem is that most people do care less, a lot less. You see, all in all, if someone were to take it upon themselves to begin killing even otherwise uninvolved police officers in retribution for the criminal actions of the majority, I’d approve more than I’d disapprove, so I do care. I don’t expect the political process to improve things any in my lifetime, and while I don’t think bullets are any better than ballots yet, I’m not so sure about that that I could categorically condemn someone for trying them.

I have the feeling that would discourage the worst sort of police and encourage the best, and if that turned out they other way, well that would help me make up my mind.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Laime,

Why didn’t the police check the home owner records and do a little surveillance first? If they see that the house seems to be primarily occupied by a 92 year old woman, they can be reasonably sure that they can approach the house in uniform without getting into a firefight.

The fact that violence often is part of the package, doesn’t negate the fact that violence is not only often not part of it, but that if they get the wrong person, there’s a very real chance of killing them if they operate under that assumption.
 
Written By: MikeT
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com
The fact that violence often is part of the package, doesn’t negate the fact that violence is not only often not part of it, but that if they get the wrong person, there’s a very real chance of killing them if they operate under that assumption.
Which is why every police officer out there can reasonably be thought of as really scummy for participating in an organization that makes such an assumption.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tsk, tsk. Such a weak little mind you apparently have that you have to resort to such half-assed rhetorical tricks as name calling in a vain attempt to make a point. And conflating anti-war protesting with outrage over police state tactics?
Tsk, tsk. Such a weak little mind you apparently have that you have to resort to such half-assed rhetorical tricks as name calling
Pot meet kettle... you can SIMULTANEOUSLY say name calling is bad, whilst calling me "weak-minded". Dude, I can’t help you...
And conflating anti-war protesting with outrage over police state tactics?
Uh because it’s true... again review your OWN STATEMENT..."Police state tactics" oh so this is a POLICE STATE? Gee you and Code Pink and all the OTHER smellie hippies can now make common cause about the Police State we inhabit. Now this may NOT be evident to YOU, but you just used hyperbole there, just like the smelly hippies do. So yes, I feel perfectly justified in conflating your rhetorical excesses with the smelly hippies. And yes, I believe your rhetorical excesses damage YOUR case just like the smelly hippies’ excesses damage THEIRS.
Why didn’t the police check the home owner records and do a little surveillance first? If they see that the house seems to be primarily occupied by a 92 year old woman, they can be reasonably sure that they can approach the house in uniform without getting into a firefight.
Golly MikeT EXACTLY MY POINT, but with out mine sounds REASONABLE whereas you come off as a crank....

Tom:
The fact that violence often is part of the package, doesn’t negate the fact that violence is not only often not part of it, but that if they get the wrong person, there’s a very real chance of killing them if they operate under that assumption.
Which is why every police officer out there can reasonably be thought of as really scummy for participating in an organization that makes such an assumption.
Really now you reveal your ignorance. If there is a 1% chance I will get shot in a given situation I will treat 100% of those occurances as a situation as where I can get shot. It’s simple survivial. Your statement is nonsensical. The Police DON’T know which service of warrant is going to be the one they get shot on, and hence they TREAT ALL OF THEM AS OPPORTUNITIES to be shot. So if that makes them "Scummy" for being a part of organizations that do ROUTINELY get shot at, and therefore acting in a defensive manner in ALL situations I’m afraid, in this case, you’ve gone of the deep end.

Further,
I expect them—vainly, since they haven’t been for more than 100 years—to be peace officers who I can call if there’s a mugging. Instead, they’re off gallivanting around in their light infantry gear blowing away the elderly for their supposed stash.
REALLY 100 years, I didn’t realize. Sadly you demonstrate a lack of historical perspective that limits your ability to comment. Today’s Peace Officer is better-trained and far better equipped than ever, FOR NON-VIOLENT ARRESTS. Use of force policies exist, tampa sticks, pepper spray, and tasers all exist to allow FAR LESS VIOLENCE to be meted ut by Peace Officers. 100 years ago their options were SHOOT YOU/Let you go. Much of your current complaint is simply rubbish. The Peace Officers here were met with Deadly Force they responed with Deadly Force.

The problem is NOT the Peace Officers, but the PROCEDURES they follow. My point is LESS carping about the Cops and MORE CARPING about the Process will result in more change.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,

I didn’t call you a name. Saying "apparently this is true about you, since you do __X__" is not name-calling. Calling me a stinky hippie, however, is naming calling since there is no qualification. Considering the fact that you cannot post now without resorting to the ASCII equivalent of shouting half of your points, I think it is you who ought to tone down a little.

Be it as it may, I never said that America is a police state, I said that our police are employing police state tactics. America does not yet have all of the qualities of a police state, therefore it stands to reason that the difference is one of quantity, not quality. One critical part of our government has been perverted, but that alone does not suffice to make a police state.

You can only blame the process so much, though. You forget that the processes are made up by senior police officers so there is no easy Marxist class dichotomy wherein the poor police officers are systematically oppressed in their line of work by nefarious politicians. It’s a hand-in-hand cooperation between management and the other parts of the government that results in these things.

So what role did procedure play here? What procedure prevented them from staking out her house for a little while, and catching her when she was going to her car. Badge in hand, "ma’am, we need to ask you a few questions." Very calm, very civil, no guns drawn. But... you don’t see them often doing that sort of thing because it’s boring. Instead you get the adrenaline junkie SWAT officers going in with enough firepower to handle a bad section of Baghdad on a drug raid.

The problem is that procedure is just a cover for bad cops much of the time.
 
Written By: MikeT
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com
So what role did procedure play here? What procedure prevented them from staking out her house for a little while, and catching her when she was going to her car. Badge in hand, "ma’am, we need to ask you a few questions."
Your skills about missing the obvious are amazing...yes you point out CHANGES IN PROCEDURE, that might have prevented this and yet you persist in saying that people not procedure was the problem.
The problem is that procedure is just a cover for bad cops much of the time.

Uh no, MOST of ANYONE are not bad, hence when bad things happen look less to WHO and more to HOW. It is the difference in perception that Waltz captures in Man State and War. Obviously you see the problem as Man, I view the problem as one of system or state...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, there was a time when I had a lot of respect and praise for LEOs, doing a hard job in difficult conditions. I dismissed the complaints I heard from a number of people — of all colors — as misunderstandings.

That’s changed.

There’s an old story about how people learn. Some go to class, pay attention, think about the consequences of Maxwell’s Laws; abstract learners. Others hear stories of other’s experiences and "take the lesson"; practical learning. Still others, well, they have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. Experiencial learners.

You, personally, may be a fine officer, one of those I was happy supporting. But there are enough of the other kind wearing the same uniform you do that your reputation is being damaged by their bad behavior.

What they do influences me more than what you do — or say. Sorry.

 
Written By: htom
URL: http://
Joe is in quotes:
Really now you reveal your ignorance. If there is a 1% chance I will get shot in a given situation I will treat 100% of those occurances as a situation as where I can get shot. It’s simple survivial. Your statement is nonsensical.
Your statement is nonsensical, since I have never said anything to the contrary.

What I have said and quite insist on is that if the question is whether I want the police or the lady to be the survivors of such a circumstance, I want the lady to live.

What I also have said and quite insist on is that if the question is whether the police should survive placing themselves in such situations (where they are doing nothing to prevent legs from being broken and pockets from being picked) then at some point, and we’re pretty much at that point, I want the police to be killed. They have no just power to place themselves in such circumstances.

And no, Joe and sadly, Mike T., no change in procedures will eliminate or even substantially curb such situations. The police have said, and the courts have agreed, that they cannot change their procedures and fight the war on drugs, and the war on drugs is more important to them.
REALLY 100 years, I didn’t realize.
Yes, Joe, over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court ditched fully informed juries as being a apart of due process. If you think the people want the war on drugs prosecuted, then fully expose the conduct of the drug war fighters to the jury box, and see if that war continues. You supposedly have confidence in the outcome, correct?
Today’s Peace Officer is better-trained and far better equipped than ever, FOR NON-VIOLENT ARRESTS. Use of force policies exist, tampa sticks, pepper spray, and tasers all exist to allow FAR LESS VIOLENCE to be meted ut by Peace Officers.
Why do you imagine that has anything to do with it?
The Peace Officers here were met with Deadly Force they responed with Deadly Force.
No. That is not the circumstance at issue. The police created the occaision for the use of deadly force and went into the situation with deadly force intended to any who resisted. You think they went through the door with their pepper spray in hand and then switched to guns? If you do, you’re a moron.
My point is LESS carping about the Cops and MORE CARPING about the Process will result in more change.
The problem isn’t the tools available, the problem isn’t the procedures—since if the circumstances warrant, everyone would want the police to go in guns blazing.

The problem is neither tools nor procedure, but the goal. The war on drugs is not constitutionally legitimate, as there is no amendment to legitimize it and the juries trying the cases are not allowed by the courts to be fully informed by the defense.

Until that those circumstances change, I am far more comfortable with police officers being killed in the line of such duty, than I am with them succeeding in gunning down 92 year old women.

In fact, we’re pretty much at the point I’d have to applaud someone who obeyed the rules of war while killing police officers. It would be well earned.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
You, personally, may be a fine officer, one of those I was happy supporting. But there are enough of the other kind wearing the same uniform you do that your reputation is being damaged by their bad behavior.
Um sorry, not a Peace Officer
What they do influences me more than what you do — or say. Sorry.
Uh so let’s carry this out a bit further, a DISPROPORTIONATE number of Blacks are on Public Assistance and Tupac was Black and many Gangsta Rappers are Black, so from this it wuld be safe to conclude that you view Blacks as Welfare-using, Gangsta’s and Rappers?

Because by your "logic" this must be so, because even though a VAST MAJORITY of Blacks do NOT fall into this category, because SOME do and make headlines, therfore; you would be justified in viewing ALL Blacks with suspicion, right?


Tom Wrote:
In fact, we’re pretty much at the point I’d have to applaud someone who obeyed the rules of war while killing police officers. It would be well earned.
"We Support the Troops, When They Frag Their Officers"...Smelly hippies meet Tom Perkins, Tom Perkins meet Smelly Hippies. Enjoy each others company.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Hey everybody. I think everyone here knows Joe

Come and meet Joe’s best argument for excusing the War on drugs, and the murder of 92 year old ladies.
"We Support the Troops, When They Frag Their Officers"...Smelly hippies meet Tom Perkins, Tom Perkins meet Smelly Hippies. Enjoy each others company.
Hey Joe, does that mean you think you’re my officer?

^Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
No one ever accused Joe of taking the high road.
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Tom you make an outrageous and inflammtory remark and don’t like being called on it? Can’t help you .
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Uh so let’s carry this out a bit further, a DISPROPORTIONATE number of Blacks are on Public Assistance and Tupac was Black and many Gangsta Rappers are Black, so from this it wuld be safe to conclude that you view Blacks as Welfare-using, Gangsta’s and Rappers?

Because by your "logic" this must be so, because even though a VAST MAJORITY of Blacks do NOT fall into this category, because SOME do and make headlines, therfore; you would be justified in viewing ALL Blacks with suspicion, right?
Rap (at least to me) is mostly noise and I pretty much ignore both it and its creators. Tupac ... is he the character on SG-1? No, that’s Teal’c. :googles: Oh. Doesn’t seem to have been anything like a typical person.

I’ve known lots of folk on welfare (locations near universitys frequently have lots of people who are struggling; some make it, some don’t.) I have never heard of them organizing into groups and knocking down doors and shooting people. Knocking ON doors, yes. That you can’t see that difference may be part of the problem.

I understand that you would assert that a VAST MAJORITY of LEOs are "good guys"; that’s a bit silly, because they seem to be tolerating the "bad guys" within their ranks, and that removes them from "good guy" status in my eyes.
 
Written By: htom
URL: http://
Tom you make an outrageous and inflammtory remark and don’t like being called on it? Can’t help you .
I wouldn’t mind it if I was saying something more inflammatory than "no taxation without representation". Since they had no just reason to be in the building, those police murdered her under color of law. I’d rather they were dead, just the same that I hope every murder victim could successfully defend themselves against their killers.

Rather than have such murders continue, I’d rather see police die. You make a case why I shouldn’t want that. Heat. Kitchen.

And what isn’t outrageous and inflammatory about you saying, essentially, that the old lady got killed and thems the breaks?

And you certainly haven’t responded to any of my criticisms, have you?

Here’s what you’ve said (or neglected to substantively contradict):

1) The police acted rationally once they were in the position of being fired on.

2) They were in that position because they were in the business of enforcing the drug laws.

3) The police forces as a group have insisted they have to do things this way to enforce the drug laws—so no change in procedures.

4) Without foregoing such tactics, these things will happen.

5) You seem to support the drug laws.

Q.E.D. You think if 92 year old ladies get gunned down by the police who are kicking in her door looking for drugs, you think that ok’s—a good enough thing.

Make an actual argument, Joe.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I understand that you would assert that a VAST MAJORITY of LEOs are "good guys"; that’s a bit silly, because they seem to be tolerating the "bad guys" within their ranks, and that removes them from "good guy" status in my eyes.

And I’m just pointing ut to you the consequences of your "logic". You MUST view all Blacks with suspicion because SOME of them are evil...


Tom:
Here’s what you’ve said (or neglected to substantively contradict):

1) The police acted rationally once they were in the position of being fired on.
They did, Tom...next time you’re doing YOUR job and someone fires on YOU get back to me on whether you fire back or not. What you view as a TRAVESTY, I view as a TRAGEDY, in its classical sense. Both sides were acting correctly, and the end result of that is Tragedy.
3) The police forces as a group have insisted they have to do things this way to enforce the drug laws—so no change in procedures.
That’s not entirely true, is it. And Yes I would support some legal changes that might encourage changed procedures.
4) Without foregoing such tactics, these things will happen.
And even with CHANGED TACTICS SUCH THNGS WILL HAPPEN, because Life is not Perfect and tragedies WILL ALWAYS occur. You make an illogical argument here.
5) You seem to support the drug laws.
I do. What’s your point? That I think the Police behaved rationally, yes I do. That different procedures would have yielded a different outcome, yes I do. That different procedures OUGHT be adopted, Yes I do.

Your problem seems to be that I don’t share your penchant for foolish rhetoric or share in your contempt for Peace Officers, whcih I don’t.

Make an actual argument, Joe.
I have made one... Caling for the "War on Police" gets you put in the same category as Smelly Hippies calling for "Fragging Officers". I, instead, suggest that in order to prevent these horrid TRAGEDIES, that we make Police Departments/Organizations Providing Peace Officer Services Civilly Liable in cases like this, encouraging circumspection and the weighing of alternatives to "No Knock" Warrants, i.e., ENCOURAGING DIFFERENT PROCEDURES.

Bottom-Line: Don’t sound like a Smelly Hippie, propose legal changes that will encourage changed procedures. Seems like an argument to me.



 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
MikeT and Tom Perkins seem to believe that one must:
1) Despise the Police; AND
2) Believe in different procedures.

I believe that is an incorrect interpretation. I see that one can LIKE the Police and call for different procedures.

Tom and Mike seem to believe that the Peace Officers acted EVILLY, whereas as I see them acting rationally within the procedures of the department. The Peace Officers COULD NOT violate departmental policy, so they were governed by a poor set of procedures the end result of which was a tragedy. It is NOT Peace Officers, per se, but rather the system in which they operate that produce outcomes, so change the operating environment and you can change the outcomes.

Many here, on this issue, seem what I call "Cultural Libertarians". Da Man is INHERENTLY EVIL. Since I am not Culturally Libertarian I take a somewhat differing view. We CAN work together, but IF the goal is to be RIGHT, i.e, Culturally Libertarian and Pure, well then the issue isn’t about DO GOOD, it’s about SOUNDING GOOD.

And Sounding Good is what Smelly Hippies do, because Smelly Hippies don’t DO GOOD, they just talk about doing good and parade around with silly signs and giant paper mache puppets.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Tom wrote:

Joe wrote:
Tom:

Here’s what you’ve said (or neglected to substantively contradict):

1) The police acted rationally once they were in the position of being fired on.


They did, Tom...next time you’re doing YOUR job and someone fires on YOU get back to me on whether you fire back or not. What you view as a TRAVESTY, I view as a TRAGEDY, in its classical sense. Both sides were acting correctly, and the end result of that is Tragedy.
Joe, pay attention, I have never said they did not act rationally once they were there, I’m saying they should never have been there for the reason they were there.
3) The police forces as a group have insisted they have to do things this way to enforce the drug laws—so no change in procedures.

That’s not entirely true, is it. And Yes I would support some legal changes that might encourage changed procedures.
No that is true. The police forces as a community have argued they need these tactics to enforce the drug laws.
4) Without foregoing such tactics, these things will happen.

And even with CHANGED TACTICS SUCH THNGS WILL HAPPEN, because Life is not Perfect and tragedies WILL ALWAYS occur. You make an illogical argument here.
Accepting that accidents will occur is no reason to make them more likely and still less so to make them more likely for bad reasons.
5) You seem to support the drug laws.

I do. What’s your point? That I think the Police behaved rationally, yes I do. That different procedures would have yielded a different outcome, yes I do. That different procedures OUGHT be adopted, Yes I do.
My point is that you are neccessarily scum if you support the drug war without benefit of an amendment to the constitution to make it at least potentially legal, and you are a fool to think it is a good idea in light this nation’s experiences with the prohibition of alcohol, which was at least done legally, and lately drugs.
Your problem seems to be that I don’t share your penchant for foolish rhetoric or share in your contempt for Peace Officers, whcih I don’t.
I don’t have contempt for Peace Officers, I have contempt for Law Enforcement Officers. You are not a Peace Officer.
Make an actual argument, Joe.

I have made one... Caling for the "War on Police" gets you put in the same category as Smelly Hippies calling for "Fragging Officers". I, instead, suggest that in order to prevent these horrid TRAGEDIES, that we make Police Departments/Organizations Providing Peace Officer Services Civilly Liable in cases like this, encouraging circumspection and the weighing of alternatives to "No Knock" Warrants, i.e., ENCOURAGING DIFFERENT PROCEDURES.
The first thing to do to prevent horrid tragedies is to make sure the police are doing no more than they should—so repeal all laws other than those which penalize crimes against other persons and their property.
Bottom-Line: Don’t sound like a Smelly Hippie, propose legal changes that will encourage changed procedures. Seems like an argument to me.
Except that these tragedies will still happen because law enforcement officers are only human, and you still want them to enforce the drug laws.

The tragedy isn’t that the police murdered a 92 year old woman, sometimes that will happen. The tragedy is they did it while trying to find drugs, which is not in their job description.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
The tragedy isn’t that the police murdered a 92 year old woman, sometimes that will happen. The tragedy is they did it while trying to find drugs, which is not in their job description.
Should instead read:
The tragedy isn’t that the police killed a 92 year old woman, sometimes that will happen. The tragedy is they murdered her while trying to find drugs, which is not in their job description.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Tom Perkins,
In Tom’s world the War on Drugs is EVIL. Sad to say Tom’s world is not populated by the majority of US citizens. Ergo, the War on Drugs is NOT evil and those involved in it are NOT scum. It IS a definitonal thing, obviously over which no RATIONAL debate can occur.

BTW, Tom it IS the remit of the Police to operate to enforce the laws of the community, and IF the community says Crack is ILLEAGL they WILL enforce those laws. Sad to say neither you, nor Jacob Sollum nor the editors of Reason Magazine are in the majority, so yes Peace Officers have the duty and Right to Wage the War on Drugs. You seem a priori to deny this, sadly it is true. Your argument is akin to the fellow who says you don’t have to pay your Income Tax. It’s an ARGUMENT, yes, but not a CORRECT one. Again no rational debate on this is possible, because to Tom it is axiomatic.

Finally again, I must say I am NOT a Peace Officer. Nor am I a "Law and Order" Conservative. I AM a Pragmatic Libertarian-Conservative who is NOT convinced that the War on Drugs is INHERENTLY evil or unconstitutional, and that those who wage it in whole or in part are not therefore "scum." I would further posit those that call Peace Officers "scum" are no more or less silly and reprehensible than the Smelly Hippies of Code Pink AND as likely to create conditions for change as Code Pink.

Again this "debate" seems more on the order that Joe is not "pure" enough in his belief(s) and that unless one believes that for 100 years Law Enforcement in this nation has been in a downhill spiral, culminating in the current War on Draugs as the nadir THEN one can not be right.

In short, this is a la Krauthammer a version of "Liberals are Stupid and Conservatives are Evil." It is NOT a rational debate where one can advance an argument and evidence. It is merely a rant by one member that Police Officers are scum and deserving of a war on them, and a failure to accept those first premises makes one, in fact, on the side of evil scum.

Well I can’t help you Tom, I don’t accept your axioms, so I guess I’ll have to leave you to your equivalent of "Frag the Officers" and giant Paper Mache Puppets. I believe you will have as much success in YOUR quest as the smelly hippies have had in their quest of derailing the war and globalization. That’s a pity, because at some levels we aren’t that far apart, but it seems that unless one buys WHOLE farm, one can’t work on Maggie’s Farm, here.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Tom Perkins,
In Tom’s world the War on Drugs is EVIL. Sad to say Tom’s world is not populated by the majority of US citizens. Ergo, the War on Drugs is NOT evil and those involved in it are NOT scum. It IS a definitonal thing, obviously over which no RATIONAL debate can occur.
I believe the reason you have not made an argument to defend it here is because you know that history and logic do not support your feelings.
BTW, Tom it IS the remit of the Police to operate to enforce the laws of the community, and IF the community says Crack is ILLEAGL they WILL enforce those laws. Sad to say neither you, nor Jacob Sollum nor the editors of Reason Magazine are in the majority, so yes Peace Officers have the duty and Right to Wage the War on Drugs. You seem a priori to deny this, sadly it is true. Your argument is akin to the fellow who says you don’t have to pay your Income Tax. It’s an ARGUMENT, yes, but not a CORRECT one. Again no rational debate on this is possible, because to Tom it is axiomatic.
And if what is purported to be law is not in fact lawful, as the war on drugs is not, or if what is purported to be the law is by far too unjust, as the return of escaped slaves to the south was, then it is within the purview of a person’s 1st amendment rights to call for such a law to be undone, ignored, disobeyed, and otherwise overthrown.
Finally again, I must say I am NOT a Peace Officer.
You certainly are not, not even in the original posse comitatus sense, instead you are a vigilante of the worst sort.
Nor am I a "Law and Order" Conservative. I AM a Pragmatic Libertarian-Conservative who is NOT convinced that the War on Drugs is INHERENTLY evil or unconstitutional, and that those who wage it in whole or in part are not therefore "scum."
Sir, neither your libertarian nor conservative inclinations are detectable in this thread, and in no other either, neither is any pragmatism* on your part. For that matter, there is no defense of your axioms.

*Lower case "p", Billy Beck, get back in your cage.
I would further posit those that call Peace Officers "scum" are no more or less silly and reprehensible than the Smelly Hippies of Code Pink AND as likely to create conditions for change as Code Pink.
I’m not calling peace officers scum, these three weren’t peace officers. And in the terribly unlikely event that soldiers killed a 92 year old woman for no good reason, the Army would likely jail them if not execute them, and both Code Pink and Smelly Hippies would coincidentally be in the right if they called such soldiers scum.
Again this "debate" seems more on the order that Joe is not "pure" enough in his belief(s) and that unless one believes that for 100 years Law Enforcement in this nation has been in a downhill spiral, culminating in the current War on Draugs as the nadir THEN one can not be right.
I’m not saying you aren’t pure in your beliefs, I’m saying you’re a fool or evil. The drug war is such a things as to rightly inspire "bright lines" and your on the dark side of one from me.
In short, this is a la Krauthammer a version of "Liberals are Stupid and Conservatives are Evil." It is NOT a rational debate where one can advance an argument and evidence. It is merely a rant by one member that Police Officers are scum and deserving of a war on them, and a failure to accept those first premises makes one, in fact, on the side of evil scum.
Well you certainly can’t offer any counter-evidence against the primary evidence I’ve mentioned.

1) To make prohibition of alcohol legal, an amendment had to be made. There is no such amendment with respect to the currently prohibited recreational pharmaceuticals. Therefore the prohibition of drugs is not legal.

2) The Supreme Court in 1895 held in the case Sparf and Hansen v. U.S that the courts could disallow information concerning jury nullification from the courts. That means the jury cannot serve its intended purpose of judging the facts of the case, the law itself, and the application of the law to the facts. In practice this has mutated to many courts today "intructing" jurors to find a verdict based solely on the facts.
Since juries can judge a matter as politically charged as the drug laws in isolation from other concerns, where the elections of candidates are a take it or leave it affair, that means we don’t really know how strong the support is for the drug laws. And Joe doesn’t know either. He only hopes it’s high.

And evil is as evil does, and the police do far too much towards the drug war in the way of shooting people dead who aren’t even involved, let alone any other issue, such as the impossiblity of a crime against something besides a person or their property.
Well I can’t help you Tom, I don’t accept your axioms, so I guess I’ll have to leave you to your equivalent of "Frag the Officers" and giant Paper Mache Puppets. I believe you will have as much success in YOUR quest as the smelly hippies have had in their quest of derailing the war and globalization. That’s a pity, because at some levels we aren’t that far apart, but it seems that unless one buys WHOLE farm, one can’t work on Maggie’s Farm, here.
I’m unconcerned with your buying the farm Joe, unless you’re a drug warrior, in which case, you can’t buy it too soon.

If you cannot agree the constitution is the true law of the land, then politically we have no principles in common except by rare chance coincidence, and I’m happy when you accidentally are in the right—I just hope it’s more often.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Joe
"Sorry, guys once the bullets start flying, moral judgments about actions, TAKEN DURING THE FIREFIGHT, are pretty much moot."
I get it. The cops are essentially robots, who don’t need minds, and that’s why we can send them on work like this.

Thanx for clearing that up.

Now, go ahead, Joe, and write something that you think is quick and witty. It won’t matter, because you have absolutely no serious idea what’s going on here. You are flatly not qualified for discussion of this matter. You could be, but you’re not, so go right ahead and make yourself a kiddies’ wisecrack. Get it out of the way, and we’ll see if grown-ups can manage to talk around you.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Jon — It’s good that what I wrote at my place worked for you. However, I say that you pulled the wrong quote. "The mentality" that you’ve cited is a consequence of my point in the prior remark (which is the hyperlink to "Nobody’s Business"):
"We are talking about people who are trained to not reason to a moral conclusion on their own powers with simple facts right in front of them."
This is how we arrive at the cited mentality.

Now, integrate this, and then the real import of Joe’s nonsense will start to come into view.

He’s dealing in a high-level concrete with no valid logical hierarchy underpinning it. (This is what Objectivists call a "floating abstraction".) It completely dismisses the imperative for moral determination prior to something like this, and I would remind everyone that the last refuge of a person in these straits is the old claim that he is "only doing his job". As I pointed out here, if there were anyone in the whole power-structure behind this who we might have hoped could stem the madness, it should have been the cops themselves. They might have had the decency and honor to stand up against this slow murder of the Fourth Amendment — if on nothing else but practical, tactical grounds.

Look; in their values system, today’s cops are making a positive virtue of not thinking about what they’re doing. Think about that. This is what the emphases on "teams" and "training", etc., are all about. And the anti-thought is full-depth, to exclude moral considerations of "The War on Drugs", in general. However, the basic violation of reality ("You have a mind, but you’re not allowed to use it in possibly the single most important aspect of your whole life: this work that you do") can only result in the sort of blind brutality that Radley Balko is currently making himself net.famous at documenting at an astonishing rate.

When the principle faculty that identifies us as human is stripped away, animalism can be the only consequence.

The far larger matter that worries me more (if you can imagine it) is stuff like this, which is an illustrative YouTube link. What you have here is basically "TXH-1138" re-crafted as a rock-video. This stuff is positively glamorous, now. To be sure, the creep who posted that is taking a beating in comments (where I did my part, too), but there are TV networks with hits on their hands in material like this, and more coming.

And if that ain’t the sound of a bad wind blowing... well, then, I guess everything’s just fine and we should all move along, Citizens, because there’s nothing to see here.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
There’s a good picture of me not paying attention:

It’s Dale who quoted my blog, and not Jon.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Joe, you are either a cop, a wannabe cop or a craven bootlicker.

In any case, you deserve exactly what that 92 year old woman got, and if I hear of it happening (if there were any justice in this world) I would laugh and laugh and laugh.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://www.no-treason.com
There is no one who whines more assiduously than your garden-variety pig - while he’s getting fat off of confiscated money, pay-offs, and the sale of evidence locker contents.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://www.no-treason.com
Now boys I know you all are pulling my leg, for no one, Billy, Tom Sabotta can be SO silly. So I am evil, a craven bootlicker and worse no doubt...You guys are TEH FUNNY.

Let me know if it’s for real, though because I can continue to dish out against this "Smelly Hippie Thought." For IF you ARE serious, you lot are no more or less than the most brainless Myrmidon of ISM or ANSWER. But certainly Billy "Don’t Give’em the Vote" and Tom "It’s OBVIOUS the Drug War is Evil" Perkins represent the reason that the libertarian movement can gather less than 0.3% of the vote.
Sir, neither your libertarian nor conservative inclinations are detectable in this thread,
This was impressive though, now I have been "Cast Out" from the One True Church...by the doorman or the altar boy or someone hanging out in the vestibule, but in any case I will pay it as much attention as it deserves.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Don’t try to come on as if you can understand a single word I wrote, you bloody idiot.

Thinking people can see through you like a rotten fish-scale on the beach.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Well, Billy I stand in awe of your forensic abilities. Invective carries the day. I realize that for a host of reasons this is going to bounce of you and your lot, but you REALLY don’t see yourselves as self-righteous, narrow-minded Zealots that do more damage to our cause than good, do you?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Sir, neither your libertarian nor conservative inclinations are detectable in this thread,
This was impressive though, now I have been "Cast Out" from the One True Church...by the doorman or the altar boy or someone hanging out in the vestibule, but in any case I will pay it as much attention as it deserves.
Oh sure Joe. I threw you out and it’s so unfair.

Name one aspect of anything you’ve said in this thread you think is either conservative or libertarian. Heck, point something out in your other posts.

BTW, I know two or three cops at most who I think are probably decent human beings, and that’s out of about 30 I know of. The rest of them are valve turners.

I notice you still haven’t addressed a single point I’ve made.

Sing it with me Joe, you should know it by heart,

"I-ii-ii-am hooked on a feeling".

That’s all you’ve got.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

PS. Losing the libertarian minded voters cost the Republicans at least the Senate, you a$$. This time around that 0.3% of the vote was needed.
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
but you REALLY don’t see yourselves as self-righteous, narrow-minded Zealots that do more damage to our cause than good, do you?
You can’t—or at least haven’t—articulated one earthly reason why this woman should have been put at risk, much less shot dead. Why do you even think you’re on a convservative or libertarian side?

The drug laws are totalitarian, progressivist (a la the Carrie Nation sort), what’s conservative or libertarian about them?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I HAVE Tom, you simply don’t listen...

But Zealots don’t listen, they KNOW.

It’s funny I never realized that you and Billy were the gate keepers of things libertarian or conservative. So, believing that LIMITS on action are necessary, but NOT declaring the Police Scum makes me NOT libertarian..OK.

Oh I was impressed you know SOME good Peace Officers, but the rest are valve turners... Your arrogance is stunning, like most of us AREN’T VALVE TURNERS. You sad, arrogant person...how many consider YOU a valve turner, in your life? The ability to demean seems to be one of your prime capabilities, but beyond that much to put to it.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"...you REALLY don’t see yourselves as self-righteous, narrow-minded Zealots that do more damage to our cause than good, do you?"

Look, fool: a "zealot" is someone who knows what God would do if only he had all the facts, and I’m an atheist. You can call me "narrow-minded", but the fact is that I have already thought very careful about the things that you say, and — like George S. Patton — I don’t care for covering the same ground twice. And since you went skidding around that particular track, I’ll just point out that I’m not the one who’s written about "hippies" with that word fifteen times in this discussion. "Narrow-minded"? Take a good look at yourself, dummy: you’re about as broad as the edge of my driver’s license.

"Self-righteous"? That’s the truth.

I’m right, and you’re not. That’s just the way it goes sometimes, whether you like it or not.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Oh Billy, I forgot HUMOURLESS... don’t like "Smelly hippies?" So sad,..And no Billy Zealots don’t need to believe in God any more... they can believe in the Class Struggle or Racial Purity. Trust me, you’re a Zealot, with all the appeal a zealot has.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"meritricious."

Please do not use those big words. You broke my dictionary, so I had to google it.


"Why didn’t the police check the home owner records and do a little surveillance first?"

Possibly because it isn’t nearly as much fun as getting all dressed up and bashing down doors. That’s for geeks, not he-man adrenaline junkies. You don’t spend hours pumping iron and practising with automatic weapons in order to turn the pages of a book.

"since if the circumstances warrant, everyone would want the police to go in guns blazing."

Not until after the they surround the house and negotiate for a few days. I am curious why this situation demanded an immediate assault, when they can tie up many more personnel and resources, and possibly risk a life, to try to prevent a barricaded person from committing suicide.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Joe:
I HAVE Tom, you simply don’t listen...
Then you ought to be able to point them out. Go ahead, show me.

Yours, TDP, ml ,msl, & pfpp

timactual:
"Not until after the they surround the house and negotiate for a few days. I am curious why this situation demanded an immediate assault, when they can tie up many more personnel and resources, and possibly risk a life, to try to prevent a barricaded person from committing suicide."
When they do a drug raid, they are terrfied the stash will be flushed down the toilet. That’s why they can’t knock first, or wait for you to come to the door. If you flush it, they can’t smoke it or sell it.

That’s the actual excuse given to the courts when they—the police—tried to get no knock and warrantless raids legalized. Well, the first part, not the smoking and selling it part.

Oh, and sorry for misspelling meretricious.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Trust me, you’re a Zealot, with all the appeal a zealot has.
Yep. D@mn shame ’bout all them freedom zealots. You know, the ones with their faces all over our money...

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Then you ought to be able to point them out. Go ahead, show me.
Joe Wrote:

1)
They kicked in her door, she defended herself...all three of them got shot, they defended THEMSELVES. Sorry, guys once the bullets start flying, moral judgments about actions, TAKEN DURING THE FIREFIGHT, are pretty much moot.
Because they thought they were serving a warrant on a drug dealer and that the dealer was shooting at them! Hence, in their minds, they properly returned fire in self-defense. Hence my description of this as tragedy, not travesty. There seems to be 1 or 2 assumptions, 1) the Officers KNEW it was a 92 y.o. and/or 2) they should NEVER have been serving a drug warrant, and so even had it been a drug dealer their actions would have been illegitimate. Something that is hard to sustain.

2
The problem wasn’t what happened when the door went down, but with what happened PRIOR to the standard issue meeting the door.
3)
So I think the answer is to make the Police Department liable, civilly, for actions taken during NO KNOCK WARRANTS. No Knocks have their place, but a liability attached to them, might do wonders in focusing attention on using them ONLY when ABSOLUTELY necessary and after a little diligence to support any given specific use.
4)
And MikeT. you might want to tone down the rhetoric, because well you sound like some drug dealing Anarchist, and well that doan play well on Main street. Being a Peace Officer IS a tough and potentially dangerous job and it doesn’t need a tremendous amount of second-guessing by angry folks like you
As Michael Walzer points out the US Anti-War Movement damaged itself by self-righteous intolerance. My suggestion is stop being a libertaian Peace Bear, and turning folks off from your position. It’s about winning.

And it’s 4) that seems to be the trouble. I don’t:
1) Think that the Poh-leece have been in decline for 100 years
2) Think that the War on Drugs is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, or EVIl, it’s a matter of Public POLICY, not Public MORALITY
3) Think that these 3 Peace Officers committed a crime by following established policy in the service of warrant on a suspected drug dealer
4) Think the Police are the Enemy, and proceed to discuss how the "No Knocks" are to allow Peace Officers a chance to sell or use the drugs
5) Nor think that the Police are evil or scum.

Apparently unless buy some or all of the above one can not be in the Church. I also think that you guys didn’t like the Smelly Hippie analogy. I’m sorry, but as you read thru the thread it becomes ABUNDANTLY clear that you all have become the libertarian equivalent of "Smelly Hippies", there can be no debate you fellows think you’re right, akin to Michael Moore and Code Pink. Apparently the mirror held up to you is not something you’re used to or comfortable with.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It’s not true.

And nobody has to put up with that civilly.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
It’s not true.

And nobody has to put up with that civilly.
As Wesley said to Buttercup, "As you wish." Happy Thanksgiving. I will point out that evil, scum, 100 years are all from Tom’s postings, or conclusions to be drawn from them. I merely hold the mirror up and say "Here’s what you show."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"When they do a drug raid, they are terrfied the stash will be flushed down the toilet..."

Duh, I knew that. I just misplaced it. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

" There seems to be 1 or 2 assumptions, 1) the Officers KNEW it was a 92 y.o. and/o"

Which makes me wonder, what exactly did they know about the situation they were going into? Do they routinely take the word of "reliable" informants to make these raids into unknown territory? Sounds pretty stupid to me. With idiotic procedures like that, it is inevitable that someone gets hurt. How many of them come up empty? What happens to the informant when he misinforms the police?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider