Monday, December 04, 2006

Good questions

Good questions in the headlines recently:

5 comments:

Rusty said...

Excellent article about the growing abuse of and by SWAT teams. There is no doubt at times extra force is a must, but ONLY WHEN IT IS JUSTIFIED!!! Using the same methods and tactics on everybody, is LIABLE at best and CRIMINAL at worst!

The public no longer views our courts, laws, or law enforcement as protectors and public servants, AND NEITHER DO THEY THEMSELVES! At every level they justify their personal agendas and beliefs over their sworn duty!!!

IMHO the only way it will change, is when true accountability returns, and for this to happen a unbiased media is a must! As is a citizens review board!!!

If the good guys don't have to follow the laws of our land, whether it be in our government, courts or police. THEN NEITHER DO THE CITIZENS THEY ARE ABUSING!!!

Anonymous said...

Dynamic entries are an important tool but I have experience with how they get good at what they do. Here's the problem and it happened in Texas.

DEA trains and has the equipment to do these types of entries but they don't do them frequently and besides every large city, county, and state has an entry team. These teams don't get alot of practice so all of the federal, state, and local agencies use them even when the warrant doesn't justify it. It's there form of practice and you only need to look at the recent shooting in Dallas to understand it.

Four very capable (maybe not) DEA Agents sat in the car while the Dallas swat team served the warrant. No need for that and a federal warrant requires knocking unless you specifically request a no knock.

This is another area that needs scrutiny. One team per state and use them when you have to. Practice in practice areas not on less dangerous entries because often that type of entry is more dangerous than the occupants of the house. Duh!

The recent shooting in Atlanta personifies the fears of older, scared people living in high crime areas that are armed to protect themselves. A swat team enters a house of someone who can't see, can't hear, and they shoot because in there minds, it can't be the police (they didn't do anything) so it must be a crook.

800 pound gorilla said...

The rationale is that drugs are easily disposable so that any knock on the door and identification of the person on the other side would allow the "suspect" [guilty according to Meese] to jettison the "dangerous" drugs and avoid prosecution. You have to remember that the goal isn't reducing "dangerous" drugs but to prosecute those who sell these "dangerous" drugs [presumably to innocent kids who can be instantly corrupted and lives ruined by one use of these "dangerous" drugs].

The problem is the drug war. It's not a war on drugs but a war on users - primarily addicts [sick people?]. It's a war on the most dysfunctional and the most marginalized segments of our society. But this agenda is never directly revealed or acknowledged by law enforcement, legisliars, or their lapdog media. If it was their would be an outcry to eliminate this abusive policy. As long as the illusion of inherently bad villains persists this escalation will be acceptable for most citizen taxpayers. Thank goodness for prohibitionists our media believes that scrutiny is tantamount to heresy.

Rusty said...

800 pounder,

You nailed it again! In the days of old documented buys were made and when the perp was in a safe place to take down, THEY WERE! Then they were walked back up to the house in cuffs and the house searched. If some one in the house flushed the drugs "" WHO CARES "??? If you did your job right you already had enough evidence for a case! And if those in the house flushed anything, that meant less evidence to handle and to create a chain of evidence for. The ultimate goal is to get rid of the drugs, RIGHT??? Would it not be better to do so without all the court cost and lives??? If they are truly big dealers they couldn’t get rid of it any way, so once again the justification IS BS!!!!!!

There was no need to endanger the lives of officers, civilians nor to terrorize and flash bang women and babies!!! And even if it was a TON of drugs it wouldn’t be worth an infants life or that of a INNOCENT “” OR EVEN “” GUILTY PERSONS LIFE, PERIOD!!!! What makes the good guys different from the bad guys is , “” WE USE TO “” have honor and respect for all life and standards we lived by!!! We didn’t believe we had the right to JUDGE OR PUNISH ANYBODY, FACT! But sadly today due to the accepted practice of demonizing drug users, EVEN THEIR FAMILIES AND BABIES ARE FAIR GAME!!! Pathetic at best!

AND TODAY IT SHOULD BE THE SAME WAY!!! Cops are "" PUBLIC SERVANTS "" NOT TERRORIST OR GOONS!!! Protect and serve, not punish and rule!!!!

chunxue said...

During the World War II, Art Deco jewellery was ugg sale a very popular style among women. The females started ugg boots wearing short dresses and cut their hair short. And uggs such boyish style was accessorized with Art Deco jewellery. They used cheap ugg boots long dangling earrings and necklaces, multiple bracelets and bold ugg boots uk rings.Art Deco jewellery has harshly geometric and symmetrical theme instead disocunt ugg boots of free flowing curves and naturalistic motifs. Art Deco Jewelry buy ugg boots today displays designs that consist of arcs, circles, rectangles, squares, and ugg outlet triangles. Bracelets, earrings, necklaces and rings are added with long ugg boots outlet lines and curves.One example of Art Deco jewelry is the Art Deco ring. Art Deco rings have ugg mall sophisticated sparkle and bold styles. These rings are not intended for a subtle look, they are meant to be noticed. Hence, these are perfect for people with bold styles.