Another Warrantless Search and Arrest

[jrbfishn]

That was an association, not most rank and file leo's. When 95% of leos AND the heads of 95% of depts sign the pledge to uphold the constitution over a law or ordinance, then i will believe. I have seen too many that are outright scared of citizens having a firearm.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[MPA1988]

The John Wayne's are out today with their militia BS. Put down the testosterone supplements boys. Half the American people are halfwits, and another 25% would piss their pants coming up against the likes of me. Give your militia BS a rest. 40% of the American people think obama is doing a good job and you think the likes of those imbeciles will take up arms....lmao

Most of you militia types who are internet vocal would wet your pants in an armed encounter. Those who are silent would be my concern, not you internet tough guys.

Most LEOs support the Constitution. PD chiefs are not as vocal because they are most often appointed, rather than elected.

I am finished with this thread. I will just continue to read your militia-shoot the badge-shoot the cop nonsense, and of course your personal insults. Have a good day and good luck at the "group think".

 

[jrbfishn]

I'm sorry i am such an idjit, but i dont recall saying anything about shooting anyone or militia. Must be my old age and senility kickicking in.If you do not like my honesty, tough shit. Go back to California.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[JohnnyLoco]

The John Wayne's are out today with their militia BS. Put down the testosterone supplements boys. Half the American people are halfwits, and another 25% would piss their pants coming up against the likes of me. Give your militia BS a rest. 40% of the American people think obama is doing a good job and you think the likes of those imbeciles will take up arms....lmao

Most of you militia types who are internet vocal would wet your pants in an armed encounter. Those who are silent would be my concern, not you internet tough guys.

Most LEOs support the Constitution. PD chiefs are not as vocal because they are most often appointed, rather than elected.

I am finished with this thread. I will just continue to read your militia-shoot the badge-shoot the cop nonsense, and of course your personal insults. Have a good day and good luck at the "group think".

Oooh, I'm shakin. Bout to piss my pants. Narcissistic intimidation tactics, a little superiority complex too? You're just a scared little girl I reckon.

 

[breakingcontact]

Really dont know why this guy hasn't been banned. Insulting people, calling names and implying threats. Stay classy!

 

[Younggun]

Feeding his ego.

 

[jrbfishn]

Ego is about all he has


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[diveRN]

The John Wayne's are out today with their militia BS. Put down the testosterone supplements boys. Half the American people are halfwits, and another 25% would piss their pants coming up against the likes of me. Give your militia BS a rest. 40% of the American people think obama is doing a good job and you think the likes of those imbeciles will take up arms....lmao

Most of you militia types who are internet vocal would wet your pants in an armed encounter. Those who are silent would be my concern, not you internet tough guys.

Most LEOs support the Constitution. PD chiefs are not as vocal because they are most often appointed, rather than elected.

So it may be that the militia-group-think folks aren't trained as you have been, but I guarantee you that there are more than a few folks in this forum that wouldn't wet their pants in a fight. I'm sure you've come across some of these types in your LE career. But I digress - this story illustrates an alarming trend in law enforcement that I think that myself and others here are having issues with. Sure, some folks are just anti-cop, anti-authority-of-any-kind types and nothing LE does well, or will ever do well, will be good enough for them. For now though, I think that most people support law enforcement and their role in society.

But let's look at this trend. In the last 30 years, agencies have become increasingly paramilitary with LEOs running around in BDUs and carrying near-combat load outs. There's no doubt that the veterans of Vietnam and other places, like Lebanon, who went into law enforcement after the service have contributed to the implementation of these tactics and gear that the highly trained police teams are using. Honestly, I don't have a problem with the creation of these teams or their tactics since our military can't legally be used on US soil and there is a legitimate need for them - at times. What I'm curious about is the degree to which you support the use of these tactics.

It's easy to say that the leader of this team will get into trouble for this obvious screwup, but what punishment is he really going to face? Do you think he should be fired? Or at least reassigned? Do the LEOs in this situation face any personal consequences for incidents like this? Other than perhaps a "you shouldn't have done that" mark on their record, I submit that they don't. I never wore that kind of badge so I could be wrong.

What I see as the problem is the alarming increase in the use of shock and awe tactics and no-knock warrants in situations where their use is questionable... and it's being done strictly in the name of officer safety. In the early '80s, +/- 3,000 no-knock warrants were issued nationally compared to roughly 50,000 in 2005. You can argue that using the legal system is the correct approach to dealing with situations like this all you want, but the trend continues and what you haven't made clear (or at least I haven't seen it) is whether or not you support this trend.

I, and I'm betting that many others here, don't. Until this trend reverses, "militia-group-think" will grow right along with it and right or wrong, cops are going to be challenged and in some cases, killed. Unfortunately, many innocent "civilians" will too.

 

[ROGER4314]

I was not a nice person and dealt with deadly behavior for 1/2 of my life. I'm not that way any more. I got cleaned up, made huge changes and you won't find a more law abiding citizen anywhere. I hate no one with a badge or without. That's not at issue here.

What IS at issue is the action of ANY armed person or group that would bash down the door of my home to force me to submit to their will or to kill me. The nature of their business, their identities or credentials are immaterial. That is unacceptable behavior and I will not allow it. That's how it is......no more......no less.

Flash

 

[jrbfishn]

All of us used to be something else. I used to be not so nice too. Also studied law enforcement. On either side, i considered putting anyones life in jeopardy for mine totally unacceptable. No matter the cost. Especially an inocent.


Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[bones_708]

Really dont know why this guy hasn't been banned. Insulting people, calling names and implying threats. Stay classy!

Are you kidding? He may have been over the top but many here start insulting him and others before he even posted to this thread. "Aim for the badge! No, shoot them in the face because of the body armor." is as much a threat as saying the internet tough guys would piss themselves if they had to really fight. Practice what you preach.

 

[breakingcontact]

Are you kidding? He may have been over the top but many here start insulting him and others before they even post to a thread. "Aim for the badge! No, shoot them in the face because of the body armor." is as much a threat as saying the internet tough guys would piss themselves if they had to really fight. Practice what you preach.

I do. You need to edit what you posted as a quote from me above. I didnt say that.

I have went rounds and rounds here without pulling the stuff this joker has.

 

[robocop10mm]

Let me get this straight. Woamn says guy "threatened" her. Police raided his house? Oh, that's right, raided the neighbor's house.

Last time I checked LE Agencies employ Detectives/Investigators who follow up on reports of offenses and obtain warrants for arrest when they believe there is Probable Cause to believe an offense did occur. When the "victim" is safely away from the location and reported that an offense HAD occurred, a report would have followed and an investigation would be initiated.

I do not take ANYONE at their word in cases like this. There was no immediate need to take the man into custody. We use a pre-raid check list called a threat assessment. It takes a number of things into account including the history of the occupants, whether they have training, drug use, physical impediments, dogs, reliability of the information, time to plan, etc. Too many points = SWAT.

WTS, I see no reason to go after this guy right then and there. Let the investigation take its course.

I had an incident in February. Guy shot at his neighbor and retreated back into his mobile home. After two (2) hours of trying to make contact, we finally had no alternative but to make entry. Found that he has shot himself prior to our arrival. The point is, time is on our sie. Use as much time as is necessary to resolve the situation. Just barging in is rarely a good idea.

 

[bones_708]

I do. You need to edit what you posted as a quote from me above. I didnt say that.

I have went rounds and rounds here without pulling the stuff this joker has.

I didn't say it was a quote by you so no I won't edit it. You do what you want but the "He did it first" defence is pretty childish.

 

[bones_708]

Let me get this straight. Woamn says guy "threatened" her. Police raided his house? Oh, that's right, raided the neighbor's house.

Last time I checked LE Agencies employ Detectives/Investigators who follow up on reports of offenses and obtain warrants for arrest when they believe there is Probable Cause to believe an offense did occur. When the "victim" is safely away from the location and reported that an offense HAD occurred, a report would have followed and an investigation would be initiated.

I do not take ANYONE at their word in cases like this. There was no immediate need to take the man into custody. We use a pre-raid check list called a threat assessment. It takes a number of things into account including the history of the occupants, whether they have training, drug use, physical impediments, dogs, reliability of the information, time to plan, etc. Too many points = SWAT.

WTS, I see no reason to go after this guy right then and there. Let the investigation take its course.

I had an incident in February. Guy shot at his neighbor and retreated back into his mobile home. After two (2) hours of trying to make contact, we finally had no alternative but to make entry. Found that he has shot himself prior to our arrival. The point is, time is on our sie. Use as much time as is necessary to resolve the situation. Just barging in is rarely a good idea.

To be honest we don't have really any info on the original call or what the situation was or what they had as PC for a warrantless arrest. The only thing that seems sure is that it was a tac team from a different town doing the entry at the request of the locals. I don't see how it's possible to know if it was a mistake by the Tac team or if they were just given bad info. Someone should have their butt in a sling but none of the articles seem to have any interest in actually investigating the story.

 

[breakingcontact]

I didn't say it was a quote by you...

Very interesting that you are applying liberal tactics against me. Imply I said something to attempt to categorize, marginalize and silence me.

 

[bones_708]

Very interesting that you are applying liberal tactics against me. Imply I said something to attempt to categorize, marginalize and silence me.

How about I claim you are using liberal tactics by claiming insults that were never said or implied? Look again at what you said and I wrote. You claimed he threatened people, and not yourself in particular, I said bull and gave an example of others threatening speech on this thread. Now my grammar was poor and I have edited a bit to make my point clearer but I never called anyone out just gave what I think is a reasonable example of talk that was at least as bad as what you complained about. I couldn't care less about "marginalizing" you or whatever it is you are so worked up over. I just think your comment was silly and biased and had squat to do with this thread. So I said so. You then got pissy and seem to be trying to silence me. But of course like a liberal you are the victim right?

 

[TheDan]

But, allow me to give some advice to the militia group thinkers, "shoot the badge" type comments are juvenile, childish, and quite frankly stupid. You would be no match against special weapons and tactical teams, and most LEOs in general...

True... It's silly to think you can shoot your way out of that one. A well coordinated entry team is next to impossible to defend against. Being on fire greatly reduces their effectiveness, however. When they stack up on your door, it's cocktail time. Molotov cocktail.

...another 25% would piss their pants coming up against the likes of me.

Seriously, man... are you ever going to come out for lunch? It would be a hoot to meet you.

 

[breakingcontact]

Didnt bother reading all that. Dont associate me with things I haven't said and everything is cool.

Cops dont knock down the wrong doors capriciously...things are cool.

If you can wrap your mind around it...my view is PRO constitutional law enforcement.

Not looking forward to the next ridiculous raid thread but ill catch up with you over there, because unfortunately many departments are choosing (pick your reason) to ignore the constitution and put both sides lives at risk.

 

[bones_708]

Didnt bother reading all that. Dont associate me with things I haven't said and everything is cool.

Cops dont knock down the wrong doors capriciously...things are cool.

If you can wrap your mind around it...my view is PRO constitutional law enforcement.

Not looking forward to the next ridiculous raid thread but ill catch up with you over there, because unfortunately many departments are choosing (pick your reason) to ignore the constitution and put both sides lives at risk.

I can't really argue about the police ignoring the constitution here because there just isn't any info to argue over. That the cops screwed up when they entered the wrong place is clear, but claiming that as some unconstitutional event seems misplaced. Now the whole thing may have been wrong but since there is no info what is there to argue over? Lack of supervision, oversight, or even what are reasonable consequences for police mistakes like this are all reasonable topics from a situation like this. Where you should shoot cops to avoid the armor? Not so much.