1) Because innocence and guilt aren't yours to determine.



2) Because it's your job to follow orders.



 

yes, there is a difference. just as I said.
no, not everyone that I have arrested has been convicted.

So then like GC asked, not everyone you arrested is guilty.

1)please tell me then, what am I supposed to be doing with evidence of a crime
if not find and arrest the person who did it?

2)wat? what order?

It is funny how the leo's played this exact word game in reverse after the cops that beat the man to death were not found guilty.

This brings to mind my comments in the other thread...  as well as your response.

Wow.

You don't arrest someone on pc that a crime has been committed, you arrest them on pc that THEY are the one who did it. The one who did it, also called the guilty party, is then brought to a court of law to prove it. Please show where I said Leo's make a legal determination of guilt.

Dude...take the fucking tinfoil off.  If I were going to walk through a door to get people who are likely armed; I would want all the fucking armor and kevlar I could get my hands on.
I don't see your brave ass walking to the door in a suit and tie with a .38 snubbie.

Given that we pay these guys dogshit to do a thankless job--the least we can do is make sure that they have decent armor.

You screwed up something because that's not a qoute of mine.

He read between the lines.

I think turning a camera system off is reasonable. If a court determines that it's unreasonable then I'll listen . until then there's no limitations on it. Isn't that the point of case law?  to limit actions?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

its not a dodge. its the point you are ignoring.

As long as you say I AM THE LAW when you find these people guilty.

Some one could post an article about the San Jose, CA PD's SWAT Teams and I could reply that isn't SWAT.........

The Mobile Emergency Response Group and Equipment (MERGE) Unit is how the San Jose Police Department refers to its “SWAT” team.

You didn't, but your comment sounded really bad. I understand what you are saying, but it still sounded bad.

Yep, you don't want any electronic evidence that contradicts your story line........

Search warrant


So Justin Ross the inocent victim, who was just helping a couple people who were down on their luck, was is possession of a firearm and 1.66 grams of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.

Needs to loose his permit and go to jail.

I would have thought that police powers are limited by the law that gives you authority and further constrained by the courts when the authority is determined to violate the constitution.  Acting with government authority when you don't have that specific authority seems illegal on its face.

They are called the "guilty party" when they go to court?  That seems rather prejudicial against the accused....I mean against the guilty guy.

Double tap

Me too.

J75, you been drinkin and postin tonight?

Thanks for posting.  Just to clarify, my beef is ripping the cameras off the walls and covering them up.  There are only two reasons to do something like that, on, the officer was being a dickweed and just destroying shit,  or two he didn't want something going on in the house recorded.  That's it.

I agree there are a number of things that are ugly about the raid. However I'm convicted that when the family went to the media on Monday, they were being less than forthcoming with the facts they knew. That does not exonerate the police however they should not have gone after public opinion unless they were willing to have their dirty laundry come out in the end.

Yeah, cause they couldn't cover his/her face, instead.......  

But then arfcom complains that masked police gunmen invaded the home...

Just sayin'

(disclaimer, post was intended as sarcasm. YMMV, imho, fbho, aeiou)

only to someone intent on viewing police as a movie cliches

You just typed some stuff tonight that doesn't sound like you normally do.

I get it, just not something I'd normally type in a police thread in GD

i'm not a lawyer or judge or jury. I am impartial in my investigation, I am impartial in processing the evidence.
but I am supposed to have made a decision on the subject being guilty or innocent well before he is brought into a court room.
a cop who brings someone to court who he doesn't think is guilty is a bad cop.
I only bring people to court who I think are guilty based on the evidence.
that you guys can twist that into a bad thing would be laughable if it wernt so sad.

Not like you to be at a loss of words.

Well, the mental capacity that thought this would be a good way to touch up on their tier 1, super hero, mad operator skills, probably also thinks that tearing a camera out of the wall or covering one up is acceptable and would help to prove their innocence of wrong doing.

Isolated incident. Neva been dun befo'.

Funny how everyone ignores this little tidbit.....

Element of surprise after you broke down the door?

Gottcha, I totally do.  This tampering was done after the fact, as I've already stated.

Typical tweeker shit. Someone stole a wallet from an office building then their tweeker friends went on a shopping spree with the stolen credit cards.

GD doesnt like it when cops wear masks.

And they would bring them to the house, instead of using a fucking cell phone to direct them to a stash point. Idiots.

Yes you are.

I don't know...  I am good friends with several county deputies and they are nothing like what is being posted in this thread.

Wait, you're county deputies arrest innocent people?

I have to say that the sequence of events by which the credit card gets to the tweakers has the odor of a contrivance for me.   I rather suspect that this will turn out to be one of those cases where one of the guys listed as "witness" got pinched for something, and was encouraged to bring the investigating officers some bigger fish.

That said, the biggest thing to me that jumps out is (a) that warrant was not presented for or approved as a no knock warrant; and (b) it was nonetheless served as a no knock warrant in all but the most metaphysical sense (there were theoretically a few moments before the ram hit where, perhaps, Schrödinger's cat could have had time to answer the door.  But outside of quantum phenomena no one was going to answer that door.  

So I come back to:  We have a dynamic entry on a warrant approved for knock and announce based on stolen merchandise.   The arrests for distribution were clearly prior crimes and not generated by the personal consumption amounts these tweakers had on hand.   (Of course, seeing a photo of this guy's video surveillance  set up, I'll wager that the guy in the bathroom did not go there until he saw officers approaching... but anyway).

My bottom line is an easy one.    Did the police cause property damage, and create a risk of harm to innocent neighbors, to their team, to presumed innocent occupants of the property, and yes even to apparently scummy dirtbag suspects that grossly exceeded the magnitude of the underlying criminality they were there to investigate?   In this case, I think so.    Substitute drugs and stolen merchandise for allegations where an "informant" alleges that the "subject" gun owner possesses "numerous" magazines holding more than 7, 10, or 15 rounds in the ban states... and bad things will happen.    I don't like it.  

If some liberal down the street from my house (with not a hint of knowledge of firearms) decides to punish me for representing a big bad developer in a hearing before city council by calling the police to tell them about the "AK-47 machine gun" (actually, an SKS with a fixed mag) the libtard saw me taking from my vehicle and carrying into my house after an afternoon of shooting, I want a couple flat foots to knock and my door and ask me about it, even if on such flimsy testimony they manage to get a warrant.  I want a reasonable time to answer the door and let them in and show them into my safe and establish the falsity of those allegations without a fucking swat team showing up.   I don't want them boiling into my house after knocking the door off the hinges, guns drawn and bursting into my family's living space ready to wreak havoc.   Its a simple thing, really.

Anyone else find it "odd" that the meth found in the home wasn't mentioned in the original  article?

Gr