User Panel
|
My house is literally BRISTLING with cameras... And nobody has ever used that as evidence of wrongdoing.
|
|
Quoted:
Just be aware that the EXISTENCE of a camera, has been articulated (and accepted by judges) as grounds to believe criminality is afoot and to go in hot. The pastor of the church catercorner from my house asked if I'd put up a camera pointed at his church because they had some vandalism. I politely declined for the reason that I don't do cameras, precisely because law enforcement treats them as some sort of grounds for attention. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmm... seems like it's getting to the point in this country that every home needs security cameras that upload what they see to the cloud as they record. I've been planning on getting a camera system for my house for a while... guess if I'm gonna do it, I might as well set them up to record off-site from the get-go. Just be aware that the EXISTENCE of a camera, has been articulated (and accepted by judges) as grounds to believe criminality is afoot and to go in hot. The pastor of the church catercorner from my house asked if I'd put up a camera pointed at his church because they had some vandalism. I politely declined for the reason that I don't do cameras, precisely because law enforcement treats them as some sort of grounds for attention. |
|
Quoted:
Right, because fuck accountability. Are you serious with this bullshit? Let me put it this way, first, because "my house doesn't have rights", that makes it ok to destroy or tamper with my private property? To be clear, I'm referring explicitly to the cameras here. yes, your cameras can be disabled when LEOs are executing a warrant of your home.they also will not remove their boots when they walk on your carpet Second, if someone who was not a LEO were to cover or destroy a camera someplace they (ostensibly) legally have a right to be, and supposedly not engaged in criminal activity, would you find that a bit...odd? I dont know, please name a situation where average joe citizen would be executing a search warrant. And third, let's say for the sake of argument that the officers involved have the right to destroy or tamper with recording equipment, and their actions throughout are entirely above-board. Can you not see how there would be at least a perception of misconduct? by those wearing tinfoil? yes. to anyone else it would be common sense to disable cameras on approach to a criminals home that you are about to raid. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
no, but they should be disabled. from the video, external cameras were damaged, internal cameras were covered. your house doesnt have rights. covering the camera no more violates your rights then turning the lights off when we leave. Right, because fuck accountability. Are you serious with this bullshit? Let me put it this way, first, because "my house doesn't have rights", that makes it ok to destroy or tamper with my private property? To be clear, I'm referring explicitly to the cameras here. yes, your cameras can be disabled when LEOs are executing a warrant of your home.they also will not remove their boots when they walk on your carpet Second, if someone who was not a LEO were to cover or destroy a camera someplace they (ostensibly) legally have a right to be, and supposedly not engaged in criminal activity, would you find that a bit...odd? I dont know, please name a situation where average joe citizen would be executing a search warrant. And third, let's say for the sake of argument that the officers involved have the right to destroy or tamper with recording equipment, and their actions throughout are entirely above-board. Can you not see how there would be at least a perception of misconduct? by those wearing tinfoil? yes. to anyone else it would be common sense to disable cameras on approach to a criminals home that you are about to raid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmm... seems like it's getting to the point in this country that every home needs security cameras that upload what they see to the cloud as they record. I've been planning on getting a camera system for my house for a while... guess if I'm gonna do it, I might as well set them up to record off-site from the get-go. Just be aware that the EXISTENCE of a camera, has been articulated (and accepted by judges) as grounds to believe criminality is afoot and to go in hot. The pastor of the church catercorner from my house asked if I'd put up a camera pointed at his church because they had some vandalism. I politely declined for the reason that I don't do cameras, precisely because law enforcement treats them as some sort of grounds for attention. Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? |
|
Quoted:
Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmm... seems like it's getting to the point in this country that every home needs security cameras that upload what they see to the cloud as they record. I've been planning on getting a camera system for my house for a while... guess if I'm gonna do it, I might as well set them up to record off-site from the get-go. Just be aware that the EXISTENCE of a camera, has been articulated (and accepted by judges) as grounds to believe criminality is afoot and to go in hot. The pastor of the church catercorner from my house asked if I'd put up a camera pointed at his church because they had some vandalism. I politely declined for the reason that I don't do cameras, precisely because law enforcement treats them as some sort of grounds for attention. Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? cite please. |
|
Quoted:
Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmm... seems like it's getting to the point in this country that every home needs security cameras that upload what they see to the cloud as they record. I've been planning on getting a camera system for my house for a while... guess if I'm gonna do it, I might as well set them up to record off-site from the get-go. Just be aware that the EXISTENCE of a camera, has been articulated (and accepted by judges) as grounds to believe criminality is afoot and to go in hot. The pastor of the church catercorner from my house asked if I'd put up a camera pointed at his church because they had some vandalism. I politely declined for the reason that I don't do cameras, precisely because law enforcement treats them as some sort of grounds for attention. Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? By your theory any warrant served at a place of business should be a dynamic entry........... |
|
Quoted:
By your theory any warrant served at a place of business should be a dynamic entry........... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmm... seems like it's getting to the point in this country that every home needs security cameras that upload what they see to the cloud as they record. I've been planning on getting a camera system for my house for a while... guess if I'm gonna do it, I might as well set them up to record off-site from the get-go. Just be aware that the EXISTENCE of a camera, has been articulated (and accepted by judges) as grounds to believe criminality is afoot and to go in hot. The pastor of the church catercorner from my house asked if I'd put up a camera pointed at his church because they had some vandalism. I politely declined for the reason that I don't do cameras, precisely because law enforcement treats them as some sort of grounds for attention. Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? By your theory any warrant served at a place of business should be a dynamic entry........... arrested a guy on a felony warrant involving firearms theft the other day at a buisness with lots of cameras. only sent two regular patrol. you mean to tell me we could have drove the bearcat through the doors to get him? shoot, missed out on some fun |
|
Quoted:
Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? View Quote I see what you're getting at. Yes, counter-surveillance or monitoring measures are taken into account on a warrant service, but those things alone don't get you a SWAT service, let alone a no-knock. Most teams use a "threat matrix" of some kind to score warrants based on certain factors. Depending on the number of points (or certain automatic criteria), you may need to have SWAT serve the warrant, instead of a normal "warrant squad" or "drug suppression team." Here is an example of a threat matrix (stuff in yellow gets you an automatic SWAT service): (copied from a link in this PDF) |
|
Quoted:
I see what you're getting at. Yes, counter-surveillance or monitoring measures are taken into account on a warrant service, but those things alone don't get you a SWAT service, let alone a no-knock. Most teams use a "threat matrix" of some kind to score warrants based on certain factors. Depending on the number of points (or certain automatic criteria), you may need to have SWAT serve the warrant, instead of a normal "warrant squad" or "drug suppression team." Here is an example of a threat matrix (stuff in yellow gets you an automatic SWAT service): <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg</a> <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg</a> (copied from a link in this PDF) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? I see what you're getting at. Yes, counter-surveillance or monitoring measures are taken into account on a warrant service, but those things alone don't get you a SWAT service, let alone a no-knock. Most teams use a "threat matrix" of some kind to score warrants based on certain factors. Depending on the number of points (or certain automatic criteria), you may need to have SWAT serve the warrant, instead of a normal "warrant squad" or "drug suppression team." Here is an example of a threat matrix (stuff in yellow gets you an automatic SWAT service): <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg</a> <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg</a> (copied from a link in this PDF) I guess if they ever come for me I'm getting SWATted......... Growing up, just about every adult Male I knew had a Military Background...... |
|
Quoted:
I guess if they ever come for me I'm getting SWATted......... Growing up, just about every adult Male I knew had a Military Background...... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? I see what you're getting at. Yes, counter-surveillance or monitoring measures are taken into account on a warrant service, but those things alone don't get you a SWAT service, let alone a no-knock. Most teams use a "threat matrix" of some kind to score warrants based on certain factors. Depending on the number of points (or certain automatic criteria), you may need to have SWAT serve the warrant, instead of a normal "warrant squad" or "drug suppression team." Here is an example of a threat matrix (stuff in yellow gets you an automatic SWAT service): <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg</a> <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg</a> (copied from a link in this PDF) I guess if they ever come for me I'm getting SWATted......... Growing up, just about every adult Male I knew had a Military Background...... Using that matrix the only person I know who wouldn't be SWATed is my paternal grandma. |
|
That matrix is bullshit. Is that what your department uses?
Do you ever not use swat? |
|
Quoted:
I see what you're getting at. Yes, counter-surveillance or monitoring measures are taken into account on a warrant service, but those things alone don't get you a SWAT service, let alone a no-knock. Most teams use a "threat matrix" of some kind to score warrants based on certain factors. Depending on the number of points (or certain automatic criteria), you may need to have SWAT serve the warrant, instead of a normal "warrant squad" or "drug suppression team." Here is an example of a threat matrix (stuff in yellow gets you an automatic SWAT service): <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg</a> <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg</a> (copied from a link in this PDF) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Why confused? You telling me prosecutors and police have not tried to rely on surveillance cams as dispositive grounds for no knock authority? I see what you're getting at. Yes, counter-surveillance or monitoring measures are taken into account on a warrant service, but those things alone don't get you a SWAT service, let alone a no-knock. Most teams use a "threat matrix" of some kind to score warrants based on certain factors. Depending on the number of points (or certain automatic criteria), you may need to have SWAT serve the warrant, instead of a normal "warrant squad" or "drug suppression team." Here is an example of a threat matrix (stuff in yellow gets you an automatic SWAT service): <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment1_zps6d2073ad.jpg</a> <a href="http://s251.photobucket.com/user/TGrayman/media/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/TGrayman/Ankeny/threatassessment2_zps091a695d.jpg</a> (copied from a link in this PDF) Interesting thanks |
|
|
Quoted:
That matrix is bullshit. Is that what your department uses? Do you ever not use swat? View Quote That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. |
|
Quoted:
That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That matrix is bullshit. Is that what your department uses? Do you ever not use swat? That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. Nobody is going to disagree with that. This is what causes concern. SWAT Team Raids Texas Organic Farm A SWAT team broke through the gates of a small Arlington, Texas farm and led a massive 10-hour search of the property. The residents were handcuffed and held at gunpoint while they watched more than 10 tons of their property hauled off in trucks. What dangerous contraband required this massive governmental response? It wasn’t illegal explosives, stolen vehicles or drugs, but rather organic blackberry bushes, okra plants, and sunflowers. The Garden of Eden is a 3.5-acre farm that promotes a sustainable lifestyle. Back in February, Arlington started complaining about possible city code violations. Officials said that the grass was too tall, bushes were too close to the street, and chopped wood wasn’t stacked in a government-approved manner. Basically, HOA-style complaints where no homeowners’ association exists. The farm owners said they had corrected some of the issues and challenged others, requesting meetings with the city to work out an amicable agreement. Early the morning of August 2, the government responded with the SWAT raid. Officers carried search warrants alleging that the farm might be growing marijuana, but none was found. The search warrant, signed the day before the raid, gave police the pretext to enforce the city’s “code violations” on private property. "They came here under the guise that we were doing a drug trafficking, marijuana-growing operation," owner Shellie Smith said. "They destroyed everything." She said that officers shielded their nametags so they couldn't be identified and didn’t produce a warrant until two hours after the raid started. City agents destroyed “7 blackberry bushes, 15 okra plants, 14 tomatillo plants, numerous native grasses and sunflowers which provided food and bedding for animals, and essential material for building projects and provided cool and shade for crops that would otherwise be dead due to the intense summer heat.” They hauled off furniture, wooden pallets, food — even compost. They cut down a patch of sweet potatoes with a weed whacker and got rid of other “weeds” used to shade plants during the hot Texas summer. The police arrested resident Quinn Eaker for unrelated traffic violations. "I think every single right we have was violated," he said. "Every single one." City of Arlington spokeswoman Sana Syed said the raid was perfectly legal and appropriate. "The purpose was to improve the quality of life, to resolve safety issues within neighborhoods and to hold the property owner responsible for creating blight conditions on their property," she stated. Smith strongly disagrees. "We want an apology," Smith said. "This will not end here." http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/joncgabriel/swat-team-raids-texas-organic-farm |
|
Quoted:
That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That matrix is bullshit. Is that what your department uses? Do you ever not use swat? That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. So in your mind were these actions justified? What does your matrix say? Fucking credit card theft requires kicking in peoples doors? ...and fine, assume that cameras mounted outside are reason to use a "Swat Like" team for entry into the home......is there any mention of the cameras in the warrant? Where is the proof that they knew the cameras existed prior to entry? Why destroy them AFTER the home was secured? This fucking stinks of over zealous jack boot thugs that hide under their badges and the color of the law. |
|
Quoted:
Nobody is going to disagree with that. This is what causes concern. *snip* View Quote What does that incident have to do with what we're talking about? The warrant under discussion was a knock-and-announce (at least until the suspects started scrambling to hide evidence) based on information developed during a CC fraud/theft investigation. Drugs were found at the location, weapons were found at the location, suspects had military training and a history of violence, they had surveillance cameras set up, etc. The suspects talk a good game, going on TV and crying about how innocent they are, and how they're scared of the big/evil/mean police... but the facts are that it was a legitimate warrant, and those who were arrested are dopers, liars, and thieves. But that doesn't matter, right? You're anti-SWAT... I get it. I've seen your posts on this topic over the last few days, and It's all "Peter Kraska this" and "Radley Balko that" and "CATO report" and "Militarization!!1" I don't mean to sound dismissive, but I've heard it all before. You said in another thread "You have to admit that the perception is going in the wrong direction. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. LEO may very well be correct but please be cognizant of the growing concern." And that's where you fail. It damned sure DOES matter who is right and who is wrong. That whole "perception is reality" idea is a VERY slippery slope. Should we roll over when various "community activists" in the inner-city want to hamstring the cops because arresting young black men is "racist?" (and the African-American cops? Also racist...) Do we listen to open-borders advocates who hyperventilate about how enforcing the law is "unjust?" Do we listen to redistributionist-loving Marxists when they pontificate about how Communism wasn't so bad, and not paying "your fair share" is evil? I don't like it when people with an agenda simply redefine words, and frame the debate in dubious moral garb. I've seen this issue from both sides... and the anti-SWAT crusaders aren't doing themselves any favors with the way they try to frame this debate. It's Alinsky-esque. |
|
Quoted:
So in your mind were these actions justified? What does your matrix say? Fucking credit card theft requires kicking in peoples doors? ...and fine, assume that cameras mounted outside are reason to use a "Swat Like" team for entry into the home......is there any mention of the cameras in the warrant? Where is the proof that they knew the cameras existed prior to entry? Why destroy them AFTER the home was secured? This fucking stinks of over zealous jack boot thugs that hide under their badges and the color of the law. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That matrix is bullshit. Is that what your department uses? Do you ever not use swat? That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. So in your mind were these actions justified? What does your matrix say? Fucking credit card theft requires kicking in peoples doors? ...and fine, assume that cameras mounted outside are reason to use a "Swat Like" team for entry into the home......is there any mention of the cameras in the warrant? Where is the proof that they knew the cameras existed prior to entry? Why destroy them AFTER the home was secured? This fucking stinks of over zealous jack boot thugs that hide under their badges and the color of the law. RIF |
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking credit card theft requires kicking in peoples doors? Yeah...only credit card fraud. The US is only #2 in the world for credit card fraud, only more than 40% of credit card holding Americans have been victims of it, and it only costs consumers and business $10 billion+ every year. It's really a pretty insignificant, minor property crime. |
|
Quoted:
That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That matrix is bullshit. Is that what your department uses? Do you ever not use swat? That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. Stop being so obtuse, that threat matrix MANDATES swat be activated because Uncle Joe-bob was a cook in the navy, it MANDATES that swat be activated miss Daisy has her late husbands 30-30, it MANDATES swat activated because aunt Suzy took a karate class at the YMCA. Now I am sure that the matrix is not pulled out and used for every search warrant, but that is what the matrix you posted mandates. |
|
Quoted:
What does that incident have to do with what we're talking about? The warrant under discussion was a knock-and-announce (at least until the suspects started scrambling to hide evidence) based on information developed during a CC fraud/theft investigation. Drugs were found at the location, weapons were found at the location, suspects had military training and a history of violence, they had surveillance cameras set up, etc. The suspects talk a good game, going on TV and crying about how innocent they are, and how they're scared of the big/evil/mean police... but the facts are that it was a legitimate warrant, and those who were arrested are dopers, liars, and thieves. But that doesn't matter, right? You're anti-SWAT... I get it. I've seen your posts on this topic over the last few days, and It's all "Peter Kraska this" and "Radley Balko that" and "CATO report" and "Militarization!!1" I don't mean to sound dismissive, but I've heard it all before. You said in another thread "You have to admit that the perception is going in the wrong direction. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. LEO may very well be correct but please be cognizant of the growing concern." And that's where you fail. It damned sure DOES matter who is right and who is wrong. That whole "perception is reality" idea is a VERY slippery slope. Should we roll over when various "community activists" in the inner-city want to hamstring the cops because arresting young black men is "racist?" (and the African-American cops? Also racist...) Do we listen to open-borders advocates who hyperventilate about how enforcing the law is "unjust?" Do we listen to redistributionist-loving Marxists when they pontificate about how Communism wasn't so bad, and not paying "your fair share" is evil? I don't like it when people with an agenda simply redefine words, and frame the debate in dubious moral garb. I've seen this issue from both sides... and the anti-SWAT crusaders aren't doing themselves any favors with the way they try to frame this debate. It's Alinsky-esque. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Nobody is going to disagree with that. This is what causes concern. *snip* What does that incident have to do with what we're talking about? The warrant under discussion was a knock-and-announce (at least until the suspects started scrambling to hide evidence) based on information developed during a CC fraud/theft investigation. Drugs were found at the location, weapons were found at the location, suspects had military training and a history of violence, they had surveillance cameras set up, etc. The suspects talk a good game, going on TV and crying about how innocent they are, and how they're scared of the big/evil/mean police... but the facts are that it was a legitimate warrant, and those who were arrested are dopers, liars, and thieves. But that doesn't matter, right? You're anti-SWAT... I get it. I've seen your posts on this topic over the last few days, and It's all "Peter Kraska this" and "Radley Balko that" and "CATO report" and "Militarization!!1" I don't mean to sound dismissive, but I've heard it all before. You said in another thread "You have to admit that the perception is going in the wrong direction. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. LEO may very well be correct but please be cognizant of the growing concern." And that's where you fail. It damned sure DOES matter who is right and who is wrong. That whole "perception is reality" idea is a VERY slippery slope. Should we roll over when various "community activists" in the inner-city want to hamstring the cops because arresting young black men is "racist?" (and the African-American cops? Also racist...) Do we listen to open-borders advocates who hyperventilate about how enforcing the law is "unjust?" Do we listen to redistributionist-loving Marxists when they pontificate about how Communism wasn't so bad, and not paying "your fair share" is evil? I don't like it when people with an agenda simply redefine words, and frame the debate in dubious moral garb. I've seen this issue from both sides... and the anti-SWAT crusaders aren't doing themselves any favors with the way they try to frame this debate. It's Alinsky-esque. Ignoring perceptions and public sentiment isn't really a winning strategy. It has not been working in regards to all the subjects you mention above. Subjects that you and I probably agree on. Is it going to work with this subject?? I don't think in any of my posts I said I was ant-SWAT and want SWAT abolished. My concern is with what appears to be a growth growth of use. Unless you assume that anyone questioning anything at all related to your profession is "anti" I guess we are really in trouble when we American citizens can no longer question or debate things that concern us. By questioning and discussing I now have an "agenda" am "anti-SWAT", and am of "dubious moral character" talk about being Alinski-esque....... Should we just "roll over" and stop questioning? ETA: did you conveniently ignore or miss my post where I said "The PDF prepared for the DOJ is 140 pages so I did not read the whole thing but from what I did read it is pretty positive about the training and professionalism of the teams it observed and collected data on." |
|
Quoted:
The US is only #2 in the world for credit card fraud, only more than 40% of credit card holding Americans have been victims of it, and it only costs consumers and business $10 billion+ every year. It's really a pretty insignificant, minor property crime. View Quote +1 I detest thieves. My wife and I have experienced the delight of the card-cloned/stolen-and-used-fraudulently thing several times. Our worst year, we went through three cards in a single year from that type of sh*t. So zero f*cks given from me for these thieves/dopers/liars. And they have the frickin' BALLS to go on TV afterwards and whine/cry about how unjust and scary the big mean police officers were? I mean c'mon... doesn't that offend any of you? The gall of these people? It offends the hell out of me that these jokers would attempt to cloak themselves in righteousness, cast themselves as the victims, and try to turn this around on the police... who by the video we've seen, weren't particularly rough, didn't shoot the dog, and appear to have done their warrant by-the-numbers. And you can counter with "oh, but they haven't been convicted yet" and yes... that's true... but their own surveillance tape and statements to the reporters show them to be full of it. |
|
CC fraud? Unless I'm missing something, someone needs to grow a pair. ETA, I do agree with The Gray Man about thieves and the television .
|
|
|
Quoted:
that card belonged to the wife of a former cop for the same department. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking credit card theft requires kicking in peoples doors? Yeah...only credit card fraud. FIFY, and that makes it ok to steal from them? |
|
Quoted:
Stop being so obtuse, that threat matrix MANDATES swat be activated because Uncle Joe-bob was a cook in the navy, it MANDATES that swat be activated miss Daisy has her late husbands 30-30, it MANDATES swat activated because aunt Suzy took a karate class at the YMCA. Now I am sure that the matrix is not pulled out and used for every search warrant, but that is what the matrix you posted mandates. View Quote Does Uncle Joe-bob have infantry/weapons training? Is "cook" the only rate he held in the Navy? Is he a combat veteran? Did you happen to notice something about the weapons they mentioned? They're all rifles, which tend to cut through soft body armor, worn by regular uniforms and "warrant teams." And nobody is worried about a karate class at the YMCA. The "martial artist" thing is more for people who self-identify that way. and walk around with dojo T-shirts and keep a Katana mounted over their bed. Does Aunt Suzy do that? Because that's hot. |
|
Quoted:
Does Uncle Joe-bob have infantry/weapons training? Is "cook" the only rate he held in the Navy? Is he a combat veteran? Did you happen to notice something about the weapons they mentioned? They're all rifles, which tend to cut through soft body armor, worn by regular uniforms and "warrant teams." And nobody is worried about a karate class at the YMCA. The "martial artist" thing is more for people who self-identify that way. and walk around with dojo T-shirts and keep a Katana mounted over their bed. Does Aunt Suzy do that? Because that's hot. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop being so obtuse, that threat matrix MANDATES swat be activated because Uncle Joe-bob was a cook in the navy, it MANDATES that swat be activated miss Daisy has her late husbands 30-30, it MANDATES swat activated because aunt Suzy took a karate class at the YMCA. Now I am sure that the matrix is not pulled out and used for every search warrant, but that is what the matrix you posted mandates. Does Uncle Joe-bob have infantry/weapons training? Is "cook" the only rate he held in the Navy? Is he a combat veteran? Did you happen to notice something about the weapons they mentioned? They're all rifles, which tend to cut through soft body armor, worn by regular uniforms and "warrant teams." And nobody is worried about a karate class at the YMCA. The "martial artist" thing is more for people who self-identify that way. and walk around with dojo T-shirts and keep a Katana mounted over their bed. Does Aunt Suzy do that? Because that's hot. You are continuing to be obtuse, which I am not too surprised about. Your threat matrix makes no mention of infantry or weapons training only "Military/law enforcement background", yeah a 30-30 will blow through soft armor, does that mean every dear hunter with an overdue library book should expect a SWAT team? That threat matrix lacks (not so) common sense, which you ignore/fail to realize. There are plenty of legitimate uses of swat, mandating they be called out based solely on the fact someone owns a rifle or that they served in the military is not one of them. |
|
Quoted:
that card belonged to a former cop for the same department. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fucking credit card theft requires kicking in peoples doors? Yeah...only credit card fraud. So an ex cop can't be the victim of a crime? |
|
Quoted: That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: That matrix is bullshit. Is that what your department uses? Do you ever not use swat? That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. You hardly have to have a fortified crack house to make that list. SWAT should be used for hostage situations and actual crack houses. Someone is former .mil and they automatically get SWAT? Time to cut off the federal money spigot. |
|
Quoted:
You are continuing to be obtuse, which I am not too surprised about. Your threat matrix makes no mention of infantry or weapons training only "Military/law enforcement background", yeah a 30-30 will blow through soft armor, does that mean every dear hunter with an overdue library book should expect a SWAT team? That threat matrix lacks (not so) common sense, which you ignore/fail to realize. There are plenty of legitimate uses of swat, mandating they be called out based solely on the fact someone owns a rifle or that they served in the military is not one of them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop being so obtuse, that threat matrix MANDATES swat be activated because Uncle Joe-bob was a cook in the navy, it MANDATES that swat be activated miss Daisy has her late husbands 30-30, it MANDATES swat activated because aunt Suzy took a karate class at the YMCA. Now I am sure that the matrix is not pulled out and used for every search warrant, but that is what the matrix you posted mandates. Does Uncle Joe-bob have infantry/weapons training? Is "cook" the only rate he held in the Navy? Is he a combat veteran? Did you happen to notice something about the weapons they mentioned? They're all rifles, which tend to cut through soft body armor, worn by regular uniforms and "warrant teams." And nobody is worried about a karate class at the YMCA. The "martial artist" thing is more for people who self-identify that way. and walk around with dojo T-shirts and keep a Katana mounted over their bed. Does Aunt Suzy do that? Because that's hot. You are continuing to be obtuse, which I am not too surprised about. Your threat matrix makes no mention of infantry or weapons training only "Military/law enforcement background", yeah a 30-30 will blow through soft armor, does that mean every dear hunter with an overdue library book should expect a SWAT team? That threat matrix lacks (not so) common sense, which you ignore/fail to realize. There are plenty of legitimate uses of swat, mandating they be called out based solely on the fact someone owns a rifle or that they served in the military is not one of them. I'm sure the military/LE training thing is on there because they like snappy uniforms. I just can't think of any other reason.... Can you? |
|
Quoted:
yeah a 30-30 will blow through soft armor, does that mean every dear hunter with an overdue library book should expect a SWAT team? View Quote Take a deep breath. Owning firearms is only one aspect of many and not all matrix's are the same. http://policeconduct.net/uploads/Tactical_Edge_Threat_Assessments_12-16-12.pdf |
|
Quoted:
You hardly have to have a fortified crack house to make that list. SWAT should be used for hostage situations and actual crack houses. Someone is former .mil and they automatically get SWAT? Time to cut off the federal money spigot. View Quote And the real agenda comes out. This is why I've largely stopped trying to explain things like this in GD. You don't want actual information, debate, or explanations... You want to advocate for your pet beef. |
|
|
Quoted: And the real agenda comes out. This is why I've largely stopped trying to explain things like this in GD. You don't want actual information, debate, or explanations... You want to advocate for your pet beef. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You hardly have to have a fortified crack house to make that list. SWAT should be used for hostage situations and actual crack houses. Someone is former .mil and they automatically get SWAT? Time to cut off the federal money spigot. And the real agenda comes out. This is why I've largely stopped trying to explain things like this in GD. You don't want actual information, debate, or explanations... You want to advocate for your pet beef. It's pretty simple, the .gov gives every podunk town free gear for a SWAT team. Then the police feel the need to justify the SWAT team so they keep getting more and more mission creep until they are knocking down doors for credit card fraud. Part of the solution is to cut off the money spigot so bumblefuck Arkansas has to decide if they really need a SWAT team. The second part of the solution is to pass a state law defining when a no-knock may be used, and have that debate open to the public. Just letting the police decide themselves has become an obvious failure. |
|
Quoted:
Take a deep breath. Owning firearms is only one aspect of many and not all matrix's are the same. http://policeconduct.net/uploads/Tactical_Edge_Threat_Assessments_12-16-12.pdf View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
yeah a 30-30 will blow through soft armor, does that mean every dear hunter with an overdue library book should expect a SWAT team? Take a deep breath. Owning firearms is only one aspect of many and not all matrix's are the same. http://policeconduct.net/uploads/Tactical_Edge_Threat_Assessments_12-16-12.pdf I know there are various matrixes, the one thegreyman posted happens to mandate a swat team for owning a rifle, I was just pointing out the stupidity of hard and fast rules that ignore common sense. |
|
Quoted:
I know there are various matrixes, the one thegreyman posted happens to mandate a swat team for owning a rifle, I was just pointing out the stupidity of hard and fast rules that ignore common sense. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
yeah a 30-30 will blow through soft armor, does that mean every dear hunter with an overdue library book should expect a SWAT team? Take a deep breath. Owning firearms is only one aspect of many and not all matrix's are the same. http://policeconduct.net/uploads/Tactical_Edge_Threat_Assessments_12-16-12.pdf I know there are various matrixes, the one thegreyman posted happens to mandate a swat team for owning a rifle, I was just pointing out the stupidity of hard and fast rules that ignore common sense. How about using your own common sense. Would that be too much to ask? You really think Joe Bob is going to get a no-knock full-dress SWAT service for an unpaid library fine... And all because he was a cook in the Navy? Police have common sense too, you know. You are not going to get a search warrant for an overdue library book. |
|
Quoted:
How about using your own common sense. Would that be too much to ask? You really think Joe Bob is going to get a no-knock full-dress SWAT service for an unpaid library fine... And all because he was a cook in the Navy? Police have common sense too, you know. You are not going to get a search warrant for an overdue library book. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
yeah a 30-30 will blow through soft armor, does that mean every dear hunter with an overdue library book should expect a SWAT team? Take a deep breath. Owning firearms is only one aspect of many and not all matrix's are the same. http://policeconduct.net/uploads/Tactical_Edge_Threat_Assessments_12-16-12.pdf I know there are various matrixes, the one thegreyman posted happens to mandate a swat team for owning a rifle, I was just pointing out the stupidity of hard and fast rules that ignore common sense. How about using your own common sense. Would that be too much to ask? You really think Joe Bob is going to get a no-knock full-dress SWAT service for an unpaid library fine... And all because he was a cook in the Navy? Police have common sense too, you know. You are not going to get a search warrant for an overdue library book. I know they (usually) do, that doesn't change the fact that the particular matrix you posted does mandate swat activation based solely on having served your country or owning a rifle. You want to factor in owning a rifle or being in the military with the entire picture? OK. Base calling swat out solely on those things? Stupid. |
|
Quoted:
It's pretty simple, the .gov gives every podunk town free gear for a SWAT team. Then the police feel the need to justify the SWAT team so they keep getting more and more mission creep until they are knocking down doors for credit card fraud. Part of the solution is to cut off the money spigot so bumblefuck Arkansas has to decide if they really need a SWAT team. The second part of the solution is to pass a state law defining when a no-knock may be used, and have that debate open to the public. Just letting the police decide themselves has become an obvious failure. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You hardly have to have a fortified crack house to make that list. SWAT should be used for hostage situations and actual crack houses. Someone is former .mil and they automatically get SWAT? Time to cut off the federal money spigot. And the real agenda comes out. This is why I've largely stopped trying to explain things like this in GD. You don't want actual information, debate, or explanations... You want to advocate for your pet beef. It's pretty simple, the .gov gives every podunk town free gear for a SWAT team. Then the police feel the need to justify the SWAT team so they keep getting more and more mission creep until they are knocking down doors for credit card fraud. Part of the solution is to cut off the money spigot so bumblefuck Arkansas has to decide if they really need a SWAT team. The second part of the solution is to pass a state law defining when a no-knock may be used, and have that debate open to the public. Just letting the police decide themselves has become an obvious failure. Weird, we have to buy all our own gear. |
|
Quoted: Weird, we have to buy all our own gear. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams -- which first appeared on the scene in California in the 1960s -- have now become intrinsic parts of local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial federal assistance. For example, in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Defense agreed to a memorandum of understanding that enabled the transfer of federal military technology to local police forces. Following the passage of the Defense Authorization Security Act of 1997, which was intended to accelerate the transfer of military equipment to domestic law enforcement departments, local police acquired military weaponry -- gratuitously or at sharp discounts -- at astonishing rates. Between 1997 and 1999, the agency created by the Defense Authorization Security Act conveyed 3.4 million orders of military equipment to over 11,000 local police agencies in all 50 states. Not only did this vast abundance of military weaponry contribute to a more militarized police force, but it also helped spur the creation of SWAT teams in jurisdictions across the country. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/swat-team-mania-the-war-a_b_875967.html |
|
Quoted:
Weird, we have to buy all our own gear. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You hardly have to have a fortified crack house to make that list. SWAT should be used for hostage situations and actual crack houses. Someone is former .mil and they automatically get SWAT? Time to cut off the federal money spigot. And the real agenda comes out. This is why I've largely stopped trying to explain things like this in GD. You don't want actual information, debate, or explanations... You want to advocate for your pet beef. It's pretty simple, the .gov gives every podunk town free gear for a SWAT team. Then the police feel the need to justify the SWAT team so they keep getting more and more mission creep until they are knocking down doors for credit card fraud. Part of the solution is to cut off the money spigot so bumblefuck Arkansas has to decide if they really need a SWAT team. The second part of the solution is to pass a state law defining when a no-knock may be used, and have that debate open to the public. Just letting the police decide themselves has become an obvious failure. Weird, we have to buy all our own gear. Same here |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You hardly have to have a fortified crack house to make that list. SWAT should be used for hostage situations and actual crack houses. Someone is former .mil and they automatically get SWAT? Time to cut off the federal money spigot. And the real agenda comes out. This is why I've largely stopped trying to explain things like this in GD. You don't want actual information, debate, or explanations... You want to advocate for your pet beef. It's pretty simple, the .gov gives every podunk town free gear for a SWAT team. Then the police feel the need to justify the SWAT team so they keep getting more and more mission creep until they are knocking down doors for credit card fraud. Part of the solution is to cut off the money spigot so bumblefuck Arkansas has to decide if they really need a SWAT team. The second part of the solution is to pass a state law defining when a no-knock may be used, and have that debate open to the public. Just letting the police decide themselves has become an obvious failure. Weird, we have to buy all our own gear. Same here Don't feel bad, I have to buy my own gear too. |
|
Quoted:
That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
That matrix is bullshit. Is that what your department uses? Do you ever not use swat? That's not what we used, but that document covers the general idea. Serving a search warrant at a location where the suspect and/or owner is military trained, well-armed, had a propensity for violence/f*ck-tha-poleece-attitude, has fortified their location, and/or has automatic weapons/explosives... and you think SWAT isn't indicated? If that's the case, when the would you call out a tactical team? You're planning to send regular uniforms up to the door of a fortified crackhouse, with a bunch of automatic-weapons equipped ex-mil gangbangers, and ask them nicely to open the door? I'm sorry, but you're straight out of your f*cking mind. By the matrix you posted, my Cowboy Shooting friend would get SWAT......... Ex-USAF, Retired Police Officer, Lever Action Rifle.............. The 1st 2 would get him SWAT by that work sheet................. |
|
Quoted:
It wouldn't "mandate" a SWAT response based on that matrix and owning a rifle. It would give 2 points. 1-16 points is an optional response. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
yeah a 30-30 will blow through soft armor, does that mean every dear hunter with an overdue library book should expect a SWAT team? Take a deep breath. Owning firearms is only one aspect of many and not all matrix's are the same. http://policeconduct.net/uploads/Tactical_Edge_Threat_Assessments_12-16-12.pdf I know there are various matrixes, the one thegreyman posted happens to mandate a swat team for owning a rifle, I was just pointing out the stupidity of hard and fast rules that ignore common sense. It wouldn't "mandate" a SWAT response based on that matrix and owning a rifle. It would give 2 points. 1-16 points is an optional response. Umm it says if a yellow highlighted one is a yes. Then use SWAT. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.