Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jackrabbit]

When the police raided my neighbor's house (suddenly this is relevant!), they did surround it, but went in immediately after informing them (megaphone, banging on things) they went in. I think it's so they don't have a chance to destroy evidence.

[Pwnzerfaust]

I liked 1:30, when the SWAT guy kicked the unarmed guy who was lying on the ground.

The cop said "hands behind your back" and the guy didn't put his hands behind his back. Problem?

[DG]

I liked 1:30, when the SWAT guy kicked the unarmed guy who was lying on the ground.

The cop said "hands behind your back" and the guy didn't put his hands behind his back. Problem?

Well...He was lying on his stomach in a hallway with his hands behind his head probably thinking he was doing the right thing, while all manner of people with guns are shouting and he's still half-asleep, confused, terrified, worried about his wife, worried about his child and quite possibly worried about his shot dogs. Just possibly a little restraint at that point was in order instead of an impatient kick.

[Char13magne]

I'd like to follow that case, and see the outcome. That family deserves compensation, and the SWAT members must be reprimanded

Police are above the law.

And, did they even try sending in a single agent and maybe, I don't know, knocking?

They may have recieved (in this case, false), information to the effect of; "the individuals are armed and dangerous", and didn't want to risk sending a single agent (which would both warn the individuals in question, and give them a means of escape), it's also probably a part of SWAT training to shoot anything that is an immediate threat, if the dog were a trained attack dog (which will be the SWAT member's first thought), then it would be an immediate danger to the entire squad. I admit that some malpractice went down here, but you can easily see where many of the people involved were in fact "in the right," if you will.

[Pathos]

Yeah, that's kinda the point with these videos. When SWAT guys show up, it's because we think we need to fuck shit up. If we're wrong, it's bad. But it isn't these guys' fault so much--we're making the best guesses we can, with the most certain information we can get. Watch/read one of those stories where you "know" that the serial murderer/rapist/clown is this guy, but the cops can't get a warrant because they don't have enough evidence. These situations do happen. And then situations like this happen. Basically, we just need perfect info about everything, without invading people's privacy. We need to be God.

Well, a few things that the SWAT guys could've found out beforehand (and I found out via video and article):-
- Dude has at least one kid. This means don't go in guns blazing because you could ACCIDENTALLY SHOOT A KID.
- Dude lives with his elderly mother in the house. See above.
- If he's dealing pot, he'll probably be stoned and therefore dazed when you head in.
- Actually trailed the guy to find out if he's a pot dealer, maybe? I don't know, but you really should get EVIDENCE before you smash someone's door in.

The cop said "hands behind your back" and the guy didn't put his hands behind his back. Problem?

He was an unarmed, half-naked man lying on his belly on the floor with a gun pointed at his head. He was about as little of a threat as any man could be.

They may have recieved, in this case false, information to the effect of "the individuals are armed and dangerous" and didn't want to risk sending a single agent (which would both warn the individuals in question, and give them a means of escape), it's also probably a part of SWAT training to shoot anything that is an immediate threat, if the dig were a trained attack dog (which will be the SWAT member's first thought), then it would be an immediate danger to the entire squad. I admit that some malpractice went down here, but you can easily see where many of the people involved were in fact "in the right," if you will.

Do American police operate solely on hearsay?

[Spartan 117]

Do American police operate solely on hearsay?

Pretty much, yeah.

An anonymous tip that someone's dealing drugs is considered a good reason to bust down their door shouting "GET THE **** ON THE GROUND!"

[Char13magne]

Do American police operate solely on hearsay?

Pretty much, yeah.

An anonymous tip that someone's dealing drugs is considered a good reason to bust down their door shouting "GET THE **** ON THE GROUND!"

Well, they had to have recieved more more than an anonymous tip to send the SWAT guys, but I would think that they might send them just in case anytime they might think someone is armed dangerous. Or just armed. Or just dangerous, in Chuck Norris' case. Meh.

[Grakelin]

Any time there's a warrant out for a serious crime.

There is a SWAT team.

[DJ]

But seriously, how is an anonymous tip anywhere near enough for a warrant?

[Char13magne]

But seriously, how is an anonymous tip anywhere near enough for a warrant?

Where is everyone getting the info that it was an "anonymous tip", does anyone really know were they got their info prior to te raid?!?!?!?!?!?

[Caesar]

Do these armed idiots have nothing better to do? Something that does not scare and anger the populace, but rather deals with the actual criminals..?

[Muz]

I support the SWAT, since it could be cocaine instead of pot. And he was shooting an angry pit bull, not a puppy. I'm sure they get their info elsewhere too, like wiretapping.

It's a bit much, but the media loves exaggerating this stuff, so I don't take it seriously.

[fenrif]

I support the SWAT, since it could be cocaine instead of pot.

Because how dare someone have the unmitigated gall to take one of the harmfull drugs the government doesn't tax?

The war on drugs is a joke, it's just wasting lives, costing huge amounts of money, and turning otherwise benign individuals into hardened criminals by exposing them to a prison environment. Things like this only serve to hightlight how ridiculous it all is.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Facts:

"Whitworth was ultimately charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana and second-degree child endangerment (he ultimately pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge for possessing drug paraphernalia and paid a $300 fine according to Missouri's Case.net -- all other charges were dropped). The drug charges were apparently related to the discovery of what news reports described as "a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana." The child endangerment charge seems to be the result of Whitworth daring to be at home with his wife and seven-year-old son when the storm troopers burst in and shot two family dogs -- killing a pit bull and injuring a corgi."

Read: A standard issue casual weed smoker, not a dealer. Period. SWAT team, for a guy with $20 of weed. Your tax dollars at work.

[DJ]

But seriously, how is an anonymous tip anywhere near enough for a warrant?

Where is everyone getting the info that it was an "anonymous tip", does anyone really know were they got their info prior to te raid?!?!?!?!?!?

I was referring to Vattic's story.