When did we agree the feds are not part of the discussion? I think I mentioned Waco and Ruby Ridge and how the drug war has led to the militarization of society quite a while ago. The glut of war surplus equipment is a more recent policy, no knock raids and explosives or battering rams to "serve" a warrant date back to Reagan's drug war, hell, Prohibition. A suspected drug dealer is not a hostage situation.
Well, part of the 'militarization' discussion was local police forces receiving hand-me-down military equipment from the federal government. You did allege police were driving tanks into people's homes right? Right. However, your singular example of this is the federal government using combat engineer vehicles to breach the armed compound at Waco.
Forgive me, but that's not really a great example to prop up your argument. Especially given how many weapons were recovered at Waco, armored transport was actually a pretty good idea at that point. If there is any complaint to be had about Waco, it is that the government was to willing to try to deal with Koresh and was way too slow to action resulting in the deaths of those inside....not from tanks, nor from flashbangs, but from David Koresh's own madness.
You said they were non-lethal, they aren't. And yeah, many things in life can be lethal, including throwing small bombs into occupied rooms. Or even houses belonging to old people.
They are described as non-lethal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon That doesn't mean that people cant die from their use. By your definition, pepper spray is a lethal weapon since there are a mere handful of fatalities attributed to its use.
But we both know that's just silly. At this point I'm guessing your merely arguing to argue without any real substance or expectation of winning the debate.
Law enforcement uses battering rams with wheels and treads, what are you arguing about?
While I know some few of these exist, I can't seem to find an instance where they were actually used in that capacity. Do you have an example?
I mean seriously, if you google this and cant find a single example for pages in, how prevalent can its use be?
This simply isn't the problem you are making it out to be. Your willingness to engage in hyper-exaggeration is simply stunning.
And by that logic the bullet didn't kill him, it was the blood loss. The flash grenade was the cause, it started the fire.
The difference being a coroner will describe the first as ballistic trauma...the second as smoke inhalation. There is a significant difference there, even if you are unwilling to admit it.
Well, it is true... I gave you at least a couple examples.
No..you didn't. The fortified compound at Waco isn't really a 'house' per se in the normal parlance of the word. And you only provided that singular example. The Steven Seagal reality show didn't 'bulldoze' the house, it ran through a gate, not the house.
Come on man. At least be honest about your lack of sources.
Does that mean you believe the Framers were being redundant by mentioning "unreasonable searches"?
I believe they were referring to the requirement of a warrant or valid probable cause to conduct such a search...not whether the search used a rolled-up newspaper or a battering ram to breach the door.
Can you think of a situation where probable cause exists but it cant justify searches that are unreasonable? Lets say the kid of a homeowner might be selling pot - maybe a kid you know, can the police do a no knock raid late at night, shoot the family dogs and the "surprised" home owner, and proceed to tear the home apart looking for pot?
Normally not without a warrant. If they were on scene for another reason, and someone they saw someone selling drugs that then ran into the house, then they would have probable cause to enter the house without a warrant.
Is that reasonable? Does it become unreasonable when the cops walk away without any pot. Guess what, the insurance probably wont be paying for the damage either. Destroyed by cops aint in your policy, sorry.
But it can be a reason for a tort claim against the city. Again, you don't work in this field, I do, and that sort of thing does occur.
Innocent people who are not surprised are not threats to cops. Cops who surprise innocent people are a threat to them. These tactics kill innocent people.
Actually even innocent people can often use an armed response in a tense situation. It has happened. Tools such as CS gas, flashbangs or even tasers are used to mitigate the potential for lethal situations to occur.
You're really out of your depth in this argument. I appreciate your emotion, but you couldn't be more wrong in your allegations.
Ask the people who've had this happen to them if they were terrorized. Ask them if they'd disagree with that word. Were you in terror, Ma'am, as your front door was bashed in knocking you to the floor? Did you feel terrorized, sir, when you heard your barking dogs being shot by cold blooded killers invading your house?
Being scared isn't the same as terrorism. Not even close. Terrorism, at its core, is a an action to illicit a political response. Executing warrants on suspected criminals isn't about politics. It's about criminal investigation and apprehension.
No you didn't, I asked if you helped court martial anyone for torture. We did a bunch of "anything goes" during that war. The few soldiers who got in trouble wont hide that reality.
Fwiw, the 'anything goes' moniker covers a lot more of punishable action than simply torture. And since you don't seem to grasp what I am saying, at its root, torture is a failure to obey a lawful order or regulation. However, there is also a whole lot of 'anything goes' things that are also likewise covered under 'failure to obey a lawful order or regualtion'. I worked on all kinds of cases where soldiers did stupid stuff they shouldn't have done.
More, and the ratio is climbing because of no knock raids and the drug war. When warrants are served in a reasonable manner innocent people dont get killed.
To this I will simply tell you that you have no idea or appreciation to how many warrants are executed without any injury at all. In my current job working as a criminal paralegal I've seen hundreds of local warrants be executed without a single fatality. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about. I do. This is what I do for a living. My career. And I'm telling you that your allegations are a lot of over-hyped hogwash.
If the alternative to grenades is more people killed by cops, then yes, grenades saves lives.
This is the very first accurate statement you said in this entire thread. It is precisely why tools like CS gas, tasers or stun grenades are used.
Were more people being killed before grenades?
Were more people being shot before taser use became more widespread? I think we can agree that the answer to that is more than likely 'yes'.
Just about all those innocent people who were killed by cops with or without grenades would have survived the search had it been reasonable.
Your definition of reasonable is different than what the courts definition is.
