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.
I gave you a different example of local cops and you started arguing about the definition of a tank instead. You invent strawmen to argue against, "we" never agreed to limit this discussion to local cops.
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.
The complaint I heard was the no knock raid was done for the media during budget time in Washington instead of just arresting Koresh while he was jogging or shopping. The complaint I heard was the local sheriff wasn't handling the situation.
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.
If pepper spray kills some people, dont call it non-lethal.
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?
I already found you examples and you ignored them. Use google yourself, they got plenty of pictures.
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.
The first died from blood loss from a bullet, the 2nd died in a fire started by a grenade. That was my example, you just changed it.
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.
And now you're arguing over the definition of a house.
Come on man. At least be honest about your lack of sources.
I linked the sources and you dismissed them, honest. Then you wanted more... You think thats honest?
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.
If they were referring to the warrant or probable cause, they wouldn't have put the word "unreasonable" next to "searches". Your interpretation makes "unreasonable searches" redundant with warrants and probable cause.
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.
So, I'll ask again:
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?
Is that reasonable because they had a warrant or probable cause? What if they dont find anything? Reasonable?
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.
This is another strawman, I argued innocent people dont get killed by cops when they serve warrants by knocking on the door and presenting the warrant. You ignored what I said and argued innocent people do get killed by cops in tense situations. No kidding!
And your solution is to make serving a warrant extremely intense with no-knock raids, battering rams and grenades. Jesus, that was my point. These tactics kill innocent people and you just explained why
Being scared isn't the same as terrorism. Not even close.
Terrorism, at its core, is a an action to illicit a political response.
I said people are terrorized by no knock raids, here's the definition:
...create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.
Executing warrants on suspected criminals isn't about politics. It's about criminal investigation and apprehension.
Its about scaring the hell out of people so the terror of a violent home invasion freezes them into submission. Thats the whole point of a no knock raid, quick entry and panic the occupants so they dont have time to react.
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.
Does the % of injuries increase with no knock raids?
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.
I dont recall arguing about what you've seen, but we've had people killed here in drug raids. I guess that makes you clueless.
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.
It wasn't a statement, I said "if"... You haven't shown that grenades save the lives of innocent people and I didn't say they do. The problem with your argument is the use of grenades "may" save lives "if" the alternative is more dead people because of no knock raids. I'm not arguing for no knock raids, you are. My statement was: no knock raids, with or without grenades, kill innocent people.
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'.
I dont know... Were more people being killed before grenades?
Your definition of reasonable is different than what the courts definition is.
Judges dont have to worry about cops breaking down their doors in the middle of the night and tossing grenades around and shooting dogs. I'd love to see anyone put thru that describing it as reasonable.
Indeed. Water, for example, can kill you in more ways than one (most common being drowning, but consuming large amounts at once can do it too). Vehicles are far more lethal than flashbangs too lol, including a stock stripped down car that anyone can buy. In contrast very few people die to those grenades.
Then dont describe swimming or driving as non-lethal.
