Police use of force

[bhsup]

Which was not the situation i put forward, but thanks for playing.

 

[JollyRoger]

Which was not the situation i put forward, but thanks for playing.

So if someone is breaking in, how do you know he is intending to rape a family member? If someone is having relations with a family member, how do you know he broke in and that it is rape? In other words, how can you really have that situation where you are shooting someone that you know is breaking in with the intent to rape someone within the house?

 

[MobBoss]

I think the key there is 'breaking in'.

That's unlawful behavior. And for myself, I would certainly feel threatened by someone 'breaking in' to my home.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yep, that's why we need to get rid of no knock warrants. It ends tragically when the police make a mistake as to the house they are breaking into and an innocent person with defensive intentions gets into a shootout with the cops.

 

[MobBoss]

Yep, that's why we need to get rid of no knock warrants. It ends tragically when the police make a mistake as to the house they are breaking into and an innocent person with defensive intentions gets into a shootout with the cops.

I don't disagree. But you shifted the argument more than a bit there.

 

[JollyRoger]

As did you when you dropped off bhsup's rape enhancer. Guess I should be a little bit more careful of the leadership I follow.

 

[MobBoss]

As did you when you dropped off bhsup's rape enhancer. Guess I should be a little bit more careful of the leadership I follow.

I at least gave you some support on the no knock warrant thing. You could at least reciprocate in kind.

I'm sure someone is certainly frowned upon in Texas for 'breaking in' or do you allow that to occur, then simply question said invader of his intentions?

"I say dear chap, why on earth have you broken down my door?'.

Yeah. That.

 

[JollyRoger]

My point is that you never know the intentions of someone kicking down your door - it could be a rapist or it could be a cop. Like you, I would probably not be too patient to find out before taking action.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is absolutely the wrong topic for new years but:

1. they're not lives
2. very few people act as if they're lives
3. the actual life involved is that of the mother which is the actual significant reason to support legal abortion
4. people opposed to legal abortion DO act as if they think modern sexual mores are somehow shameful, as you just did. And it is pretty insulting the way you said "vaginal ejactulation" is the priority here.

Discounting the issue that they're lives even if they fail to reach the bar of being individually protected lives: It's not shameful to have sexual relations with people. I'm being specific about the nature of the sexual activity that carries the most costs for being treated as if it's less important than it is. Being blase or negligent about those risks and costs is worse than simply shameful. It's self serving and short sighted in some of the worst kinds of way. Sorry if you feel that somehow makes sexuality shameful, but that would be your reading in of an insult and not my intended inclusion of one.

 

[Borachio]

I think the key there is 'breaking in'.

That's unlawful behavior. And for myself, I would certainly feel threatened by someone 'breaking in' to my home.

I don't blame you. That's one negligent house-breaker you have there, if you notice they're breaking in. You'll not remark on the presence of a professional until long after they've gone.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't blame you. That's one negligent house-breaker you have there, if you notice they're breaking in. You'll not remark on the presence of a professional until long after they've gone.

And that is the difference in a home invasion and a burglary.

 

[classical_hero]

We are starting to get to the level of questioning during the Springfield Mayoral debate.

"But suppose for a second that your house was ransacked by thugs your family tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths. You try to open the door, but there's too much blood on the knob."
"What is your question?"
"My Question is about the budget."

 

[Bugfatty300]

As far as attacking somebody else's valued behavior, it's been my experience that gun owners either aren't able to explain their position to a non-gun owner very well, or they simply don't feel they need to. "It's my right", "It's in the Constitution", "It's tradition", etc

There is no "gun owner" position in the US. Keeping and bearing arms being a constitutional right is probably the only thing most of them will agree with (but that's already widely accepted and upheld in the courts). It's an easy response.

OTH, I've noticed that most day to day gun owners are not too vapid or defensive to have a discussion but often end up getting loaded/strawman questions like "why do you need a gun?" or "why do want to kill people?" Most don't have the time/patience.

Some of them shrug their shoulders when kids get killed and say "not my problem."

That's a typical jerk nihilistic viewpoint, nothing to do with gun owning. I tend to think that the uncaring sociopathic gun nut stereotype comes from how some prominent anti-gun proponents interpret unwillingness to blindly support any and all idiotic gun control bills that come up in the wake of a tragedy.

 

[JollyRoger]

A gun is needed to shoot strawmen.

 

[Commodore]

Yep, that's why we need to get rid of no knock warrants. It ends tragically when the police make a mistake as to the house they are breaking into and an innocent person with defensive intentions gets into a shootout with the cops.

This is probably my biggest issue with current police operating procedures. No knock warrants almost always end badly, even when they get the right house. The suspect usually resists because they are not aware it is the police entering their home. That brings into question just how many of those suspects would have come quietly and peacefully if the police had properly identified themselves and given the suspect a chance to surrender peacefully before busting down the door.

 

[Flying Pig]

The problem is that many of them would just have taken the opportunity to get out through the back window.

 

[Commodore]

The problem is that many of them would just have taken the opportunity to get out through the back window.

Then so be it. I would much rather police do things the right way and the bad guy occasionally getting away, than for the police to cut corners and do things the expedient way just to make sure a suspect doesn't get away.

 

[Berzerker]

This is probably my biggest issue with current police operating procedures. No knock warrants almost always end badly, even when they get the right house. The suspect usually resists because they are not aware it is the police entering their home. That brings into question just how many of those suspects would have come quietly and peacefully if the police had properly identified themselves and given the suspect a chance to surrender peacefully before busting down the door.

Maybe 10-12 years ago a local pot dealer was acquitted of murdering a cop because they did such a poor job of identifying themselves during the no-knock raid. The SCOTUS has ruled no-knock raids are reasonable. An old couple in Minneapolis died when the cops blew up their door and set the house on fire.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's being reported today that the District Attorney of Albuquerque has decided to (a) charge 2 police officers with murder in the March '14 killing of James Boyd, and (b) forgo a grand jury and put it before a judge. Albuquerque is one of the cities whose police department was so violent the U.S. Justice Department had to step in. I think this is some kind of progress. How much remains to be seen - and I imagine this trial could take some time - but some progress is better than no progress.