Because the police work for the government. The government works for the corporations. The corporations work for the banks. This picture says a lot.
Also thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaygjF9aHa0
Because the police work for the government. The government works for the corporations. The corporations work for the banks. This picture says a lot.
Also thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaygjF9aHa0
Oh dear, we still owe Chase money. Better not be late on any payments!
Hobbes, Locke, Mills, Plato and Michiavelli......these guys wrote the playbook, that is government.
I wasnt referring to some grand design about social contract theory, i was talking about the constant "what if it was your kid" retort to a dissenting opinion. As if that would finally force enlightenment into the argument. It just gets old.
As an aside regarding the camera destruction. While i think it is more plausible that they were destroyed to prevent third party evidence, it is also possible that they were taken out in case they were being used by other persons to track where the officers were in order to coordinate a counter attack. I know that sounds far fetched, but that is a possibility that hasnt been brought up and is a valid concern in some situations. Once again, i am only putting it out there for the sake of the discussion, NOT as an endorsement of the tactic in this instance.
Yea, opinions vary. Ive served warrants and I've held rogue cops accountable. You ,might remember that our criminal justice system was built upon a form of Monday morning quarterbacking. The judge, jury, and citizens all get to weigh in. You're a cog in that system just as others are. That holier than though retort seems misplaced and insolent. Just what I'm reading.
I know, I had to explain to a woman a few weeks ago, that my kids would not do something against society. But, it would not matter if it was my kid because my family takes responsibility for our actions.
I was just pointing out why people use that argument, because to them it makes all the difference in the world.
We live in an IPOD society, where I am the most important because I am really scared and selfish.
I was just pointing out why people use that argument, because to them it makes all the difference in the world.
We live in an IPOD society, where I am the most important because I am really scared and selfish.
OK, now we get to hear from the other side:
I looked up Ankeny, IA. It appears the population has increased by 68% from 2000 to 2010 (census says to 45K residents). That type of explosive growth often leads to outdated and inadequate TTP's. The fact that the PD admitted to the media they don't have a written policy on warrant service, supports this hypothesis.
The Chief of Ankeny PD released a statement just a few hours ago on the raid:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...02050133/1001/
This does provide some needed context. There WERE persons believed to be there with outstanding warrants, who were in fact arrested. The lawful permit holder who was armed, wasn't in fact acting lawfully if the allegations of felony possession of methamphetamine turn out to be true.
This tidbit clarifies the decision to use a tac-team in the warrant service:
A firearm and 8.5 grams of meth were seized in the search. You can argue about the legal aspects of drug possession till the cows come home. You can't argue about the risks involved in detaining someone on meth. The Chief's description of the situation has some holes in it. The warrant was allegedly for fraudulently acquired property. The items listed on the warrant were not recovered, yet the drugs and firearm they expected were. If so why wasn't the warrant filed for meth and possession of a firearm while committing a felony? I'd lay odds that the property was the means to a fishing expedition for the contraband. Sloppy police work.
Any defense attorney is going to file a motion to suppress based on the unreasonableness of the entry. Since the warrant was for large stolen property such as a 46" TV, the decision to breach prior to a reasonable time lapse from the announcement is going to be called into question. Sure the officers didn't want time for meth heads to flush drugs and set up an ambush, but that's not the basis under which the warrant was obtained. Again, sloppy police work.
The Chief states that the reason for disabling the cameras was "officer safety". If that were true then why wasn't the outside camera disabled PRIOR to the entry, rather than by the last man in the stack after 8 other officers are already inside? Yet again, sloppy police work.
Since the warrant was for property and the discovery was small amounts of contraband, that calls into question how the evidence discovery was documented. Any defense attorney worth their salt is going to be crawling all over the PD and their evidence. A proper warrant for what they actually expected to find and did indeed find would circumvent a lot of that. Still sloppy.
After hearing from the press, the family and now the PD, I'd give the agency a C- on the handling of this warrant service. They get a passing grade because no one was hurt, the dog didn't get shot and they were actually able to arrest some unsavory characters. Past that, it's uglier than homemade porn.
Comments?
I looked up Ankeny, IA. It appears the population has increased by 68% from 2000 to 2010 (census says to 45K residents). That type of explosive growth often leads to outdated and inadequate TTP's. The fact that the PD admitted to the media they don't have a written policy on warrant service, supports this hypothesis.
The Chief of Ankeny PD released a statement just a few hours ago on the raid:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...02050133/1001/
This does provide some needed context. There WERE persons believed to be there with outstanding warrants, who were in fact arrested. The lawful permit holder who was armed, wasn't in fact acting lawfully if the allegations of felony possession of methamphetamine turn out to be true.
This tidbit clarifies the decision to use a tac-team in the warrant service:
A firearm and 8.5 grams of meth were seized in the search. You can argue about the legal aspects of drug possession till the cows come home. You can't argue about the risks involved in detaining someone on meth. The Chief's description of the situation has some holes in it. The warrant was allegedly for fraudulently acquired property. The items listed on the warrant were not recovered, yet the drugs and firearm they expected were. If so why wasn't the warrant filed for meth and possession of a firearm while committing a felony? I'd lay odds that the property was the means to a fishing expedition for the contraband. Sloppy police work.
Any defense attorney is going to file a motion to suppress based on the unreasonableness of the entry. Since the warrant was for large stolen property such as a 46" TV, the decision to breach prior to a reasonable time lapse from the announcement is going to be called into question. Sure the officers didn't want time for meth heads to flush drugs and set up an ambush, but that's not the basis under which the warrant was obtained. Again, sloppy police work.
The Chief states that the reason for disabling the cameras was "officer safety". If that were true then why wasn't the outside camera disabled PRIOR to the entry, rather than by the last man in the stack after 8 other officers are already inside? Yet again, sloppy police work.
Since the warrant was for property and the discovery was small amounts of contraband, that calls into question how the evidence discovery was documented. Any defense attorney worth their salt is going to be crawling all over the PD and their evidence. A proper warrant for what they actually expected to find and did indeed find would circumvent a lot of that. Still sloppy.
After hearing from the press, the family and now the PD, I'd give the agency a C- on the handling of this warrant service. They get a passing grade because no one was hurt, the dog didn't get shot and they were actually able to arrest some unsavory characters. Past that, it's uglier than homemade porn.
Comments?
Thanks for the update. Can you edit the link? I get a 404 when I follow it, due to the ellipsis.
I found this one at USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ce-defend-tactics-in-des-moines-raid/5246151/
I'm curious about the "Suburban Emergency Response Team," and whether Des Moines PD is a part of it. They were more than a couple of miles outside their jurisdiction, I think. Asking seriously here: would Tulsa PD contact BA to let them know they're about to hit a house?
I'll retract some of my criticism. It sounds like they did have some intel. But yeah, tactically they screwed up, and there was no justification to obscure the interior camera once they were inside.
I found this one at USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ce-defend-tactics-in-des-moines-raid/5246151/
I'm curious about the "Suburban Emergency Response Team," and whether Des Moines PD is a part of it. They were more than a couple of miles outside their jurisdiction, I think. Asking seriously here: would Tulsa PD contact BA to let them know they're about to hit a house?
I'll retract some of my criticism. It sounds like they did have some intel. But yeah, tactically they screwed up, and there was no justification to obscure the interior camera once they were inside.
Cameras result in nearly 60% reduction in use-of-force, with use-of-force twice as likely to be administered by officers off-camera.
As for the warrant, here it is, along with the application. There was a rat in the house.
Here's some video from inside the house.
As for the warrant, here it is, along with the application. There was a rat in the house.
Here's some video from inside the house.
Similar threads
