Not saying its any better or worse but this is like saying that Mrs. Giffords being a politician should be completely irrelevant and that she was just the victim of an insane criminal. Sometimes, jobs/careers or other factors do have a role in the case. Just because they're a politician doesn't meant they're not scumbags either. I just choose to believe the best until proven otherwise; its the whole innocent until proven guilty, not vice a versa as seems to be the thinking in this case.
- Status
Not saying its any better or worse but this is like saying that Mrs. Giffords being a politician should be completely irrelevant and that she was just the victim of an insane criminal. Sometimes, jobs/careers or other factors do have a role in the case. Just because they're a politician doesn't meant they're not scumbags either. I just choose to believe the best until proven otherwise; its the whole innocent until proven guilty, not vice a versa as seems to be the thinking in this case.
Well played.
The cops shooting him doesn't mean anything. What do you expect them to do? They just busted down the door to a sleeping man's home and see him with a gun. If I were in that position, I'd think "man, this guy is about to shoot me."
The real question is who sent them there, why, and was it worth it? The answers are the government (with our support), 1000 poor excuses, and no.
Doesn't have anything thing to d with the cops shooting a guy. If you're waging a "war" (what we called it until Obama said not to because it's "counterproductive to call it that"), people are going to get shot. You legally hire, train and send armed men to break into an armed man's house while he is sleeping, what the hell do you think is going to happen?
Why they shot him doesn't matter. Many of us might have shot him too. If I bust into your house tonight and see you with a gun...wouldn't I be correct in thinking you're about to shoot me? That's probably what the SWAT guys were thinking. Why were they there? Who sent them? Was it worth it?
Sure you can throw out "they don't have to do it" stuff. Yeah, you're right. But as long as we tell them it's the right thing to do, and pay them to do it...it's gonna get done. If the government had paid positions to go around sucker punching old women in public...people would fill the jobs. Sure, they shouldn't be punching old women...but shouldn't the government and we as a society not be irresponsible enough to want them to do it? Blaming the cops for things like this is starting at the wrong end of the chain. How many corrupt cops were in Miami circa the 1980's? Who was REALLY to blame for that? Correlation does not imply causation, but prohibition does. AMIRITE?
The real question is who sent them there, why, and was it worth it? The answers are the government (with our support), 1000 poor excuses, and no.
Doesn't have anything thing to d with the cops shooting a guy. If you're waging a "war" (what we called it until Obama said not to because it's "counterproductive to call it that"), people are going to get shot. You legally hire, train and send armed men to break into an armed man's house while he is sleeping, what the hell do you think is going to happen?
Why they shot him doesn't matter. Many of us might have shot him too. If I bust into your house tonight and see you with a gun...wouldn't I be correct in thinking you're about to shoot me? That's probably what the SWAT guys were thinking. Why were they there? Who sent them? Was it worth it?
Sure you can throw out "they don't have to do it" stuff. Yeah, you're right. But as long as we tell them it's the right thing to do, and pay them to do it...it's gonna get done. If the government had paid positions to go around sucker punching old women in public...people would fill the jobs. Sure, they shouldn't be punching old women...but shouldn't the government and we as a society not be irresponsible enough to want them to do it? Blaming the cops for things like this is starting at the wrong end of the chain. How many corrupt cops were in Miami circa the 1980's? Who was REALLY to blame for that? Correlation does not imply causation, but prohibition does. AMIRITE?
1000 Extra Platinum Plus internet points for Ridgehunter!
The whole point of this thread is that it was not the right thing to do.
If you bust into my house while I'm sleeping, you'd be correct that you're going to get shot. That's not bravado - that's fear. And half-asleep, frightened, armed people are a good bet to pull the trigger out of sheer desparation. I've just kind of observed this story on here and other boards, and I just wonder how things would have been spun had the guy opened up on the SWAT boys and put a few of them in a pine box before he got his? Unfortunately, the innocent has to die before people can actually see; had any of the SWAT team members been shot, the fact that this kind of thing needs some serious review would have been swept under the rug.
The law disagrees with you, and so do a lot of people (I don't). Hence why it got done. I'm sure they thought they were doing the right thing.
Imma throw some Godwin's Law up in here just for you cats, "only following orders". Not a defense? Whatevs. Head doctors tell us many of us will override our own judgment and morals both to conform to a group and to follow authority, to the point of causing severe physical harm to another person. Point being, we need to reevaluate this stuff...anytime now would be good. Of course that means admitting we were wrong for decades. So we'll just stick with this, and act surprised and outraged when things like this happen.
This is the real danger. If a warrant is served on a residence, someone dies as a result, and no evidence of the crime outlined in the warrant is discovered, the entire investigation is suspect. The investigation itself should be reviewed by an outside agency or Grand Jury for evidence of negligence or wrongdoing.
If you kill a man in his own home serving a warrant, you'd damn well better be willing to show why you had justification to obtain the warrant. Sealing the case looks like an attempt to sweep things under the rug.
I also believe that SWAT serving a warrant for suspected drugs on a home where children are present is an unnecessary risk and tantamount to child endangerment. This is the one time where "do it for the kids" needs to be applied. In this case, wait till the suspect is outside the home to serve the warrant or until the kids are somewhere else.
Are drugs and money justification?
- Status
Similar threads
