SWAT raid house for minor warrant and kill a puppy...

[Leonaerd]

I bet Midnyte would be great to talk to in e-conversation if he allowed his opinions to form / change as a discussion progressed.

[Fash]

I think I speak for everyone when I say Sorry Midnyte, you were right and we were wrong.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I think I speak for everyone when I say Sorry Midnyte, you were right and we were wrong.

I know. Thanks for big enough to say it.

[Funkmasterr]

I think I speak for everyone when I say Sorry Midnyte, you were right and we were wrong.

Yeah!

Hey midnyte, let me know what kind of a country this would be if everyone followed your "guilty until proven innocent" attitude with little or no reason besides pure prejudice to think that way to begin with.


edit: grammar

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I think I speak for everyone when I say Sorry Midnyte, you were right and we were wrong.

Yeah!

Hey midnyte, let me know what kind of a country this would be if everyone followed your "guilty until proven innocent" attitude with little or no reason besides pure prejudice to think that way to begin with.


edit: grammar

Funk, let me try and explain this the best way I can. That is not my philosophy. I was angry at how many others had that philosophy against the police. You all felt it was okay to find the police guilty before proven guilty. Yet, you are incapable of seeing it. I choose the side of the law before the criminal. I was right. I will be right the very large majority of the time. A very small percentage of purely innocent people get fucked over by the police. Stop being silly little children. Be adults. You're going to have to grow up at some point. Why not now?

[Funkmasterr]

I think I speak for everyone when I say Sorry Midnyte, you were right and we were wrong.

Yeah!

Hey midnyte, let me know what kind of a country this would be if everyone followed your "guilty until proven innocent" attitude with little or no reason besides pure prejudice to think that way to begin with.


edit: grammar

Funk, let me try and explain this the best way I can. That is not my philosophy. I was angry at how many others had that philosophy aagainst the police. You all felt it was okay to find the police guilty before proven guilty. Yet, you are incapable of seeing it. I choose the side of the law before the criminal. I was right. I will be right the very large majority of the time. A very small percentage of purely innocent people get fucked over by the police. Stop being silly little children. Be adults. You're going to have to grow up at some point. Why not now?

First of all, I never argued that point with you in this thread and (to the best of my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong) or any other thread.

Second, just because other people were doing it doesn't mean you need to.

And lastly, the other people that were making these presumptions you speak of were because of poor/misinformation on the original posters part, so they made an assumption they may not have made given the whole story - so I can't say I fault them for it.

[Sueven]

Especially given the fact that it's a relatively common occurrence (see the provided link, which is somewhat old now and has missed a number of more recent incidents)

(and by relatively common I don't mean to insinuate that it's a majority or anywhere close to a majority of SWAT raids... raiding the wrong house is a BIG FUCKING DEAL and so any kind of regular pattern is significant)

[Zaelath]

Funk, let me try and explain this the best way I can. That is not my philosophy. I was angry at how many others had that philosophy against the police. You all felt it was okay to find the police guilty before proven guilty. Yet, you are incapable of seeing it. I choose the side of the law before the criminal. I was right. I will be right the very large majority of the time. A very small percentage of purely innocent people get fucked over by the police. Stop being silly little children. Be adults. You're going to have to grow up at some point. Why not now?

That's an interesting theory. Another interesting theory I heard from a cop was that a large proportion of people in jail were there for crimes they didn't commit. Not that he meant they were "fitted up" for it, but that they had some weak evidence and a shitty court appointed lawyer.

However, your "purely innocent" qualifier puts most people outside the scope of justice.

And, if you really do want to hold to innocent until proven guilty, how does the common use of deadly force in no-knock raids give anyone the right to innocence?

BTW, do you have the followup story where this bloke was tried and convicted? Or are you being a smug hypocrite because he was "suspected" and fingered by an associate?

[Markulas]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that what the police officers did was probably illegal. Thus, after they are charged and found guilty I side with the law as well.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

And, if you really do want to hold to innocent until proven guilty, how does the common use of deadly force in no-knock raids give anyone the right to innocence?

BTW, do you have the followup story where this bloke was tried and convicted? Or are you being a smug hypocrite because he was "suspected" and fingered by an associate?

Kush barricaded himself on the second story

None of this would have happened if he surrendered to poilce when they requested him to. There would have been no story. No injustice. Nothing for you to get your authority hating panties in a bunch about.

You were wrong. Be a man and admit it. If you are incapable of such, then just move on to the next thread.

[Zaelath]

And, if you really do want to hold to innocent until proven guilty, how does the common use of deadly force in no-knock raids give anyone the right to innocence?

BTW, do you have the followup story where this bloke was tried and convicted? Or are you being a smug hypocrite because he was "suspected" and fingered by an associate?

Kush barricaded himself on the second story

None of this would have happened if he surrendered to poilce when they requested him to. There would have been no story. No injustice. Nothing for you to get your authority hating panties in a bunch about.

You were wrong. Be a man and admit it. If you are incapable of such, then just move on to the next thread.

The second story was clearly biased to the police side, to the point that it appears to be a press release by the police that was just printed by a paper (this is not uncommon). So I don't see why I should take that story as gospel any more than I take the first story as gospel, however, I still don't see any evidence that he was convicted of anything as a result of this raid, so I don't see how I'm "wrong" that this was a lot of force applied from some dodgy intel.

Hell, even this version clearly shows that they managed to fuck up half the neighbourhood from a psychological standpoint.

I'm also a little amused at "none of this would have happened" part, when the story isn't even consistent:

The SWAT team entered the home on Cyan Court about 12:30 p.m. and escorted a woman and young child found inside to safety while Kush barricaded himself on the second story. When he didn't respond to repeated commands to surrender, deputies launched several non-flammable gas canisters into the first level of the home, creating the sounds that neighbors thought were gunshots.

Perhaps with your vast experience of SWAT procedures you can let me know why you launch gas into the "first level" when someone's is barricaded on the "second story" (or perhaps that's just bad writing, i.e. confusing second story with first floor)

In any case, my only assertions were "it's really, really, really, wrong to raid the wrong house and fuck over an innocent man and that it's the kind of "mistake" you should only get to make once.", and "they raided the house over non-existant firearms." Which part is wrong?

[Gzette]

right or wrong that article initially posted is a piece of shit

how can you write like that and not source one single cop!?

ridiculous

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Lol I post one thing and it blows up like this. Now seeing that other article though I don't really believe either. I'm not sure what really happened, but a tank seems a bit much regardless...

[Dregor Thule]

Lol I post one thing and it blows up like this. Now seeing that other article though I don't really believe either. I'm not sure what really happened, but a tank seems a bit much regardless...

Now now, give yourself some credit. This isn't the first time you've posted something stupid that has generated discussion.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Animal Cruelty isn't stupid and most people seemed to overlook that part...now I don't know if it was chased into the flames but poor dog. It was just caught in the middle of this and had know idea what was going on.

[Sueven]

Puppycide is another common aspect of SWAT raids

[Aslanna]

I fully support SWAT team puppycide. I'm sure that critter wasn't innocent.

[Al]

Certain professions in our society require more attention to detail than others.

This is my entire point. Police Officers cannot afford to make mistakes. One mistake by an oral surgeon and he may well lose all of his customers, or even his license. One mistake by a cop and someone could be dying. In my opinion, a law enforcement official must be beyond 100% sure that what they are doing is the right thing. If anyone questions the action, check, and then re-check, and then re-check again. Mistakes are not permissible.

On a side note, I noticed the article Mid posted said nothing about the dog. While it was certainly biased towards the police, every other article I've read has mentioned that a dog was killed in the fire, at least in passing. I can't take anything that article says as even half-truth because it left out one major fact about the incident. It also fails to mention how the APC could slide down a hill into a parked vehicle. I happen to know that simply shutting the engine off will not cause a vehicle to slip out of gear and roll uncontrolled down a hill. The article states that it "slid down a slope in the street when its engine was turned off." The driver didn't try to use the brakes? Or was there no driver?

[Al]

If I were the lawyer for the family, I would recommend pressing charges against the officers involved. Wreckless endangerment, cruelty to animals, public obscenity (for telling the lady screaming for her dog to come outside the burning house to "Shut the fuck up", or "Shut the f*** up", One source was uncensored, one wasn't), and maybe a defamation of character suite, depending on how the court case turned out. I wasn't able to find it, although I didn't look too hard since I have to leave for work in 10 minutes. Everything I found had him only charged with the traffic citations and failure to appear at court.

[Winnow]

More stuff about sheriff Joe Arpaio. The guy really is a nut job.

Here's the Digg Link because there's all sorts of shit about him linked from there:

http://digg.com/politics/Sheriff_tries_ ... cal_papers

Arpaio didn't like an article written about him so he issues subpoenas to collect all information regarding the articles including who read the articles.

Follow up to this:

'New Times' case dropped, special prosecutor fired

The Arizona Republic
Oct. 19, 2007 03:20 PM
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced Friday afternoon that he was dismissing the case against New Times and that no charges would be pursued against the editors and writers involved in the case.

Thomas also said he was dismissing special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik, who had pursued the case on the county's behalf.

Thomas said that mistakes were made, that the case had been grossly mishandled and that he was uncomfortable with where the case had gone.

He said he had only learned in the past day that a subpoena had been issued for Web site information from New Times.

On Thursday, New Times published a story disclosing that a grand jury subpoena had sought extensive information about stories the paper published on Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The subpoena also sought information about readers of the New Times Web site, including their computerized addresses and which Web browsers they used.

“It has become clear to me the investigation has gone in a direction I would not have authorized,” Thomas said.

Two New Times officials were arrested Thursday night on charges of releasing grand jury information after the paper published its story.