Another no-knock warrant and cover up

[Sans Authoritas]

Jeff White wrote:

If you want to put a stop to no knock raids, I suggest you quit whining about the police on THR and get involved politically to end the war on drugs. You have a lot of work to do because your friends and neighbors are most likely willing to give up even more of their constitutional rights to keep the person down the block from lighting up a joint.

Proficient Rifleman is doing that work, starting here, with people who are presumably less susceptible to illogical, emotion-based arguments. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to convince the supposedly rational gun-owning community (which does not want to ban the mean guns because "they're bad and they kill people") before we can convince the allegedly "less rational" liberals.

I think Proficient and I would both like to see some rational people on this board who recognize and support reason and logic. Again, it would make the job that much easier to win over the supposedly logical group to logic, and have some fellow logical co-workers.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

I've never watched a video of anyone being unnecessarily kicked or beaten with clubs by a group of potheads.

Though I've never used any non-prescription or non OTC drug myself, I've known a few potheads. A harmless lot. The only harm they seemed to sustain were reduced intelligence and a case of terminal giggles.

We really need to reconsider our priorities in who should be arrested and thrown in prison.

The club-wielders and drunks are far more violent. Should you punish a drunk for buying alcohol, the state of being drunk, or just perhaps, for the dangerous or violent act he performs while he is drunk? Think about it.

Jeff White wrote:

Your fight is with the politicians who made that conduct illegal, not with those whose job it is to enforce the laws.

No, Jeff, my fight is not with the politicians who made that conduct illegal. My fight is with the people who hold the irrational ideas that are responsible for getting those politicians voted into office. Many of them are right here. On The High Road. Politicians don't care what one person thinks. They care about power, and the only threat to their power is what a large number of people think. And the only way to get a large number of people to think is to discuss the issues that need to be thought about, and point out the illogic nature of their rationales.

And yes, Jeff, my fight is also with "those whose job it is to enforce the laws." Laws are essentially orders that are put out by politicians. One may not follow an unjust order. If you think the majority of people or the power-secure politicians can make something just by voting on it, I cannot convince you. One does not get a "by" on their actions because one is "only doing his job." Unjust and immoral actions do not become just or moral because "the politicians and the people who support them are the ones who are really responsible." An admittedly disproportionate comparison, though a logically accurate one, is to say that a soldier in Russia guarding a gulag is justified in continuing to keep harmless political dissidents in inhuman conditions, because the orders came from Stalin. And when a Jewish German mother and her three children are rounded up by roving death squads, and she asks, "Why are you doing this? Do you think this is right?" just before she is loaded onto a cattle car to a place of which the soldier may be ignorant, do you think that because the elected officials have ordered them to round up peaceful Jews and other peaceful dissidents at gunpoint, that the man in the uniform is justified in his actions?

If anyone wants to be immature and intellectually dishonest, feel free to say, "Oh, you're saying cops are Commies or Nazis." If, on the other hand, you seek to know and live by what is true, look at the logic, and tell me where you think it goes wrong.

The fact is, what Pilate and the Roman soldiers did to Jesus was wrong. They were following orders. They had a hierarchy of power they had to satisfy if they wanted to keep their jobs. It came down to what they valued more. They valued their jobs more than doing what was just. As a result, they chose unwisely.

Police need to man up and refuse to have anything to do with putting a harmless man in prison for having a 17.5'' piece of metal on his long arm instead of an 18'' piece of metal. Police need to man up and refuse to help throw someone in prison for ten years for the act of having a certain amount of a chemical substance. Police need to man up and stop arresting people for the "crime" of peacably carrying a firearm or safely driving, yet doing so without state-issued permission slips.

Until that day, I will have no respect for policemen, no matter how many rapists they help put in prison. If I filled my day with perpetrating injustices, yet thought it was justified by donating several thousand dollars to various charities every two days, I would expect that people treat me with the same lack of respect.

But that day, when police do nothing but uphold the individual rights of individual men, to do nothing but protect the life, liberty and property of individuals, well, that day will never come if people continue to think irrationally. And the only way to get them to stop thinking irrationally is to challenge what they believe, and get them to consider the wisdom of what they believe. That is, in part, why I am discussing this here: to convince firearm owners, an allegedly more logical and rational segment of society.

If such "rational" people fail to respond to logic, what hope can there be for the "irrational" segment of society?

Let's hear some responses.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Old Dog]

Old Dog, do you deny that people doing certain things changes who they are in a particular and predictable way? Have you never witnessed the phenomenon of an otherwise tolerable person who was put in a position of power and proved himself utterly incapable of handling it wisely?

My objection is to your implication that the very nature of police work corrupts most, if not all, who work in the field. In a rational discussion of the war on drugs, I think we can move on past the Philosophy 101 bullcrap. If you ever bothered to personally get to know many line staff in the police and corrections fields, perhaps you'd be surprised to find that (1) many, if not most, understand that legalization and regulation of at least marijuana would lead to substantial societal benefits, save countless millions of dollars, allow LE to concentrate on more pressing issues, as well as allowing corrections departments more time and money to deal with serious offenders; and (2) almost all have absolutely no issues with swift and appropriate punishment (including job termination and/or criminal conviction) of those law enforcement officers whose actions tarnish the ideals behind the badge.

As far as militarization of the police, there's no good answer here. The genie's been let out of the bottle, and given the technology and weaponry available to criminals today, there is no going back to the good ol' Andy Taylor days. Just what is your solution? Put the cops out on the streets with Model 10s in their holsters and 870s in their cruisers? We're not talking simply the narco-wars that are now crossing our Southern borders, but a very real terrorist threat that will eventually arrive on a more widespread basis in the continental U.S. -- would you rather get rid of the Posse Comitatus Act and have armed soldiers and Marines patrolling our city streets, or just your local PD and SO with the ability to call in their SWAT unit? At any rate, I'd suspect that most of us here do agree that if no-knock warrants can't be outlawed, at a minimum, far more top-level oversight and stricter regulations of circumstances are required.

 

[Art Eatman]

SA, a problem with your argument about cops and drug laws is that a lot of people are highly in favor of the present drug laws. And, some of those folks are cops--and are quite happy to do that part of the job.

Which gets us back to what the public wants and how that affects the lawmakers.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

some folks version of a fight is a lil "light"

however internet hero has a low casualty rate

 

[Old Dog]

Sans Authoritas has been busy

Police need to man up and refuse to have anything to do with putting a harmless man in prison for having a 17.5'' piece of metal on his long arm instead of an 18'' piece of metal. Police need to man up and refuse to help throw someone in prison for ten years for the act of having a certain amount of a chemical substance. Police need to man up and stop arresting people for the "crime" of peacably carrying a firearm or safely driving, yet doing so without state-issued permission slips.

Until that day, I will have no respect for policemen, no matter how many rapists they help put in prison. If I filled my day with perpetrating injustices, yet thought it was justified by donating several thousand dollars to various charities every two days, I would expect that people treat me with the same lack of respect.

Well,the ol' "man up" admonition. Hmm. How best to respond? Well, interesting thoughts, but oh, so unworkable. So cops should selectively enforce only the laws they feel are "just?" That would make it unfortunate indeed that law enforcement officers are humans, each with a different background, education, varying levels of intelligence, differences in perception, outlook and yes, ethics and values? Contrary to what SA believes, all cops don't think in lockstep and cops, being human, aren't always capable of arriving at the same conclusion as all of their peers or making the same decisions ... Nope, sorry, we've gotta observe some standardization, even when it comes to enforcing laws that really have no basis in reality, e.g., a law that implies a 17 and a half inch shotgun barrel is somehow a danger to society whereas that 18 inch barrel is perfectly acceptable.

Sans Authoritas, what you suggest is so ludicrous in the extreme, I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around the fact that you seem to have snoozed through some of your undergrad-level poli-sci courses ... Fact is, once those tasked with enforcing the law start picking and choosing which laws to enforce, you've got exactly the sort of cops that you've been railing against since your arrival on this board.

But that day, when police do nothing but uphold the individual rights of individual men, to do nothing but protect the life, liberty and property of individuals, well, that day will never come if people continue to think irrationally.

And here is precisely where our opinions diverge in a big way. So just who is out there fighting the bad folks, upholding the individual rights of individual men? Us, sitting here in our comfy leather chairs, typing busily away on our keyboards? Or the men and women out there investigating and arresting those who would take away the lives, liberty and property of you and your family? I submit that cops, even the bad cops that are out there, are in fact out there protecting your life, liberty and property. And even some "bad cops" might be the first to pull you out of your burning automobile or jump in the river to pull your baby out of your sinking mini-van.

"Permission slips?" Puh-leaze!If you don't want to accept the concept of some governmental regulation, you're really just advocating anarchy. Can some of these silly laws be improved? Of course -- but it's sure not gonna happen with the knuckleheads the voters keep putting in office.

Well, it seems this thread has indeed degraded into the not-unexpected "what's wrong with American law enforcement" discussion.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Old Dog, do you deny that people doing certain things changes who they are in a particular and predictable way? Have you never witnessed the phenomenon of an otherwise tolerable person who was put in a position of power and proved himself utterly incapable of handling it wisely?

Old Dog wrote:

My objection is to your implication that the very nature of police work corrupts most, if not all, who work in the field.

I have not made such a claim. I have made the claim that there are no natural (market-based monetary) checks to police actions, due to the monopoly that state-funded police currently have on enforcing laws. A monopoly that is granted by the politicians, through the people, and perpetuated by the use of tax dollars to fund them.

That's a problem. Do you deny that many people stop trying when they know their income is secure? For example, people on welfare. They receive my money and yours simply because they do not have a job. If they make a certain amount of money, they lose benefits before they're able to get on their feet. So why try harder? Why not settle for the mediocre?

There are policemen who conduct themselves as honorably as they can, despite the lack of monetary incentive to improve themselves and their department. Government is a business like any other. The owners want to "grow their business." The only way they can "grow their business" is by taking other people's money and try to justify doing so. Hence, we have laws passed by power-loving politicians that have made certain victimless "crimes" against the law. That means more work for the police, and that those officers who are otherwise honorable as they can be are enforcing those laws, because they have an interest in believing that they are justified in enforcing those laws.

But even if they believe that enforcing such regulations is just, it does not make it so. They have to see why those regulations were put into place, and act accordingly. Refuse to cooperate in their enforcement, even if it means losing their jobs. Martyrs attract more followers than those who grumble about the injustices they perpetrate. But it seems most people don't have the spine for it.

Old Dog wrote:

In a rational discussion of the war on drugs, I think we can move on past the Philosophy 101 bullcrap. If you ever bothered to personally get to know many line staff in the police and corrections fields, perhaps you'd be surprised to find that (1) many, if not most, understand that legalization and regulation of at least marijuana would lead to substantial societal benefits, save countless millions of dollars, allow LE to concentrate on more pressing issues, as well as allowing corrections departments more time and money to deal with serious offenders; and

Yet they don't have the spine to refuse to enforce such wasteful, unjust and destructive regulations. Such a fact is patently unimpressive and pathetic.

Old Dog wrote:

(2) almost all have absolutely no issues with swift and appropriate punishment (including job termination and/or criminal conviction) of those law enforcement officers whose actions tarnish the ideals behind the badge.

All except those 6 or so aforementioned "bad apples" who suddenly materialized out of the 90% of good guys, then held down and kicked/beat a non-combative man in Baltimore. How did so many "bad apples" suddenly emerge at one time in a force of officers who are "90% good?" How?

I'll bet those few "bad apples" that amazingly appeared all in one place won't be in favor of getting fired. And I'll bet the politicians in charge of them won't be in favor of them getting fired, either, unless the prospect of a lawsuit (good luck winning that: who controls the court system, again?) outweighs the money lost by having to retrain new officers.

Old Dog wrote:

As far as militarization of the police, there's no good answer here. The genie's been let out of the bottle, and given the technology and weaponry available to criminals today, there is no going back to the good ol' Andy Taylor days. Just what is your solution? Put the cops out on the streets with Model 10s in their holsters and 870s in their cruisers? We're not talking simply the narco-wars that are now crossing our Southern borders, but a very real terrorist threat that will eventually arrive on a more widespread basis in the continental U.S. -- would you rather get rid of the Posse Comitatus Act and have armed soldiers and Marines patrolling our city streets, or just your local PD and SO with the ability to call in their SWAT unit? At any rate, I'd suspect that most of us here do agree that if no-knock warrants can't be outlawed, at a minimum, far more top-level oversight and stricter regulations of circumstances are required.

Old Dog, the police can be demilitarized, and ideally, privatized. All it takes is enough people who want it. And getting the people to want it does not involve supporting the ideas that have led to police militarization. The demilitarization of police is a cause that is hurt, not helped, by police who choose to enforce the regulations that have led to police militarization in the first place. It's a vicious circle, and it needs to be broken.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

youa wanna privatize police? in that rough and tumble anarchy dominated childhood of yours, or since have you ever been anyhere that worked?or know of someplace where it has worked?outside of novels i mean.do enlighten us. i'll brew a special cup of tea for your tales

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Old Dog wrote:

Contrary to what SA believes, all cops don't think in lockstep and cops, being human, aren't always capable of arriving at the same conclusion as all of their peers or making the same decisions ... Nope, sorry, we've gotta observe some standardization, even when it comes to enforcing laws that really have no basis in reality, e.g., a law that implies a 17 and a half inch shotgun barrel is somehow a danger to society whereas that 18 inch barrel is perfectly acceptable.

Old Dog, if a cop isn't bright enough to know that murder, rape, violent assault, robbery, theft, and property destruction (you know, actual crimes that are obvious to everyone) are things that should always and everywhere be treated as crimes, he probably shouldn't be a cop. As it is, he shouldn't really be doing much else than preventing (or, more likely, responding to) such actual crimes.

Having a shotgun barrel under 18'' does not really strike everyone in every culture as a crime that hurts other people.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

cassandrasdaddy wrote:

youa wanna privatize police? in that rough and tumble anarchy dominated childhood of yours, or since have you ever been anyhere that worked?or know of someplace where it has worked?outside of novels i mean.do enlighten us. i'll brew a special cup of tea for your tales

Here's a tale for you. It was told by Harriet Tubman and millions of other people before her. "Even though it has been around and accepted for thousands of years, someday, people will see the error of their ways, and slavery won't exist in the civilized world."

In the same vein, here's my tale: "Some day, even though it has been accepted and has existed for thousands of years, people will realize that though they need laws to protect the individual rights of life, liberty and property, they have no right to force other people to subsidize these services through taxes collected at gunpoint or threat thereof."

-Sans Authoritas

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

so that rather windy avoidance another example of carrying the fight home?

the question posed is can you cite an example , outside your imagination, where a privatized police force worked?

 

[Old Dog]

Sans Authoritas backtracks:

I have not made such a claim.

Um, yes, yes you have.

The only thing Proficient and I are "bashing" is this kind of behavior, and pointing to the fact that it is not isolated and rare, and that it is linked to the nature of the job as it stands now. There is something about the apple barrel that is conducive to the attraction, sustainment and creation of bad apples.

Sans Authoritas then puts forth

Yet they don't have the spine to refuse to enforce such wasteful, unjust and destructive regulations. Such a fact is patently unimpressive and pathetic.

I'm trying to be patient with you, really, I am ... Since you don't work in the field, I have to presume that you have absolutely no working knowledge whatsoever of the daily routine of your average patrol cop. I humbly apologize on behalf of my brothers and sisters in blue for my unimpressive and pathetic lack of a spine when it comes to refusing to do my sworn duty.

And now you play the slavery issue? Whoa. And actually link it to the concept of privatized police forces? Hmm ... you complain about the militarization of PDs and then segue into privatized police forces? Wow. Well, I'm sure Blackwater can use the business.

 

[dm1333]

"Being a cop" becomes such a habit of thinking that "what is just" often falls by the wayside, forgotten. "Being a cop" and "doing what is just" are not always, or even usually, synonymous.

What does this have to do with the "no knock warrant" story? Not a thing! Not to mention that is has absolutely no basis in verifiable fact and is insulting to just about every LEO who is doing what he or she has been hired to do.

Police need to man up and refuse to have anything to do with putting a harmless man in prison for having a 17.5'' piece of metal on his long arm instead of an 18'' piece of metal. Police need to man up and refuse to help throw someone in prison for ten years for the act of having a certain amount of a chemical substance. Police need to man up and stop arresting people for the "crime" of peacably carrying a firearm or safely driving, yet doing so without state-issued permission slips.

Until that day, I will have no respect for policemen, no matter how many rapists they help put in prison.

You won't respect policemen for helping to put rapists into prison because they also enforce gun, drug and traffic laws? You want them to be selective in the laws they enforce? I want officers to use discretion and judgement in certain areas, like giving warnings for minor traffic violations instead of ticketing or arresting, but ignoring a felony? I think not!

But that day, when police do nothing but uphold the individual rights of individual men, to do nothing but protect the life, liberty and property of individuals, well, that day will never come if people continue to think irrationally. And the only way to get them to stop thinking irrationally is to challenge what they believe, and get them to consider the wisdom of what they believe.

Sans, most of what you have written here is irrational and totally off topic. Could you somehow tie this into a thread about a no knock warrant in Arkansas? That would be great, thanks!

edit: speaking of irrational!

There are policemen who conduct themselves as honorably as they can, despite the lack of monetary incentive to improve themselves and their department.

Not everybody thinks or conducts their life purely on financial terms. I didn't join the Coast Guard because of monetary incentive, I did it because I believe in what the Guard does. People behave honorably because of their morals, values and ethics, not because there is a financial reward involved. A few lines down you state that police forces could be privatized. Wouldn't a private force have even more incentive to make sure their contract gets renewed? I'll stick with the .gov run forces, thank you!

 

[Sans Authoritas]

so that rather windy avoidance another example of carrying the fight home?

the question posed is can you cite an example , outside your imagination, where a privatized police force worked?

There was no avoidance. The answer was in my reply to you, if you could see.

Telecoms Thriving In Lawless Somalia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm

There, every establishment that wants to has its own armed guards. The people are armed. There are tribe-based courts. It works.

Look, no stoplights in the Netherlands, without "blood in the streets" over traffic accidents. http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

Iceland operated well for three centuries with market-based everything. Is human nature different there? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

Here's a question for you, Cassandras. What institution, group, or corporation has the means or incentive to kill 200,000,000 people in the span of a single century, without the power to tax and the power to force other people to fight for its continued existence?

Anarchy could never achieve so much slaughter. Law-writing, tax-based governments did. In the 20th Century.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

let me get this right you are touting somalia as a success story?! you got the drawstring on that black hoody pulled too tite?

no one has ever used speigel and lew rockwell in the same post before i admire your willingness to own up with your roots


"The plans derive inspiration and motivation from a large-scale experiment in the town of Drachten in the Netherlands, which has 45,000 inhabitants. There, cars have already been driving over red natural stone for years. Cyclists dutifully raise their arm when they want to make a turn, and drivers communicate by hand signs, nods and waving.

"More than half of our signs have already been scrapped," says traffic planner Koop Kerkstra. "Only two out of our original 18 traffic light crossings are left, and we've converted them to roundabouts." Now traffic is regulated by only two rules in Drachten: "Yield to the right" and "Get in someone's way and you'll be towed."

Strange as it may seem, the number of accidents has declined dramatically. Experts from Argentina and the United States have visited Drachten. Even London has expressed an interest in this new example of automobile anarchy. And the model is being tested in the British capital's Kensington neighborhood."

so you want the experiment going on in 45,000 person ton to be represented as

"Look, no stoplights in the Netherlands, without "blood in the streets" over traffic accidents."

you need to get involved in politics shame not to fully utilize that kinda fact stretching to the fullest


and did you read the iceland link?

"Can the experience of Icelandic Vikings eight centuries ago teach us a lesson about the dangers of privatization? Jared Diamond thinks so. In his article "Living on the Moon," published in the May 23, 2002, issue of the New York Review of Books, Diamond portrays the history of Iceland in the Viking period as a nightmarish vision of privatization run amuck.



Libertarian scholars and free-market enthusiasts have often pointed to the Icelandic Free State (930-1262) as a positive example of a society that functioned successfully with little or no government control. Writing in the Journal of Legal Studies, economist David Friedman observes that the Free State "might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions." As Diamond himself notes:

"Medieval Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. … Of the normal functions of governments elsewhere, some did not exist in Iceland, and others were privatized, including fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor."

But unlike those who see who see the Icelandic system as a model to emulate, Diamond charges that the Free State’s excessively privatized character made it radically unstable, ultimately leading to the system’s violent collapse in 1262; his essay has already been cited by The American Prospect as a crucial resource for those "making the case against privatization and shrinking government." So who’s right? Does medieval Iceland illustrate privatization’s benefits, or its hazards?"

the system died 8 centuries ago but the hoody crowd wants to bring it back how about leeches bloodletting and testing witches by imersion? what other improvements you got for us?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

heck sans ghenghis khan killed 1/3 the folks on earth with a fairly short list of laws

 

[Old Dog]

SA, this is the best you can come up with?

Telecoms Thriving In Lawless Somalia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm

There, every establishment that wants to has its own armed guards. The people are armed. There are tribe-based courts. It works.

[Have you been to Somalia? I have, admittedly not too recently, though. But if you desire to use Somalia as an example of successful privatized law enforcement, have at it ... ]

Look, no stoplights in the Netherlands, without "blood in the streets" over traffic accidents. http://www.spiegel.de/international/...448747,00.html

[Gee, there's a stellar example of how lack of traffic law enforcement in a country with far less automobile traffic than ours pertains to our sorry lack of freedom in the U.S. -- oh, wait -- stoplights? Never mind.]

Iceland operated well for three centuries with market-based everything. Is human nature different there? http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html

[Yessir, proof positive that capitalism thrives in a country with a population of 316,000.]

Note: Upon further review, I am becoming convinced that Sans Authoritas is sitting back in his desk chair, chuckling like hell, wildly amused at just how far he can get this thread to drift off topic ...

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Old Dog,

It seems that you are confusing "civil society" with "tax funded government." Order is not maintained from the top down with violence. It flows from the bottom up. A society can peacefully interact without direction or guidance from one power that "overawes" the others, contrary to Hobbes. No society can exist where everyone tried to swindle and rob his neighbor. It would tear itself apart. every chance it gets. And no governmental system based on taxes will ever stay small and docile.

You're talking as though a tax funded government is necessary to create order. The only thing that is necessary are social norms against things that are obviously violations of the life, liberty and property rights of others.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[coloradokevin]

There was no avoidance. The answer was in my reply to you, if you could see.

Telecoms Thriving In Lawless Somalia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm

There, every establishment that wants to has its own armed guards. The people are armed. There are tribe-based courts. It works.

Wow!

That just says it all. I had decided to be done with this thread until I saw Somalia being touted as a story of the success of a civilization.

And, sorry, but the privatization of police units is a horrible idea. I could think of no better way to directly hand the power to the rich elite than to turn all lawful protection to the hands of those that can pay for it. Sure, maybe you can afford an armed officer or two... But, I bet Microsoft could afford more. The Telcoms are reportedly thriving in Somolia, but how would you or I do? I guess you'd rather have profit driven corporations running the world, then our own government?

If that is our only means of law enforcement, than who keeps them honest? The almighty dollar... Yeah, I bet that would work.

Sans, I still maintain that you are advocating an imaginary version of anarchy in which our society works together in harmony, holding hands while singing "We are the World". Apparently, I'm not the only one that has received this impression from you.

Our society isn't perfect now... But I don't think removing all forms of law and order would make it better!

 

[Nolo]

My view on no-knock warrants:
They are entirely unnecessary and very harmful.
If you have a compound, house, etc. that you feel is dangerous enough to enter without announcing your presence, then you should also take the time to secure all exits, which pretty much negates the need for a NKE (which, I believe, is designed to prevent escape).
So all it is there for is to inspire fear, or for no reason at all.
Okay, please do not take this as cop-bashing, I know several fine LEOs (though, admittedly, I've never had a pleasant encounter with the law), but I think that it is of the direst importance that Law Enforcement Agencies keep a much higher standard of scrutiny and attention to detail and caution than I see them keeping. There are notable and plentiful exceptions, but that is not good enough, LEAs everywhere need to make sure that they are on their toes all the time.
Letting a drug dealer escape is a setback, a tragedy, even.
But shooting/killing an innocent? That's inexcusable, and it makes my blood boil.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

And, sorry, but the privatization of police units is a horrible idea. I could think of no better way to directly hand the power to the rich elite than to turn all lawful protection to the hands of those that can pay for it.

"To directly hand the power to the rich elite?" Instead of what? Currently having it in the hands of... the people who have it no matter what? (And if you're rich, you can still buy them off.)

Sure, maybe you can afford an armed officer or two... But, I bet Microsoft could afford more.

The more armed people there are, the less need there will be.

The Telcoms are reportedly thriving in Somolia, but how would you or I do? I guess you'd rather have profit driven corporations running the world, then our own government?

A profit-driven corporation? What is the government? A bunch of people who suddenly have nothing but the common good in their hearts and minds once they get office? Government is the biggest union, the biggest profit-based corporation on the face of the earth. And its services are garbage, because its income is assured. No one can take their business elsewhere because the money that could otherwise be used by businessmen is being confiscated. It is the most violent, most unnatural monopoly in existence.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[hobgob]

fishy.... its too bad stuff went down like that, but to me it still sounds fishy, the guy is friends with car thieves and has a sister(jeweler or dealer?) with a scale and baggies around the house. there is more to this story. The author of the article is obviously rooting for the other side.

 

[dm1333]

And how does this tie in with no knock warrants?

I asked. Twice. Nicely, even. I still can't believe that you brought up Somalia, where 300,000 or so people have died since 1991, and had the nerve to write

There, every establishment that wants to has its own armed guards. The people are armed. There are tribe-based courts. It works.

My question to you is, do you really care about this particular no knock warrant thread or are you just using this as an excuse to jump up on your soap box again? Very little of what you have posted here seems related to the thread or the forum. Do you intentionally come here to cause thread drift or are you unable to control yourself?


Nolo, I wouldn't take anything in your post as cop bashing. I feel the same way about the death penalty, it would sure suck to be wrongly convicted and put to death.

 

[Nolo]

Thanks, DM.
There seems to be this idea that police should be less well trained than military personnel.
If anything, I think they should have training levels right up there with SEALs and Rangers, with integrity levels that would make Jesus blush.
Of course, we can't have everything.
*sigh*

 

[Erik]

Nolo.
No-knock warrants are not about preventing escape. Your arguments... well, they're built on an incorrect premise.

 

[plexreticle]

Other than a hostage situation I can see no reason for a judge to allow a no knock warrant. It's a tool developed make the job of the police easier while endangering the surrounding community.

When will Americans understand the government is suppose to be working for the citizens?

No knocks warrants, police check points, zero tolerance policies, mandatory sentencing. 50 years ago who would think this would be a normal part of living in the USA?