39 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
39.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 17, 2015, 13:27
39.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2015, 13:27
Jan 17, 2015, 13:27
 
LittleMe wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:13:
You are all a bunch of socialist control freaks. The nazi swat teams shouldn't exist in the first place. 30 day sentence is plenty for someone to think about what they've done, especially after the whole trial fiasco. Maybe a repeat offender increase the sentence to six months in the worst case. Yes if someone is shot or killed then that might be grounds for holding the caller partially responsible but the swat teams take a lot of that responsibility for their own behavior too.

edit: this is a case where the feds make especially cruel and unusual punishments for people interfering with them. All that does is escalate things further over time (blowback).

Of course swat teams need to exist and they have nothing to do with the nazis which was a political party that hasn't been around for a long time. They don't need to be used in every circumstance and aren't but saying 'we dont need them' is just ludicrous. 30 days for something that get could the police or a civilian hurt/killed is bullshit too.

Wait, I remember you. You're the 9/11 conspiracy guy. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Avatar 57682
38.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 17, 2015, 04:40
38.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2015, 04:40
Jan 17, 2015, 04:40
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 23:27:

We will take it offline sometime....i am exhausted and can't even string thoughts together....I think we would have a good chat....

No problem man. I know you come here to chill.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
37.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 17, 2015, 04:38
37.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2015, 04:38
Jan 17, 2015, 04:38
 
NKD wrote on Jan 17, 2015, 02:00:
Don't bother debating the police issue in this country with cops. Those guys are a tight knit bunch who tolerate no dissent or disagreement with what they do. Literally everything they do that comes under scrutiny their little union has some kind of flimsy excuse for, up to and including murder of unarmed suspects and highway robbery, oh, sorry, "civil asset forfeiture."

I disagree. There are police out there that have control freak personalities, but they are a small minority. The majority are thoughtful people who heed the call to service and have a strong sense of justice. I have a couple friends who are police officers: one a town LEO and one a State officer. They're cool-headed, intelligent, and fair, just the kind of people you want in law enforcement.

The main problems with law enforcement today aren't the people, but stem from federal laws. The civil asset forfeiture law should never have been written, but it's on the books and it's hard to blame departments that use it to fund themselves. Unfortunately, the way it's written leads to abuse. Luckily AG Holder has suspended the law indefinitely starting immediately. The other problem is Program 1033 which diverts military surplus to police departments. There are two problems with this. First, when you militarize the police you make civilians into the "enemy," and that manifests itself in poor treatment of the very people you're trying to protect. Second, you're providing extremely powerful military hardware without the training or guidelines to use it. This can lead to misuse, as we've seen in case after case.

People like Bats are the very people we want on the force: intelligent, tough but fair, not really ideological or dogmatic. I'm really interested in what he's got to say because he's got that LEO viewpoint, whereas I'm just looking at the stats and going "Holy shit." He can provide the context for that, and that's something I'm really interested in hearing about.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
36.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 17, 2015, 02:00
36.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 17, 2015, 02:00
Jan 17, 2015, 02:00
 
Don't bother debating the police issue in this country with cops. Those guys are a tight knit bunch who tolerate no dissent or disagreement with what they do. Literally everything they do that comes under scrutiny their little union has some kind of flimsy excuse for, up to and including murder of unarmed suspects and highway robbery, oh, sorry, "civil asset forfeiture."
Burrito of Peace wrote:
tell them their DMCA doesn't mean shit and to go eat a bowl of dicks.
Formerly known as NKD
Avatar 43041
35.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 23:27
35.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 23:27
Jan 16, 2015, 23:27
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 21:53:
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 17:58:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 17:27:
LittleMe wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:13:
You are all a bunch of socialist control freaks. The nazi swat teams shouldn't exist in the first place. 30 day sentence is plenty for someone to think about what they've done, especially after the whole trial fiasco. Maybe a repeat offender increase the sentence to six months in the worst case. Yes if someone is shot or killed then that might be grounds for holding the caller partially responsible but the swat teams take a lot of that responsibility for their own behavior too.

edit: this is a case where the feds make especially cruel and unusual punishments for people interfering with them. All that does is escalate things further over time (blowback).

We're not pro-SWAT, we're anti-SWATting. The militarization of police forces is a different issue entirely. I agree that they shouldn't exist, and a whole raft of "crimes" should be misdemeanors, not felonies as they currently are. This whole "war" on drugs bullshit has to stop, as do no-knock raids and server warrants with SWAT teams, and surplus military equipment needs to stop going to police departments.

I agree with everything you said, as long as the bad guys don't have rifles. But, they do. So we are going to use everything we can get our hands on. Cause family.

I don't think you and I are very far apart. I think the police should have access to rifles. It's not the primary weapon you carry on your person, but there are rare times where it might be needed. What I oppose:

- Military equipment like APCs and sniper rifles going to regular police departments. It gets misused, and precludes other avenues of conflict resolution. Limit it to SWAT teams that have the training.

- Essentially end no-knock warrants. They've increased from 3000 a year in the '80s to 80,000 a year today. They're extremely dangerous to both police and civilian, and are unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

- Use SWAT teams when all other avenues have been exhausted. It seems they're often the first choice these days, not the last.

- Essentially end the war on drugs. Make possession and even intent to sell misdemeanors. Undercut drug dealers by making drugs available to addicts for a cheap prescription price if they agree to attend counseling. It's a small price to pay to get clean drugs at a 95% discount, and it will greatly reduce all the crime associated with drug acquisition: theft, robbery, prostitution, etc.

We will take it offline sometime....i am exhausted and can't even string thoughts together....I think we would have a good chat....
34.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 21:53
34.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 21:53
Jan 16, 2015, 21:53
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 17:58:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 17:27:
LittleMe wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:13:
You are all a bunch of socialist control freaks. The nazi swat teams shouldn't exist in the first place. 30 day sentence is plenty for someone to think about what they've done, especially after the whole trial fiasco. Maybe a repeat offender increase the sentence to six months in the worst case. Yes if someone is shot or killed then that might be grounds for holding the caller partially responsible but the swat teams take a lot of that responsibility for their own behavior too.

edit: this is a case where the feds make especially cruel and unusual punishments for people interfering with them. All that does is escalate things further over time (blowback).

We're not pro-SWAT, we're anti-SWATting. The militarization of police forces is a different issue entirely. I agree that they shouldn't exist, and a whole raft of "crimes" should be misdemeanors, not felonies as they currently are. This whole "war" on drugs bullshit has to stop, as do no-knock raids and server warrants with SWAT teams, and surplus military equipment needs to stop going to police departments.

I agree with everything you said, as long as the bad guys don't have rifles. But, they do. So we are going to use everything we can get our hands on. Cause family.

I don't think you and I are very far apart. I think the police should have access to rifles. It's not the primary weapon you carry on your person, but there are rare times where it might be needed. What I oppose:

- Military equipment like APCs and sniper rifles going to regular police departments. It gets misused, and precludes other avenues of conflict resolution. Limit it to SWAT teams that have the training.

- Essentially end no-knock warrants. They've increased from 3000 a year in the '80s to 80,000 a year today. They're extremely dangerous to both police and civilian, and are unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

- Use SWAT teams when all other avenues have been exhausted. It seems they're often the first choice these days, not the last.

- Essentially end the war on drugs. Make possession and even intent to sell misdemeanors. Undercut drug dealers by making drugs available to addicts for a cheap prescription price if they agree to attend counseling. It's a small price to pay to get clean drugs at a 95% discount, and it will greatly reduce all the crime associated with drug acquisition: theft, robbery, prostitution, etc.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
33.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 18:24
33.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 18:24
Jan 16, 2015, 18:24
 
Five years seems like a good amount. No respect for those who do 'swatting'.
32.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 18:11
32.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 18:11
Jan 16, 2015, 18:11
 
Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:33:
NegaDeath wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:28:
SWAT teams are necessary. They are absolutely over-used these days but they are still needed for situations too dangerous for a normally equipped and trained officer.

The SWAT teams are called in expecting a dangerous situation. Normal people panic when the SWAT bust in. Panicked people make bad decisions, officers expecting violence will be in reaction mode. The potential for injury or death is too high. That they both know the danger and intentionally make the deception anyways makes it willful endangerment of life and it requires more than 30 days.

That might be true, if only it weren't. In actuality, SWAT teams are frequently used in *all* situations. There was a good propublica.org article recently describing this situation.

https://www.propublica.org/article/flashbangs

Using SWAT teams is unwarranted and extremely dangerous to the general public.

You are a joke....sir.
31.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 17:58
31.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 17:58
Jan 16, 2015, 17:58
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 17:27:
LittleMe wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:13:
You are all a bunch of socialist control freaks. The nazi swat teams shouldn't exist in the first place. 30 day sentence is plenty for someone to think about what they've done, especially after the whole trial fiasco. Maybe a repeat offender increase the sentence to six months in the worst case. Yes if someone is shot or killed then that might be grounds for holding the caller partially responsible but the swat teams take a lot of that responsibility for their own behavior too.

edit: this is a case where the feds make especially cruel and unusual punishments for people interfering with them. All that does is escalate things further over time (blowback).

We're not pro-SWAT, we're anti-SWATting. The militarization of police forces is a different issue entirely. I agree that they shouldn't exist, and a whole raft of "crimes" should be misdemeanors, not felonies as they currently are. This whole "war" on drugs bullshit has to stop, as do no-knock raids and server warrants with SWAT teams, and surplus military equipment needs to stop going to police departments.

I agree with everything you said, as long as the bad guys don't have rifles. But, they do. So we are going to use everything we can get our hands on. Cause family.
30.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 17:57
30.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 17:57
Jan 16, 2015, 17:57
 
NegaDeath wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 15:41:
Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:33:
That might be true, if only it weren't. In actuality, SWAT teams are frequently used in *all* situations. There was a good propublica.org article recently describing this situation.

Which is why I said they were "absolutely overused these days".

Beamer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:39:
The militarization of the police has been insane. Damn near every town now has a SWAT team armed well enough to make 1980s LA SWAT teams jealous, but without the training or the need.

Same as above. Don't disagree with you guys on militarization.

*sigh.

SWAT teams are rarely used.
29.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 17:56
29.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 17:56
Jan 16, 2015, 17:56
 
Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:07:
MEAHT wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 11:57:
Puts officers at risk

But more importantly it puts you, your wife your kids and any pets with even a hint of a growl at risk.

Puts officers at risk? Couldn't care less for them since that is what they signed up for. They are civil servants who put their lives at stake to protect the innocent. Cases like this, I worry more for those that officers are sworn to protect since you can't count on cops to protect them.

It's more likely those swatted will have flashbangs used against them and be indiscriminately hurt without recourse than any cop being harmed.

oh man, so much wrong in this post it makes my nose bleed. I don't have enough deodorant on to respond, just easier to put you on the tard filter.....
28.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 17:54
28.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 17:54
Jan 16, 2015, 17:54
 
MEAHT wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 11:57:

Then a cop finds a joint on me and puts me in jail for 30 days...kidding me man?!

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....if you spent 30 days in jail - there is A WHOLE LOT MORE TO THAT STORY. Cause that isn't legally possible, nor would they waste their time.
27.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 17:49
27.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 17:49
Jan 16, 2015, 17:49
 
Teenager arrested over PSN and Xbox Live DDoS attacks.

That kid is marked for life - if he had waited a few more years and worked for the government, it wouldn't have been illegal......

Fuggin crooks.
26.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 17:27
26.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 17:27
Jan 16, 2015, 17:27
 
LittleMe wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:13:
You are all a bunch of socialist control freaks. The nazi swat teams shouldn't exist in the first place. 30 day sentence is plenty for someone to think about what they've done, especially after the whole trial fiasco. Maybe a repeat offender increase the sentence to six months in the worst case. Yes if someone is shot or killed then that might be grounds for holding the caller partially responsible but the swat teams take a lot of that responsibility for their own behavior too.

edit: this is a case where the feds make especially cruel and unusual punishments for people interfering with them. All that does is escalate things further over time (blowback).

We're not pro-SWAT, we're anti-SWATting. The militarization of police forces is a different issue entirely. I agree that they shouldn't exist, and a whole raft of "crimes" should be misdemeanors, not felonies as they currently are. This whole "war" on drugs bullshit has to stop, as do no-knock raids and server warrants with SWAT teams, and surplus military equipment needs to stop going to police departments.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
25.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 17:23
25.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 17:23
Jan 16, 2015, 17:23
 
Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:07:
MEAHT wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 11:57:
Puts officers at risk

But more importantly it puts you, your wife your kids and any pets with even a hint of a growl at risk.

Puts officers at risk? Couldn't care less for them since that is what they signed up for. They are civil servants who put their lives at stake to protect the innocent. Cases like this, I worry more for those that officers are sworn to protect since you can't count on cops to protect them.
Well, yes, but they didn't sign up to go on FAKE calls. It's unnecessarily risking their lives. Accidents happen when you deploy with all that equipment. Falsely calling in a hostage situation is a serious crime. And that says nothing about the people being swatted who are at even greater risk, as you mention.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
24.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 17:19
24.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 17:19
Jan 16, 2015, 17:19
 
LittleMe wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 10:59:
I could see a 30 day jail sentence as reasonable but five years? Waaaay over the top and not beneficial to anyone.

Five is probably a bit much, but 30 days is way to little. Swatting is serious, with high probability of injury or death, and a waste and stress on law enforcement. I'd say 2-3 years of jail for something like that, but I'm having a hard time mustering outrage for 5.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
Avatar 22024
23.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 15:41
23.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 15:41
Jan 16, 2015, 15:41
 
Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:33:
That might be true, if only it weren't. In actuality, SWAT teams are frequently used in *all* situations. There was a good propublica.org article recently describing this situation.

Which is why I said they were "absolutely overused these days".

Beamer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:39:
The militarization of the police has been insane. Damn near every town now has a SWAT team armed well enough to make 1980s LA SWAT teams jealous, but without the training or the need.

Same as above. Don't disagree with you guys on militarization.
Avatar 57352
22.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:39
22.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:39
Jan 16, 2015, 14:39
 
NegaDeath wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:28:
SWAT teams are necessary.

SWAT teams, as a thing, are necessary, just like patents are necessary and mosquitoes are necessary and bottled water is necessary.

SWAT teams, individually, often have no reason to exist and there are way too many of them, just like patents, mosquitoes and bottled water.

The militarization of the police has been insane. Damn near every town now has a SWAT team armed well enough to make 1980s LA SWAT teams jealous, but without the training or the need.
21.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:38
21.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:38
Jan 16, 2015, 14:38
 
Beamer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:23:
LittleMe wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:13:
You are all a bunch of socialist control freaks. The nazi swat teams shouldn't exist in the first place.

These are different problems, no?

The two are associated, IMO. The fascism is type of socialism: 'national socialism.' The two rely on each other. Indeed we have a left and right wing in government who are partnered. It's not left vs right, it's left -and- right together, both of which are nationalist parties (control freaks). Topic for another discussion one day maybe.

Beamer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:23:
I mean, if someone robs a store with an assault rifle, do you lessen the charges because you (a hypothetical you, not LittleMe) think more gun control is needed and therefore the gun shouldn't exist?

No, that's a different analogy.

Beamer wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:23:
No. The gun does exist, it's dangerous, and someone is exploiting that.
Many SWAT teams in the US shouldn't exist, but they do, and they can be very dangerous, particularly when there's a misunderstanding, and they're also very expensive to send out on call.

All true, but five years in the pen is far too much IMO. That's cruel and unusual, even if only half served.

Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
20.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:33
20.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:33
Jan 16, 2015, 14:33
 
NegaDeath wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 14:28:
SWAT teams are necessary. They are absolutely over-used these days but they are still needed for situations too dangerous for a normally equipped and trained officer.

The SWAT teams are called in expecting a dangerous situation. Normal people panic when the SWAT bust in. Panicked people make bad decisions, officers expecting violence will be in reaction mode. The potential for injury or death is too high. That they both know the danger and intentionally make the deception anyways makes it willful endangerment of life and it requires more than 30 days.

That might be true, if only it weren't. In actuality, SWAT teams are frequently used in *all* situations. There was a good propublica.org article recently describing this situation.

https://www.propublica.org/article/flashbangs

Using SWAT teams is unwarranted and extremely dangerous to the general public.
Avatar 55372
39 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older