39 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
19.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:28
19.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:28
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.
Avatar 57352
18.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:23
18.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:23
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?

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. 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.
17.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:21
17.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:21
Jan 16, 2015, 14:21
 
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.

First off, I don't believe in the militarization of police forces. Secondly, I take offense at your comment of "socialist control freaks". It doesn't take a so-called socialist control freak to see that what this country is doing is anything but non-democratic.

Socialists are for the people--Nazis are fascists. There's a difference.
Avatar 55372
16.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:13
16.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:13
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).

This comment was edited on Jan 16, 2015, 14:18.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
15.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:12
15.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:12
Jan 16, 2015, 14:12
 
fyi, TOR has been hacked, don't use it.
14.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 14:07
14.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 14:07
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.
Avatar 55372
13.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 11:58
13.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 11:58
Jan 16, 2015, 11:58
 
Creston wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 11:49:
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.

Bullshit. Sending a SWAT team to someone's house "for the lulz" runs the very real risk of those people actually BEING FUCKING KILLED for no other reason than that some shitbag online took some kind of offense at something they said.

Fuck that thirty days noise.

Exactly. Lots of innocent people are killed by asshole SWAT teams all the time. They need to nip this in the bud and set a strong example. It's like lasering planes and such. 5 years is more than fair for this sort of stupidity. With time served he'd only likely serve an actual year in a minimal facility anyway. Those are really little more than country clubs. No one should have any sympathy for a moron who would do something like this.
"Joey, do you ever hang around the gymnasium?" - Captain Clarence Oveur
Avatar 25394
12.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 11:57
12.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 11:57
Jan 16, 2015, 11:57
 
are you fucking kidding me? this asshole should be in jail for life.
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.

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

FOR LIFE. 4 LIFE. FO LIFE.
11.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 11:55
11.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 11:55
Jan 16, 2015, 11:55
 
garrywong wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 10:58:
No, they don't. It takes effort and time and even a little legal process to do that. But by visiting their website they simply plant spyware on your PC and bam! No need for no process. Go read up on the documents that Snowden had leaked, if you're still not up to date with that.

Um yeah they do, or maybe you've missed everything the NSA and other global intel agencies have been doing since 9/11. You have all kinds of data about you sitting on various government servers. Your privacy is an illusion, much like your freedom.
"Joey, do you ever hang around the gymnasium?" - Captain Clarence Oveur
Avatar 25394
10.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 11:49
10.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 11:49
Jan 16, 2015, 11:49
 
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.

Bullshit. Sending a SWAT team to someone's house "for the lulz" runs the very real risk of those people actually BEING FUCKING KILLED for no other reason than that some shitbag online took some kind of offense at something they said.

Fuck that thirty days noise.
Avatar 15604
9.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 11:23
9.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 11:23
Jan 16, 2015, 11:23
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 11:20:
mag wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 11:06:
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.

30 days? A huge waste of manpower and a totally not insignificant chance that the SWAT team shoots someone in the raided place. Throw him away for life. He's 33 years old, it's not like a little kid did it.

5 years is a pretty long time. Seems appropriate in this case. I could certainly see a much longer sentence if someone had been killed or injured.

I'd even edge on the side of 2 years. Jail is over crowded as is, and the point is to make it known they don't take it lightly, but also it shouldn't destroy his life per say either. Even after getting out of jail it will be on his record and its going to be a long hard road to become useful to society again.
8.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 11:22
8.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 11:22
Jan 16, 2015, 11:22
 
garrywong wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 10:58:
No, they don't. It takes effort and time and even a little legal process to do that. But by visiting their website they simply plant spyware on your PC and bam! No need for no process. Go read up on the documents that Snowden had leaked, if you're still not up to date with that.

Don't think I caught that said before. Time to go read more.
7.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 11:20
7.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 11:20
Jan 16, 2015, 11:20
 
mag wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 11:06:
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.

30 days? A huge waste of manpower and a totally not insignificant chance that the SWAT team shoots someone in the raided place. Throw him away for life. He's 33 years old, it's not like a little kid did it.

5 years is a pretty long time. Seems appropriate in this case. I could certainly see a much longer sentence if someone had been killed or injured.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
6.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 11:06
mag
6.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 11:06
Jan 16, 2015, 11:06
mag
 
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.

30 days? A huge waste of manpower and a totally not insignificant chance that the SWAT team shoots someone in the raided place. Throw him away for life. He's 33 years old, it's not like a little kid did it.
5.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 10:59
5.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 10:59
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.
Perpetual debt is slavery.
Avatar 23321
4.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 10:58
4.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 10:58
Jan 16, 2015, 10:58
 
Deathman29 wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 10:53:
Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 10:34:
garrywong wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:45:
Man, would you please not link directly to US government websites?
I let my guard down for a second and opened it. Now I will need a new hard disk...

I second this. I would never, knowingly, visit a government site.

Talk about paranoid... What you didn't know is they already have access to your PC if they choose to do so. In other words, don't go online if you don't want the government to track you.

No, they don't. It takes effort and time and even a little legal process to do that. But by visiting their website they simply plant spyware on your PC and bam! No need for no process. Go read up on the documents that Snowden had leaked, if you're still not up to date with that.
3.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 10:53
3.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 10:53
Jan 16, 2015, 10:53
 
Killswitch wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 10:34:
garrywong wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:45:
Man, would you please not link directly to US government websites?
I let my guard down for a second and opened it. Now I will need a new hard disk...

I second this. I would never, knowingly, visit a government site.

Talk about paranoid... What you didn't know is they already have access to your PC if they choose to do so. In other words, don't go online if you don't want the government to track you.
2.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 10:34
2.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 10:34
Jan 16, 2015, 10:34
 
garrywong wrote on Jan 16, 2015, 09:45:
Man, would you please not link directly to US government websites?
I let my guard down for a second and opened it. Now I will need a new hard disk...

I second this. I would never, knowingly, visit a government site.
Avatar 55372
1.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jan 16, 2015, 09:45
1.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jan 16, 2015, 09:45
Jan 16, 2015, 09:45
 
Man, would you please not link directly to US government websites?
I let my guard down for a second and opened it. Now I will need a new hard disk...
39 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older