Drug Raid Goes Viral
despite all the anger the raid has inspired, the only thing unusual thing here is that the raid was captured on video
18 Responses to “Drug Raid Goes Viral”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 13th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Thanks for keeping up with this story Uncle.
I think a lot of gun people concentrate on the 2nd amendment and tend to forget the rest.
Government abuses and encroachments need to fought with as much vigor and motivation as the latest AWB coming through congress.
Freedom is Freedom.
Otter
May 13th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I’m going to paraphrase what I posted in the original. Hating on the cops won’t change anything. However, electing people that want to end the disastrous war on drugs can and will change a great deal. Cops just enforce the laws that are written by the people we willingly elect. They shot your dog, you say? Too bad, because someone you elected said it’s OK to do that. Look in the mirror, check yourself before you wreck yourself. Word.
May 13th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Absolutely, Mike. The police are mindless automatons who do as they’re told by their political masters. No discretion, no mercy. After all, we asked for it!
May 13th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Mike:
While you do have a point, you’re really not stating it very well.
However, electing people that want to end the disastrous war on drugs can and will change a great deal.
So would not hiring cops who shoot harmless dogs, and not protecting those that do. In fact, it would make a lot faster change than elections and new laws.
The drug laws, and how we enforce them are worthy topics – but they’re seperate. The cops didn’t have to shoot the dogs, they could probably well have pointed out that that raid wasn’t a good idea for all the reasons being pointed out now, and they could have waited for someone to open the door, which, as I understand it, they were legally supposed to do.
Drug war’s bad. Let’s end it, sure. But that’s not why those cops were so eager to take the door down and shoot dogs that weren’t a threat to them.
They shot your dog, you say? Too bad, because someone you elected said it’s OK to do that.
There’s a good rule of thumb when it comes to holes. When you’re in one, stop digging. I’d suggest that you consider that, Mike.
May 13th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Unix,
SWAT team members are authorized to shoot dogs, and will continue to do so, not because of an HR interview gone wrong but because the unfortunate policies governing the use of force allow it. Friend, the people you and I vote for write those policies or appoint the people that do. I see no holes, neither in that argument, or the one you think I’m digging.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Mike:
not because of an HR interview gone wrong but because the unfortunate policies governing the use of force allow it
That sounds better in the original German.
I see no holes, neither in that argument, or the one you think I’m digging.
Regardless of what they were “authorized” to do, the cops who shot a dog who was not a threat to them demonstrate the failure of the people behind the badges, armor, guns, and battering rams.
Insofar as “ending the drug war” might mean those sorts are unemployed and looking for other jobs that allow them to throw their weight around, they’d otherwise be on the force enforcing other laws, that they’d be “authorized” for.
Complain about the laws if you like, but being “authorized” to shoot dogs, and gunning down dogs because you _can_ demonstrates a far larger failure in the people we’re putting in those jobs, not the ones giving them the continuum of force.
There’s a lot of reason to authorize someone to shoot a dog that’s a danger.
What you’re missing in all the dirt you’re throwing over your shoulder, is the video demonstrates _how_ they used their _authority_.
They’ll have that authority, even if drugs, themselves, are “legal”.
The mentality to use that authority in that way is the problem. (And I actually wrote it originally with the freudian slip of calling it the Eric Cartman “Authoritah”. )
Either that, or I’m totally misreading you, and you’re actually advocating removing the authority to use force? If you’re not, then you’re digging deeper.
May 14th, 2010 at 7:36 am
NO, Hell NO! What will change it is when the people become angry enough that they drag these thugs to the nearest lamppost and hang them, THEN go for their bosses.
I know, not nice. But if you really want it to change that is what it is going to take.
May 14th, 2010 at 8:41 am
How about a view from one of the most respected constitutionalists alive today… Nepalitano sets it up and slams it home in this clip, watch the Mayor become Mayor “light”. No question that those in charge of this raid should be held criminally liable, how do they control the populace; by example, just as we should hold them accountable. These officers should be brought up on charges, the top brass should take the brunt and officers that complied willfully violating their oaths to the constitution should receive a lesser charge, that will get their attention. The officer or officers that killed the dog should be charged with animal cruelty and unwarranted use of lethal force against a non violent offense. If you live in the South and are waiting for anyone to challenge the boys in blue via elections you are going to be in for a long, long wait, as the status quo in the South thinks that police force is a moral high ground. Here is the skinny from the judge.
http://blounttruthvideo.blogspot.com/2010/05/nepalitano-is-true-american.html
May 14th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Unix,
I think I’ve made my point clear enough. Being angry at cops is the easy reaction. Getting people to vote differently is the harder reaction.
May 14th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Blounttruth, that’s too bad about the South. I guess the people there are OK with how their police departments operate. If they weren’t then they’d elect people who would change the things that they don’t like. Seems simple to me.
May 14th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
and with post 6, Unix Jedi validates Godwin’s Law.
May 14th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Mike:
I think I’ve made my point clear enough.
Not unless it was “They were just following orders.”
If that’s the case, yes, you made it. If it’s not, then no, you didn’t.
Those officers are presumable driving police cars, yes? Would you consider it reasonable for them to drive them at 100 MPH, just because they have that “authority”? Anywhere?
It’s the exact same thing here. People are angry at the cops because they misused their authority.
Voting differently (to allow drug use) doesn’t change that in the slightest.
What, exactly, is your point?
May 14th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Unix, let me spell it out for you one more time: Yes they were just following orders, and that’s most certainly our fault.
May 14th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Mike:
That’s not a point that’s substantiated by anything you’ve said above.
And it’s a point that’s demonstrably wrong, using any reasonably standard of behavior.
They didn’t have orders to shoot wildly, they didn’t have orders to fail to wait for someone to answer the door.
How was that our fault?
Because we have things that are illegal? We’ve voted for people who have made activities illegal?
The only logical way to follow your “point” out is to not have _anything_ be illegal. Period. And no cops.
And I suppose, if you take it out that far, yes, you’ve got a valid point. But that’s flights of fancy long past where Mises will fear to tread.
And I don’t _believe_, but I could be wrong, that that’s what you mean, but you’re being remarkably uncooperative in explaining your stance, other than it “wasn’t the cop who pulled the trigger’s fault”.
Well, Mike, yes, yes it was, and he or she shouldn’t have been a cop in the first place, and he or she should definitely not be a cop now, and there are lots more who need to be weeded out, because their judgment is just as bad, and they cannot be trusted with the authority that’s vested in them. (That’s how you make a point, by the way.)
May 14th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Unix, forget it bro.
May 14th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Mike:
“Look in the mirror, check yourself before you wreck yourself. Word.”
That goes for commenting, too.
May 14th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Troll.
May 14th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Mike:
Yes, one of us has trolled here. One of us has posted outrageous claims, failed to reinforce them, and been vague.
Good luck under the bridge. Bro.