We want 100% protection and we don't want abuses of police power.
did they identify themselves as police, and if so, how is it that the head of the household was shooting at them?
It always represents some kind of tragedy in waiting when average citizens have enough firepower to take on the cops, or trick-or-treaters or whoever the next victim of household gun ownership is going to be.
Well, that was the whole point of my question. I don't automatically assume that they only yell "POLICE" once or twice BEFORE breaking down the door. There's nothing to prevent them from yelling "POLICE" over and over again, wearing distinctive police gear instantly identifiable to anyone drawing a bead on them and showing a warrant or at least claiming one. Some cops might be dumbass morons, but there must be at least one or two who will assume that their targets will be waking up from a deep sleep and not at their most analytical.
I would hope that the warrant would be issued only in the most exceptional circumstances
and the issuing authorities would consider among other factors whether the area where the raid is to be conducted has had a high number of recent armed home invasions.
<<As opposed to the tragedy of a person or family getting killed because they had no means to defend themselves against people with violent intentions/inclinations? >>
That really doesn't seem to happen very much, I'm afraid.
Bullshit. The criminals should be weak and at the mercy of the police and the citizens will be safe from them, particularly if they are all either executed or serving lengthy jail terms at hard labour.
<<Hardly what I would call compassion for the well being of one's fellow humans.>>
So when was it exactly that cops stopped being our fellow humans?
Apparently Minneapolis police can do no wrong. After a raid into the wrong house on a December Sunday morning at 12:45, where in the father of the family fired at what he thought were robbers, and the wife had time to call 911 and report people breaking into the home before police identified themselves, an investigation was started to determine how the police could have made such a mistake. So, the residents of the house, including six children, are left dealing with bullet holes and the stress and trauma of the night, and meanwhile the police officers involved have been given medals and commendations.
http://wcco.com/iteam/swat.team.honored.2.783216.html (http://wcco.com/iteam/swat.team.honored.2.783216.html)
http://wcco.com/crime/minneapolis.police.raid.2.612926.html (http://wcco.com/crime/minneapolis.police.raid.2.612926.html)
http://wcco.com/iteam/i.team.police.2.651664.html (http://wcco.com/iteam/i.team.police.2.651664.html)
http://wcco.com/local/police.raid.house.2.613690.html (http://wcco.com/local/police.raid.house.2.613690.html)
Granted, I am a distant outsider to this. But I can't help thinking giving the officers medals is perhaps not really appropriate.
I would think that most political analysts, unless they're total anarchists, would have to agree that the state, be it left or right of centre, must enjoy a monopoly on violence.
If on balance the state abuses its monopoly more than the monopoly is worth, then it's time to overthrow the state and replace it with another one that doesn't.
I would think that most political analysts, unless they're total anarchists, would have to agree that the state, be it left or right of centre, must enjoy a monopoly on violence.
If on balance the state abuses its monopoly more than the monopoly is worth, then it's time to overthrow the state and replace it with another one that doesn't.
And how does a disarmed populace overthrow the state that has a total monopoly on violence and weapons?
It doesn't. I doubt that even a populace armed as the US populace is armed would actually be able to overthrow the government unless they could either enlist the support of part of the military and police, or at least gain enough influence with these so that they would refuse to fire on the citizens. This is hard to do: McArthur ordered the eviction of the largely peaceful Bonus Army in DC, and many were killed as the army evicted them and burned down the shantytown they had built.
]
Herbert Hoover was hardly a popular guy by this time, but the soldiers preferred to shoot veterans than to risk a court martial.
With the weapons the Army has now to control crowds and such, it would be exceedingly difficult to defeat the federal government, if not impossible.
I guess I just don't feel threatened by the extent of criminal violence to the extent that you do. I consider myself a pragmatist on this issue. If there really is rampant crime that the police can't control, then it would make a lot more sense to acquire a weapon and learn how to use it properly. I just don't live in that kind of fear and I don't know anyone who does. Even my family in the Detroit area (with one single exception, a Libertarian couple) don't see crime as a threat and don't arm themselves, and as far as I can tell, neither do any of their friends.
<<And how does a disarmed populace overthrow the state that has a total monopoly on violence and weapons?>>
You're kidding, right? One way is to resort to illegal activities and acquire weapons. Another way is to follow the path of non-violent resistance, proselytize, withdraw support and service till the whole thing collapses.
QuoteAnd how does a disarmed populace overthrow the state that has a total monopoly on violence and weapons?
It doesn't.
With the weapons the Army has now to control crowds and such, it would be exceedingly difficult to defeat the federal government, if not impossible.
Captain, I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars. No! In any free country, a policeman is supposed to enforce the law, and the law protects the guilty as well as the innocent.
--from the film "Touch of Evil"--
QuoteCaptain, I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars. No! In any free country, a policeman is supposed to enforce the law, and the law protects the guilty as well as the innocent.
--from the film "Touch of Evil"--
How does a policeman enforce the law without arrest?
Likely he doesn't. But that isn't what the quote is suggesting. But you know that.
What does the quote suggest?
The quote suggests that rather than assume guilt and expect innocence (or at least not guilty status) to be proven later, and rather than simply be out to get the bad guys, officers of the law are supposed to uphold the law even when the law gives protection to the bad guys and/or the guilty.
QuoteThe quote suggests that rather than assume guilt and expect innocence (or at least not guilty status) to be proven later, and rather than simply be out to get the bad guys, officers of the law are supposed to uphold the law even when the law gives protection to the bad guys and/or the guilty.
That makes no sense. The quote itself says officers are to enforce the law. Is the quote suggesting that the majority of arrests are unlawful?
Which brings us back full circle. How do you enforce the law, while upholding the law, without arrests.
This part indicates that arrests are not the favored action:
Captain, I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars.
Dog catchers are primarily charged with rounding up loose unleashed uncontrolled canines in violation of local ordinance. They either respond to a complaint or observe a transgression first hand. If they don't capture the strays they are derelict in their duties.
Can the same not be said for policemen?
The quote seems contradictory to me.
I don't believe i was criticizing the quote in your signature.
I didn't understand the contradictions built into it. And simply sought clarification. I took the quote at face value. The first sentence does seem to criticize arrest. In context.
And no i haven't seen the movie. Is that necessary to understand the quote?
I never placed a value to the quote. Never said it was anti-arrest or anti- police or anti-anything.
My point was it seemed to be contradictory.
And to me it still is.
| Quinlan: Our friend Vargas has some very special ideas about police procedure. He seems to think it don't matter whether killers hang or not, so long as we obey the fine print. Vargas: Captain, I don't think a policeman should work like a dog catcher in putting criminals behind bars. No! In any free country, a policeman is supposed to enforce the law, and the law protects the guilty as well as the innocent. Quinlan: Our job is tough enough. Vargas: It's supposed to be. It has to be tough. A policeman's job is only easy in a police state. That's the whole point, Captain - who's the boss, the cop or the law? |
since it`s the mayor
do you think their will be a change or is the police too strong to be effected.
actually
with enough twisted thinking(i`m the guy do it)
that means it`s a clean bust.
since it`s a small town,it`s too under the radar to even bother with a warrant.
What makes you think they didn't have a warrant?
Calvo said authorities entered his home without knocking and refused to show him a warrant when he requested one.http://us.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/index.html (http://us.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/index.html)
But Prince George's County Police Department spokeswoman Sharon Taylor said legal counsel had informed her that "no-knock" warrants do not exist in Maryland.
Taylor said authorities were acting on a warrant issued based on information available to them at the time.
"This warrant was for permission to search the premises," she said. "The special operations team that supported us made a decision about the necessity of entry at the point of being on the scene."
Says here they had a warrant:
Another issue that could arise in court is whether officers provided Calvo a copy of the warrant at the time of the raid, as required by law. Maloney said they did not, even though a detective signed a sworn statement to the judge indicating that he had. Instead, the detective brought the warrant to Calvo several days later, Maloney said.
Prince George's County authorities did not have a "no-knock" warrant when they burst into the home of a mayor July 29, shooting and killing his two dogs -- contrary to what police said after the incident.Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080502664.html?nav=hcmodule)
Judges in Maryland can grant police the right to enter a building and serve a search warrant without knocking if the judge finds there is reasonable suspicion to think evidence might be destroyed or the officers' safety might be endangered in announcing themselves.
A Prince George's police spokesman said last week that a Sheriff's Office SWAT team and county police narcotics officers were operating under such a warrant when they broke down the door of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo, shooting and killing his black Labrador retrievers.
But a review of the warrant indicates that police neither sought nor received permission from Circuit Court Judge Albert W. Northrup to enter without knocking. Northrup found probable cause to suspect that drugs might be in the house and granted police a standard search warrant.
"There's nothing in the four corners of the warrant saying anything about the Calvos being a threat to law enforcement," said Calvo's attorney, Timothy Maloney. "This was a lawless act by law enforcement."
| An attorney came forward yesterday to allege a possible pattern of animal abuse by the sheriff's department. Michael Winkleman said he is representing another family whose dog was shot by sheriff's deputies in November, along with a woman who is suing the department for searching her home without a warrant and threatening to shoot her dog. In the first case, Winkleman said, sheriff's deputies arrived at the Accokeek home of Frank and Pamela Myers with a warrant for another house on their street. After the couple informed the deputies of their error, they continued to question the couple and looked around their home. As they spoke, the couple's 5-year-old German boxer began barking in a yard, out of sight. Soon after, according to Winkleman, the couple heard gunshots, and they found the dog shot to death. He said the family is preparing to file suit. In another case, Upper Marlboro resident Amber James has filed a $4 million lawsuit accusing sheriff's deputies of searching her home without a warrant in May 2007 while looking for her sister, who lived in Capitol Heights. According to the suit, deputies falsely claimed to have a warrant and searched every room of the home. When they did not find the sister, the suit alleges, they threatened to return the next day and search again, saying that if they did, James's dog would be dead. |