IGX

Grandpa's Spells wrote: While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence.

That is laughable.

What is an acceptable number of accidental SWAT raids that result in dead pets, dead fathers, tasered grandmothers and 5 figure property damage?

tough old man wrote:

How you figured that he's probably guilty?

Well, the police said so didnt they!

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house

Ya, wrong again. Illinois State Police did it last week not far from your house. My Bro in law is a Nazi sniper for them. They were actually laughing about how they treated the homeowner.

Way too many LEO are contemptuous of the citizens they're supposed to serve. Instead of being public servants, they are more and more acting like a protected class of citizens with special rights the rest of us do not have.

Many of the law and order or war on drug type citizens were more than happy let LEO violate peoples civil rights. So long as the people targeted were niggers and spics. However, in many cases the LEO have slipped that leash and are now equal opportunity violators of everyones rights. The only people they don't fuck with are the politically powerful and well connected.

Charismatic megafauna wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence.

That is laughable.

What is an acceptable number of accidental SWAT raids that result in dead pets, dead fathers, tasered grandmothers and 5 figure property damage?

You need to up your estrogen blockers and think rationally. Police have been accidentally shooting the wrong guy since well before there were SWAT teams. There is no "acceptable number," but that shit is going to happen sometimes.

I was addressing the probability of the suspect's guilt. The odds of a SWAT team raiding an innocent man's home is something well under 50%. If you don't believe that you are fucking retarded.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Dux wrote:How you figured that he's probably guilty?

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence. He had extremely unusual items in his home consistent with tradecraft of the crimes he was accused of. He is alleged to have been holding an AR-15 at the time he was shot. Given five men shot him 60 times, I don't think he was unarmed.

Alone, you could probably dismiss any one of those facts, but together it looks like he played in the dirt and got dirty.

Amadou Diallo got 41 shots by four officers for brandishing a wallet. How do 5 guys shoot at you 71 times in your house in any way that makes sense? Put yourself in any room in your house and ask how 5 guys could get a clean shot off at you w/o putting themselves into crossfire.

Plus, they reportedly prevented someone who didn't fire a weapon any medical help, and they refuse to release the warrant more than two weeks after the incident. He might be guilty as hell but this has a lot of stink on it.

Assorted Rangers and Turds are coorecto on all of their comments, IMO. As an ex-cop, I too, think that no-knock warrants for drug crimes are a bad idea and are executed way too frequently.

I would be curious to know how many of the SWAT guys involved were ex-military.

Dux wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Last time I checked it is wasn't against to law to own either of those items.

EXACTLY. Because it is legal to own such items, it is impossible to draw any conclusions on what such items might be used for. It's like finding a ski mask, handcuffs, gags, and a hunting knife in the trunk of a car, and concluding that the driver, a rape suspect, might not be as innocent as his family lawyer claims. Those items are all legal, so drawing a conclusion based on their ownership automatically makes the concluder a faggot.

As usual you're missing the point. The fact that the dead guy may or may not have been a criminal or if he had items that may or may not have been used in crimes; has no bearing on this discussion.

The police violated his rights by conducting a raid with a no knock warrant. The end does not justify the means. The dead guy can be guilty as hell, but the police still violated his rights.

It's a slow day at the office and I'm fucking with you because shit like this gets you all spun up. No knock warrants are fucked up and lead to abuses like this and this.

That said, this guy being a veteran doesn't mean shit and he's probably guilty, so the media is focused on the wrong thing.

How you figured that he's probably guilty?

Woman's intuition.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Charismatic megafauna wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence.

That is laughable.

What is an acceptable number of accidental SWAT raids that result in dead pets, dead fathers, tasered grandmothers and 5 figure property damage?

You need to up your estrogen blockers and think rationally. Police have been accidentally shooting the wrong guy since well before there were SWAT teams. There is no "acceptable number," but that shit is going to happen sometimes.

I was addressing the probability of the suspect's guilt. The odds of a SWAT team raiding an innocent man's home is something well under 50%. If you don't believe that you are fucking retarded.

I'm clearly not retarded. For one, I never post in the achy ball forum so my record is above reproach.

So it's not a big deal if they have a 50/50 chance or better that the guy is guilty? Or it's not a big deal if there's a 90% chance the guy is guilty?. Or it IS a big deal BUT because it's a public service in pursuit of a public good, kicking in doors for consensual crimes with a no knock warrant is A-OK?

What shoudl be obvious to you, a grown man with reading skillz is that I could care less what the "Odds" are that a man or woman in the privacy of their home is potentially guilty of.
Get your head out of your ass. Due Process. Just becuase it's easy to understand how it happens does not make it remotely acceptable that it happens.

Charismatic megafauna wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Charismatic megafauna wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence.

That is laughable.

What is an acceptable number of accidental SWAT raids that result in dead pets, dead fathers, tasered grandmothers and 5 figure property damage?

You need to up your estrogen blockers and think rationally. Police have been accidentally shooting the wrong guy since well before there were SWAT teams. There is no "acceptable number," but that shit is going to happen sometimes.

I was addressing the probability of the suspect's guilt. The odds of a SWAT team raiding an innocent man's home is something well under 50%. If you don't believe that you are fucking retarded.

So it's not a big deal if they have a 50/50 chance or better that the guy is guilty? Or it's not a big deal if there's a 90% chance the guy is guilty?. Or it IS a big deal BUT because it's a public service in pursuit of a public good, kicking in doors for consensual crimes with a no knock warrant is A-OK?

You're just fucking with me now, aren't you. Dux asked why I thought he was probably guilty, a separate discussion having nothing to do with the actions of the police. I put together a string of statements reflecting the probability of the suspect's guilt. One of the statements was the relative improbability of a SWAT team shooting an innocent person. I didn't say no-knock warrants were OK. I said the fucking opposite of that.

You overspray stupid all the time. No one should be expected to pick through your shit for the corn, Spells.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I was addressing the probability of the suspect's guilt. The odds of a SWAT team raiding an innocent man's home is something well under 50%. If you don't believe that you are fucking retarded.

If SWAT teams weren't raiding homes at all, the odds would be zero.

How many injustices at the hands of law enforcement have you big-brother police state crybabies really felt?
Furthermore, there's a shit-ton of perp ex-military out there (and perp cops) getting involved in drug-motivated home invasion nonsense.
Trying being stuck in a Newark housing project on the same floor as a distributorship for the local blood set for a living.

Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:How many injustices at the hands of law enforcement have you big-brother police state crybabies really felt?
Furthermore, there's a shit-ton of perp ex-military out there (and perp cops) getting involved in drug-motivated home invasion nonsense.
Trying being stuck in a Newark housing project on the same floor as a distributorship for the local blood set for a living.

Ha. I wrote that before I read the follow-up.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Dux wrote:How you figured that he's probably guilty?

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence. He had extremely unusual items in his home consistent with tradecraft of the crimes he was accused of. He is alleged to have been holding an AR-15 at the time he was shot. Given five men shot him 60 times, I don't think he was unarmed.

Alone, you could probably dismiss any one of those facts, but together it looks like he played in the dirt and got dirty.

Amadou Diallo got 41 shots by four officers for brandishing a wallet. How do 5 guys shoot at you 71 times in your house in any way that makes sense? Put yourself in any room in your house and ask how 5 guys could get a clean shot off at you w/o putting themselves into crossfire.

Plus, they reportedly prevented someone who didn't fire a weapon any medical help, and they refuse to release the warrant more than two weeks after the incident. He might be guilty as hell but this has a lot of stink on it.

Seems like cops always spray a shit load of ammo all over the place, even in justified shootings. What's up with that? Lie-Nap, any insight.

it's a fight response to sudden, unexpected stress. And bullets are cheap.

Grim Hamundarson wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Dux wrote:How you figured that he's probably guilty?

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence. He had extremely unusual items in his home consistent with tradecraft of the crimes he was accused of. He is alleged to have been holding an AR-15 at the time he was shot. Given five men shot him 60 times, I don't think he was unarmed.

Alone, you could probably dismiss any one of those facts, but together it looks like he played in the dirt and got dirty.

Amadou Diallo got 41 shots by four officers for brandishing a wallet. How do 5 guys shoot at you 71 times in your house in any way that makes sense? Put yourself in any room in your house and ask how 5 guys could get a clean shot off at you w/o putting themselves into crossfire.

Plus, they reportedly prevented someone who didn't fire a weapon any medical help, and they refuse to release the warrant more than two weeks after the incident. He might be guilty as hell but this has a lot of stink on it.

Seems like cops always spray a shit load of ammo all over the place, even in justified shootings. What's up with that? Lie-Nap, any insight.

You are taught to shoot until the subject stops doing whatever it is that caused you to shoot them. Most people overact to minor stress so a pork product will do the same.

This is not always the norm. At my former pig job most of our officer related shootings were usually 1 to 5 shots max per officer involved.

From my own experience it's not always the best on SWAT teams but the most motivated.

Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:it's a fight response to sudden, unexpected stress. And bullets are cheap.

And ambulances expensive. Waiting an hour saved the community money. Because unless this guy had a mansion, there's no way it took an hour to search the place.

Yeah, searching a house takes way longer.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Dux wrote:How you figured that he's probably guilty?

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence. He had extremely unusual items in his home consistent with tradecraft of the crimes he was accused of. He is alleged to have been holding an AR-15 at the time he was shot. Given five men shot him 60 times, I don't think he was unarmed.

Alone, you could probably dismiss any one of those facts, but together it looks like he played in the dirt and got dirty.

Spells, what does what he was holding in his house have anything to do with any of it? No knock warrant, they get to him and he is allegedly holding a weapon. If I were in my room and heard my door crashing down, I would grab one of my "weapons". Or, like DDL and just about anyone else has said, you could just lie there and hope it's the "good guys". Then make a point after the story gets out that he had unusual things in his home, therefore they were probably right to go in, but maybe got a little trigger happy.

baffled wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Dux wrote:How you figured that he's probably guilty?

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence. He had extremely unusual items in his home consistent with tradecraft of the crimes he was accused of. He is alleged to have been holding an AR-15 at the time he was shot. Given five men shot him 60 times, I don't think he was unarmed.

Alone, you could probably dismiss any one of those facts, but together it looks like he played in the dirt and got dirty.

Spells, what does what he was holding in his house have anything to do with any of it? No knock warrant, they get to him and he is allegedly holding a weapon. If I were in my room and heard my door crashing down, I would grab one of my "weapons". Or, like DDL and just about anyone else has said, you could just lie there and hope it's the "good guys". Then make a point after the story gets out that he had unusual things in his home, therefore they were probably right to go in, but maybe got a little trigger happy.

They had a search warrant signed by a judge, so legally they did have the right to go in.

Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:

baffled wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Dux wrote:How you figured that he's probably guilty?

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence. He had extremely unusual items in his home consistent with tradecraft of the crimes he was accused of. He is alleged to have been holding an AR-15 at the time he was shot. Given five men shot him 60 times, I don't think he was unarmed.

Alone, you could probably dismiss any one of those facts, but together it looks like he played in the dirt and got dirty.

Spells, what does what he was holding in his house have anything to do with any of it? No knock warrant, they get to him and he is allegedly holding a weapon. If I were in my room and heard my door crashing down, I would grab one of my "weapons". Or, like DDL and just about anyone else has said, you could just lie there and hope it's the "good guys". Then make a point after the story gets out that he had unusual things in his home, therefore they were probably right to go in, but maybe got a little trigger happy.

They had a search warrant signed by a judge, so legally they did have the right to go in.

And what does that have to do with my statement? Pretty sure none of what I wrote said they didn't. People can debate the constitutionality of a no knock warrant, but just because they have a warrant does not make putting a bullet into him okay, or legal. That's my point

What's to stop the police from acting as judge, jury and executioner under the guise of a no knock warrant? Or any search warrant really?

I'm hung over and sleep deprived so I'll stop rambling now.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

baffled wrote:

Dietrich Buchenholz wrote:

baffled wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Dux wrote:How you figured that he's probably guilty?

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house. It's a very unusual occurrence. He had extremely unusual items in his home consistent with tradecraft of the crimes he was accused of. He is alleged to have been holding an AR-15 at the time he was shot. Given five men shot him 60 times, I don't think he was unarmed.

Alone, you could probably dismiss any one of those facts, but together it looks like he played in the dirt and got dirty.

Spells, what does what he was holding in his house have anything to do with any of it? No knock warrant, they get to him and he is allegedly holding a weapon. If I were in my room and heard my door crashing down, I would grab one of my "weapons". Or, like DDL and just about anyone else has said, you could just lie there and hope it's the "good guys". Then make a point after the story gets out that he had unusual things in his home, therefore they were probably right to go in, but maybe got a little trigger happy.

They had a search warrant signed by a judge, so legally they did have the right to go in.

And what does that have to do with my statement? Pretty sure none of what I wrote said they didn't. People can debate the constitutionality of a no knock warrant, but just because they have a warrant does not make putting a bullet into him okay, or legal. That's my point

What's to stop the police from acting as judge, jury and executioner under the guise of a no knock warrant? Or any search warrant really?

I'm hung over and sleep deprived so I'll stop rambling now.

Well, you stated that they probably had the right to go in. No, they did have the right to go in.

Furthermore, what percentage of search warrant executions do you think result in the police acting as "judge, jury, and executioner?" Who's arguing that the warrant gave them a right to shoot him?

Fuck this perp, he pointed an AR-15 at cops and rolled the dice. In doing so, he gave them the right to shoot him.

DB. You are appearing as no more than a shit stirring worthless cunt who apparently also lacks reading comprehension and common sense. That is all

I'm sorry it bothers you that I comment on your ill-informed points on an internet message board.

Just so you can sleep comfortably in your jammies at night, I'd like to point out that police accountability has only increased over your lifetime.

Who's talking about police accountability? the only eyewitness to hold them to account is dead from 60 holes.

Fuckers shouldn't be there in the first place. Period. America has become a Police State.