IGX

LOL at Spells getting all giddy about some guy getting blasted for selling chronic by a bunch of trailer trash SWAT turds. He must be a hit at parties. LMAO

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.

Bumped to highlight Spells' irrationals.

Quote is out of context but I'm trying to find any inconsistency on my part from this case and Brown's. What are you talking about?

Here's what I was responding to.

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.

I believe this turned out to be exactly the case.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:Quote is out of context but I'm trying to find any inconsistency on my part from this case and Brown's. What are you talking about?

Here's what I was responding to.

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.

I believe this turned out to be exactly the case.

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/m-se ... 63529.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/2 ... 88658.html
Hardly-- his widow wouldn't have been paid in the Rodney King range otherwise.

I just find it interesting that in situation A (cops raid house without a valid warrant) that the cops are justified in their actions, but in situation B (cop shoots someone after claiming he was assaulted-- claims with supporting evidence) the cop's guilty.

Turdacious wrote:http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/m-se ... 63529.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/2 ... 88658.html
Hardly-- his widow wouldn't have been paid in the Rodney King range otherwise.

I just find it interesting that in situation A (cops raid house without a valid warrant) that the cops are justified in their actions, but in situation B (cop shoots someone after claiming he was assaulted-- claims with supporting evidence) the cop's guilty.

OK, I'll assume you're serious despite the warrant being valid.

An armed man is killed by a SWAT team serving a warrant. His wife & lawyer claim this Marine war veteran was innocent, that the house was mistakenly served by a no-knock warrant, that he was armed because there had been a recent home invasion/murder nearby, and that they shot him without warning. The story fits the gun rights black helicopter jackbooted thugs narrative a little too neatly, gets picked up by the rabble-rousers, but it's coming only from the wife, and I'm skeptical. This seems like the wrong case to get upset about given the limited evidence available early on.

Turns out it wasn't a no-knock warrant, wasn't the wrong house, and very convincing evidence links the deceased to a drug trafficking organization who is involved in some kind of drug war with several murders and disappearances of the family. The home invasion the wife spoke of was an execution of members of the organization the suspect is linked to.

Police, trying to shut the organization down, have to raid multiple homes at once, the deceased is a war veteran with a gun arrest, there have been executions and disappearances, and this seems like a reasonable situation where you send a SWAT team.

The SWAT team raids the home, the suspect has an AR-15 in his hands, and is shot and killed.

Now, had Jose been unarmed and involved in a Swisher Sweet theft, and I still said, "You guys are supporting the wrong guy," I would be inconsistent in my argument. But that's not what happened here. What's interesting is that you find Jose a sympathetic character but Brown a thug who got what was coming to him.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/m-se ... 63529.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/2 ... 88658.html
Hardly-- his widow wouldn't have been paid in the Rodney King range otherwise.

I just find it interesting that in situation A (cops raid house without a valid warrant) that the cops are justified in their actions, but in situation B (cop shoots someone after claiming he was assaulted-- claims with supporting evidence) the cop's guilty.

OK, I'll assume you're serious despite the warrant being valid.

An armed man is killed by a SWAT team serving a warrant. His wife & lawyer claim this Marine war veteran was innocent, that the house was mistakenly served by a no-knock warrant, that he was armed because there had been a recent home invasion/murder nearby, and that they shot him without warning. The story fits the gun rights black helicopter jackbooted thugs narrative a little too neatly, gets picked up by the rabble-rousers, but it's coming only from the wife, and I'm skeptical. This seems like the wrong case to get upset about given the limited evidence available early on.

Turns out it wasn't a no-knock warrant, wasn't the wrong house, and very convincing evidence links the deceased to a drug trafficking organization who is involved in some kind of drug war with several murders and disappearances of the family. The home invasion the wife spoke of was an execution of members of the organization the suspect is linked to.

Police, trying to shut the organization down, have to raid multiple homes at once, the deceased is a war veteran with a gun arrest, there have been executions and disappearances, and this seems like a reasonable situation where you send a SWAT team.

The SWAT team raids the home, the suspect has an AR-15 in his hands, and is shot and killed.

Now, had Jose been unarmed and involved in a Swisher Sweet theft, and I still said, "You guys are supporting the wrong guy," I would be inconsistent in my argument. But that's not what happened here. What's interesting is that you find Jose a sympathetic character but Brown a thug who got what was coming to him.

That's an hilarious and fantastic exercise in creative writing Spells. Try to provide evidence for your conclusions next time.

All of this has been linked here before. It's not like I did research today.

Here are investigators speaking on the record about evidence of the ring and Jose's part in it in the indictment:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/fami ... 902b8.html

Not "he ran right at me." Documented evidence gathered over a long investigation. Some kind of gang war with home invasions, executions, and disappearances. The raid yields huge amounts of drugs, cash, vehicles, and guns. If you think they're making all that shit up, you need to get fitted for a tinfoil hat.

There's also the possibility that police overreach is apolitical and that neither the of those brownish people deserved what they got though it might be expected that when one lays down with dogs one wakes up with fleas. Both of them could be saints or fucktards....which story you find resonant says more about your politics than your position on state sponsored pig violence

Blaidd Drwg wrote:There's also the possibility that police overreach is apolitical and that neither the of those brownish people deserved what they got though it might be expected that when one lays down with dogs one wakes up with fleas. Both of them could be saints or fucktards....which story you find resonant says more about your politics than your position on state sponsored pig violence

Bing bing bing, we think pretty much like our tribe thinks. Simple as that.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:There's also the possibility that police overreach is apolitical and that neither the of those brownish people deserved what they got though it might be expected that when one lays down with dogs one wakes up with fleas. Both of them could be saints or fucktards....which story you find resonant says more about your politics than your position on state sponsored pig violence

I thought about this since it wasn't immediately obvious that Turd meant. When cops are arresting a suspected felon with a prior gun arrest, and that guy shows up with a rifle, I give those cops a lot of benefit of the doubt. Unarmed black kid who isn't a likely suicide-by-cop? I'd rather they wore cameras. Too many instances of overreach with one particular demographic, IMO.

That's not to understate the insanity of no-knock drug raids, shooting mayors' dogs, flash-banging babies, and all the other police militarization dipshittery that needs to stop. But this particular guy was not an example of this. Brown would have had to have had a gun in his hand to be an equivalent case, upon which time nobody (including me) would have cared.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I'd rather they wore cameras.

I think about everybody here would rather they wear cameras, but local tax bases generally don't support buying them (especially in high crime areas), and our federal government puts its dollars (i.e. priorities) toward other things. Nobody is serious about changing the status quo.

And BD pretty much nails it.