Posted on 06/01/2011 6:18:44 AM PDT by marktwain
So don't read the post and move on. You are the demonstrator of poor etiquette and for sure are not the etiquette police.
I suspect Hispanic honeydo lists will skyrocket with Claymore mines overlooking front porch courtyards and fortified entry standback positions in the front atriums...
Note to self,....don’t mistakenly enter Latino next door neighbor’s house unannounced....
I have three Rotts..... Chaos, Havoc an Fluffy.
Furry form of a claymore per se...:o)
Hope yer well....stay safe !
Being former “special forces” myself and having been trained with one of the world’s finest search and destroy outfits .. There is Absolutely No scenario that I am aware of .. where a properly trained unit would have a need to unload 60+ rounds into one poor bass-turd!
Not sure why you think he's full of it; that seemed to be his conclusion as well (among a lot of others).
Exactly. Stream the whole thing, unedited, out of their control in real time, preferably to multiple locations. That way, if their copies have technical difficulties, there's a backup. It actually works FOR them as long as they don't try to pull any tricky editing, because it can be PROVEN that they didn't do anything shady.
Might be nice to get a couple minutes time delay, so the bad guys (on those occasions when they've actually found some bad guys to raid) can't just tune in and use it as operational intelligence in real time.
SWAT teams are also commonly employed for the service of no-knock warrants, where absolute surprise, speed, and overwhelming action are a necessity to minimize danger and prevent the destruction of evidence.
Which is it? Horrendously dangerous or a necessity to minimize danger?
In any case the raid on Jose Guerena's house maximized the danger and did nothing to prevent the destruction of evidence. If there had been any evidence there.
SWAT teams are also commonly employed for the service of no-knock warrants, where absolute surprise, speed, and overwhelming action are a necessity to minimize danger and prevent the destruction of evidence.
Which is it? Horrendously dangerous or a necessity to minimize danger?
In any case the raid on Jose Guerena's house maximized the danger and did nothing to prevent the destruction of evidence. If there had been any evidence there.
The two statements quoted do not necessarily contradict each other. It may be horrendously dangerous to everyone involved, and "where absolute surprise, speed, and overwhelming action are a necessity to minimize danger and prevent the destruction of evidence".
Just because you are minimizing the danger, doesn't mean that it is not very dangerous.
I believe that the author of this article agrees with you on the Jose Guerena raid.
"where absolute surprise, speed, and overwhelming action are a necessity to minimize danger and prevent the destruction of evidence"
The danger is maximized by using a dynamic entry all for the purpose of securing evidence. I am still reading through the article and have just gotten to this which underscores that point:
Particularly in serving drug search warrants, one immediate goal is to prevent the destruction of evidence, which might be easily flushed down a toilet, for example. To that end, retreat or hesitation is not an option.
A potentially dangerous person or persons is forced into a confrontation where they decide in a split second what will happen.
No knock warrants, RICO laws that allow the police to legally steal private property, SWAT teams, and now the ability of cops to enter your house on the mere suspicion that evidence might be destroyed, and dozens of other infringements on our rights exist primarily for one reason: to continue the War on Drugs and keep some loser from smoking a doobie, eating Cheetos, and watching cartoons.
The damage to our freedoms far outweigh the positives by having a police state to enforce the WOD.
You should consider tag teaming with Humblebummer.
Between the two of you no one would dare post anything.
Didn’t your mommy ever tell you that you shouldn’t talk about someone who isn’t around to defend themselves? (humblegunner)
You won't find me disagreeing with you about whether these swat raids are necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence. I do not think the extra danger to all and the destruction of Constitutional rights is overcome by the small potential danger of destruction of a little evidence.
There could be some justification to insure that hostages are not harmed, if extraordinary evidence is available to warrant it.
That is definitely why those things exist but they are clearly being used for a greatly expanded range of LE activity. The slide down the slippery slope is well underway.
Under those kinds of extraordinary circumstances I agree that 4th Amendment issues should be set aside. I finished the article and the author did a good job of analyzing this raid with the info available. He came to the same conclusion that I had; extreme incompetence. I was picking on some of what he said about properly executed SWAT dynamic entries because it is the basic premise of using them for less than extraordinary circumstances that I have a fundamental problem with. That is beside the issue of incompetence in the Jose Guerena case.
Mark to read later
That's exactly what the author said in about five different ways so how is he full of it?
Translation: It is far more important to this person, and LEOs in general to risk the lives of innocents than it is to allow a guilty person to destroy evidence. Not go free - just destroy evidence. I part ways with this person on their victim.
That said, even this person thinks the raid in AZ was botched, which is pretty damning to those thugs in AZ who murdered this person.
The lawyer started out doing all the talking and after denying that I was the person they were looking for (not the suspect just a relative and potential witness) he got hot about it and started making accusations and some very thinly veiled threats. I happened to be putting shingles on a storage shed and had a rigging axe in my hand so from my vantage point I began to draw a bead on him with the axe.
Thankfully the sheriff with him was a cool-headed guy and intervened with some common sense which included telling the lawyer, in polite terms, that he was a dumbass and to get back in their car. It was then quite easy to straighten their confusion out. But it's not hard to imagine that initial misinformation leading to a SWAT approach at O'Dark thirty with me inside sleeping next to a Mossberg instead of an Estwing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.