Well, at least you looked. Did you get the first line too? Or didn’t you think that one applied to you?
Besides, read the quote you gave me again. This is the quote that has you huffy:
“Before the hysterics start and the gossip between the back fence of the trailer park results in spilled beer, perhaps judgment can be reserved until more is known about the assassination of the Chihuahua.”
Is it directed at anyone? Or is it a way of stomping down on all the “Jack Booted Thug” posters before they get all fired up with their cop hating antics? Who was insulted except cop haters? (FR version of CODE PINK who hate the military)
A closer read means the story needs more info before anything should be said whether the actions were justified or not. Facts are stubborn things.
The original poster supplied two links that were directly related to the story after my first post. In those links, which weren’t provided initially, it says the suspect was the stepson of the owner and also a friend. The stepson had been previously arrested and that the residence of the stepson and another man was also raided. The weapons beings searched for was taken from the police. The stepson hadn’t been living there for three years but from reading the fact the stepson’s house was raided at the same time the cops knew that.
SO, from the links, not posted originally (reason unknown). The cops were searching for stolen weapons and other items taken. They knew the man was friends with his stepson and from information believed he might be involved. The weapon wasn’t indicated as to whether it was capable of full or semi auto. There is no indication of past criminal dealings of this man either yes or no.
Also from the links there were two dogs, both reported to be running away. The dog that was shot was an Australian cattle dog on a bed. The dog was shot at three times and hit twice. It gets murky whether the shooter was the one with the shield or not.
Taking the info at face value, the no knock warrant was justified due to the circumstances. Shooting the dog wasn’t.
But, I wanted facts, many posters here wanted their prejudice reinforced.
I hope you read the rest of my home page.
If anyone ever wondered why we called them “Pigs” back in the 60s, now ya know.
You can justify all you want, what you posted was a disgusting stereotype for people who live in trailers and drink beer. Not all people who drink beer, etc. are “cop haters” as you put it.
This is the problem I have with people like you. I'm reminded of the Brendan Frazier case that got dumped by the court because the police investigation went no further than to confirm their original suppositions were at least plausible.
You talk about facts, but where are the facts to tie this particular home to that particular crime to the exclusion of the myriad of other possible locations for the stolen items?
You claim the raid was justified, but on what basis. I can tell you my neighbor has an A10 Warthog in his garage. Does that make hitting his home with a hellfire missle "justified?"
Sorry, buddy, but I posted plenty of facts in the initial article (when you post an article to FR, you can only include one). The facts:
-SWAT kicked in the door of a man’s house while he was there with his wife and 12-year old daughter
-SWAT killed his dog, who was in the back bedroom
-SWAT found no contraband
-The cops claim their actions are justified
The facts from the other articles are even more incriminating for the cops. I notice for all your “facts are stubborn things” comments, you misused and left out a few:
-the warrant the cops presented was for a man named Michael Piccioni. Piccioni’s name was crossed out, and someone hand-wrote the name “Michael L. Smith,” the stepson who hadn’t lived at the step-dad’s house for three years.
-SWAT simultaneously raided the home of the stepson — i.e., the cops knew the stepson no longer lived with the stepson man when they raided and killed his dog.
-Piccioni, the stepson’s friend, was the one who had had previous run-ins with the law. There has been no report that the stepson had broken the law (and even if he had, there seems to be no justification for raiding a home he didn’t live in).
-In the raids of all three homes, no contraband of any kind was found.
-The cops defend their actions, despite the fact that innocent people were terrorized (including a 12 year old girl), the family dog was killed, the warrant the judge signed for one residence seemed to be illegally used at two other residences, and the cops are still defending their actions.
You don't have the "info" and you don't have any idea what the "circumstances" were. All you know is what the police mouthpiece told the press, which isn't much.
And if you don't yet know the difference between the military and the police, then you don't belong here, son.
No matter how bad the situation, it can always be made worse by adding a cop.