Posted on 07/28/2011 2:24:31 PM PDT by Immerito
DURHAM (WTVD) -- Did a member of a Durham police SWAT team go too far when he shot and killed a dog during a raid in April? Some say it was unnecessary force.
ABC11 cameras captured the incident at a home on Dunstan Avenue April 12.
Officers were looking for Pete Moses and Vania Sisk. According to search warrants, Moses is a suspect in the disappearance of a woman and a 5-year-old boy. Sisk is the boy's mother.
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
Patrol officers wear blue shirts and pants, hats are fine during ceremony, bad for street work, all their shoes lace up and the 38 was found to be substandard for police work.
All that is totally unsuited for SWAT operations.
If dogs had machine guns cops would stop shooting at them.
“considering what they are tasked with doing?”
I could break down doors to stoners houses wearing shorts and flip flops.
You could probably do it naked but you would regret walking in any broken glass. Or dislocated you ankle or knee when you hit a reinforced door because you tried the old hollywood kick instead of the ram or halligan.
You won’t like my answer but I am more than happy to offer it.
No helmets. They can wear hats like every other officer.
No ski masks.
No goggles or night vision.
No all-black uniforms. No camouflaged fatigues.
They should look like beat cops or Sheriffs just with vests and long arms. That’s it. And they should drop the night-time no-knock raids that causes homeowners to draw down on them or fire on them when they break into the wrong house at night.
By dressing and equipping them like a military unit, they think like a military unit - shoot first and ask questions later.
I am FULLY FULLY aware that their risk level goes up without helmets and having to perform their no-knock raids in daylight. But that is the price of law enforcement in a free nation. You don’t get to have the complete security that you get in a police state.
The dress and tactics of SWAT forces are starting us down of losing support for police among Conservatives. Believe me, the police need that support and do not want to do anything to alienate that tax-paying base. The SWAT based police forces are beginning to push the “us vs them” thinking a little too far. When they lose the support of the taxpaying masses, they are going to wish they acted more like law enforcement officers earlier, and less like a military occupying force ferreting out terrorists house to house. Because they is how they are starting to behave now - and that is going to reinforce in them the idea that any homeowner anywhere can be the enemy.
SWAT is going way too far. Police have to back off from the military style dress and tactics. I know you don’t want to hear that, but it is how I feel.
I feel and have always felt the police are good guys and are there for my protection. I wish they would quit dressing and acting in a manner that is beginning to make me question if they are there to protect me or to protect themselves and the hell with me.
You won’t like my answer but I am more than happy to offer it.
No helmets. They can wear hats like every other officer.
No ski masks.
No goggles or night vision.
No all-black uniforms. No camouflaged fatigues.
They should look like beat cops or Sheriffs just with vests and long arms. That’s it. And they should drop the night-time no-knock raids that causes homeowners to draw down on them or fire on them when they break into the wrong house at night.
By dressing and equipping them like a military unit, they think like a military unit - shoot first and ask questions later.
I am FULLY FULLY aware that their risk level goes up without helmets and having to perform their no-knock raids in daylight. But that is the price of law enforcement in a free nation. You don’t get to have the complete security that you get in a police state.
The dress and tactics of SWAT forces are starting us down of losing support for police among Conservatives. Believe me, the police need that support and do not want to do anything to alienate that tax-paying base. The SWAT based police forces are beginning to push the “us vs them” thinking a little too far. When they lose the support of the taxpaying masses, they are going to wish they acted more like law enforcement officers earlier, and less like a military occupying force ferreting out terrorists house to house. Because they is how they are starting to behave now - and that is going to reinforce in them the idea that any homeowner anywhere can be the enemy.
SWAT is going way too far. Police have to back off from the military style dress and tactics. I know you don’t want to hear that, but it is how I feel.
I feel and have always felt the police are good guys and are there for my protection. I wish they would quit dressing and acting in a manner that is beginning to make me question if they are there to protect me or to protect themselves and the hell with me.
Sorry, helmets are here to stay, and you may see them on patrol officers before you see hats on SWAT. I carry one in my vehicle for riot situations and if there is an active shooter because after Columbine, we don’t set up perimeters, we go in and deal with the threat.
Ski masks are worn sometimes because that particular officer is also an undercover one.
I fail to see how protecting an officer’s head infringes on anyone’s freedom. No one has the right to ask officers to take shots or other injuries to the head because their headgear is scary looking. The trend in police work now is for officers to wear external vests so they don’t have all the crap on a duty belt that causes hip and back problems, that we learned from the military on load distribution.
The fatigues, whatever the color are utilitarian in purpose. You have to carry alot of equipment. Those fatigues facilitate that.
Very few agencies do no-knocks at night unless they are going after the baddest of the bad. A no knock is when you are highly certain there will be armed resistance, hence the surprise. Most judges will not sign off on them unless there are unique circumstances.
Everything a SWAT officer is carrying was deemed necessary through years of study and trial, of actual events which precipitated the need for those things. You can’t go back to the truck if you forgot something and you must have redundency. Two is one, one is none.
Should SWAT be used to get people who didn’t pay their education loan? I will be the first to say that’s hell no.
But SWAT officers MUST use some military tactics. In fact SWAT developed many of the tactics our infantry use today in fighting in built up areas.
Back in the day, when they didn’t have those tactics officers died. A lot. We are not going back to the days of Andy Griffith standing in front of the door playing pocket pool and getting his damn fool head shot off. Those days are over.
FWIW, I believe the war on drugs is a waste of time and money. It cannot be won, not like it’s being carried out. Legalize drugs and you will see alot less SWAT teams, alot less citizens and officers killed.
“I carry one in my vehicle for riot situations and if there is an active shooter because after Columbine, we don’t set up perimeters, we go in and deal with the threat.”
If that ever happens you guys would be the first.
You are right. The militarization of community police will continue unabated and they will continue to lose the support of the middle class. I currently support the police and I always have. As they continue to militarize, I don’t know how long it will take before I quit thinking of the police as “us” and instead begin thinking of them as “them”.
The militarization of the police will be good for members of the police in the short term maximizing their personal safety and helping them achieve their goals. In the long term they will become perceived as another enemy of the middle class taxpayers who pay their salaries and can with-hold it as well.
I am very skeptical that all of the SWAT personnel’s equipment keeps him safer than the old days when police did not have helmets and vests.
It is a little known fact that rugby players suffer less head injuries than football players. This is because football players are far less likely to guard their helmeted head than rugby players are to guard their naked head.
I can assure you that police who are shielded with helmets and vests are far more likely to behave in an aggressive and foolhardy manner than ones who are naked to small arms fire or a sharp knife.
I am sure you disagree.
Nothing good in the long term can happen from the militarization of the police. This will create severe political problems for police down the road as they lose support among middle class tax payers.
Maybe instead of questioning how SWAT should dress, we should question "what they are tasked with doing."
They are "tasked" with carrying out military-like operations. A practice that draws far too many rhoid-raged, trigger-happy, warrior wanna-bees into an act of questionable constitutionality that turns cops into "soldiers" and citizens into "the enemy."
I seriously question ANYONE'S motivation that is drawn to a job such as this. I want cops who signed up to protect and serve, not to wear bad-ass gear and shoot things.
Why should I consider an internal investigation to be the final word on whether or not a given cop acted corruptly?
Would you accept an internal investigation of the U.S. Congress on whether a given congressman was acting within the bounds of the constitution?
How about an internal investigation of a political party when one of its members is caught misappropriating funds?
Agents of the State do not need apologists; Free Men (and Women) in America have a duty to hold ALL employees of the state accountable when they do wrong.
Part of that duty involves exposure of the dishonest, the irresponsible, the corrupt, and the dishonorable.
The honest, the responsible, the uncorrupted and the honorable do not fear such exposure.
Only the dishonest, the irresponsible, the corrupt and the dishonorable are threatened when someone else who is dishonest, irresponsible, corrupt, and dishonorable is exposed.
Sir Robert Peel, who would undoubtedly be ashamed and appalled of corrupt cops, laid out nine principles for them.
Apparently you need a reminder:
In order to mollify those who believed that professional police were “a curse and a despotism”, and secure their aid in creating his professional police force, Sir Robert Peel developed what became known as The Peelian Principles; which are considered to be the basic foundation for all modern policing:
1) The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3) Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4) The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5) Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6) Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7) Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8) Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2672663/posts
The principles of policing have not changed—they are increasingly being ignored and trampled upon by the more progressively minded who justify cops-at-all-times-and-all-costs.
Apparently Peel’s principles are regarded as “living” principles, in their eyes, just as liberals regard the Constitution as a “living” Constitution.
If a public school teacher caught having sex with a minor was found “not at fault” by other school teachers, would that automatically render that teacher innocent?
How about a pedophile caught kidnapping a child, if members of NAMBLA conducted an internal investigation?
What’s that? There’s an inherent conflict of interest, you protest?
Ditto for internal investigations of cops. An outside agency needs to conduct such investigations.
When that happens, more corrupt cops will be removed, and the good cops will restore the respect of the police force by virtue of their character, impartial adherence to the law, and willingness to abide by Peelian Principles.
Did you ever take into consideration that a large percentage of SWAT and police in general are prior service? You going to impugn their service next, call them dregs of the military?
Again, if there were no need for SWAT operations, there would be no SWAT. But here in America, we do have our share of miscreants and malcontents who are quite content to keep on doing the sort of things that gets SWATs attention.
Do you question the motivation of soldiers who go into combat arms? Do they not serve and protect? Do you question their desire to go into elite units with an even higher probability of wearing badass gear and shooting people and things? Nope, because as long as they are kicking other peoples asses, they are safe. But let them start being the police over here, you’ll turn on them as well.
Labs are generally a non-aggressive breed. The lab’s earlier retreat onto the porch gives us its position.
The lab does not clearly move in the video, and it is approached by three men.
Three men are sufficient in force to overpower and subdue a labrador without firing a shot. A real man could do it on his own.
If three cops are insufficient to check a house without feeling threatened by one of the least-aggressive dog breeds, then they could have waited for re-enforcements.
Police officers used to pride themselves on not HAVING to fire their service weapons.
Three members of a SWAT team opened fire on a labrador, endangering people inside the house, and neighbors sitting nearby.
That’s not responsible shooting.
That’s the type of shooting that got a seven year old kid killed in her own room.
People who want to wear badass gear and shoot things should absolutely joint the military. That is the job of the military and I applaud and thank them. The Military has a different job than the police. The founders were smart enough to know the difference.
A lab is like any animal, it will growl and bite if cornered. I know, got one laying on my feet right now and he’s real gentle. But he will growl at strangers and was aggressive as well when he still had his gear. He started mouthing my son, trying to dominate him and I rolled him for it. He didn’t do it again but he still has the potential to do anything. As long as he has teeth and instincts, I can never trust him completely.
You CANNOT see what the lab is doing other then standing still, you cannot hear if he is growling so stop trying to extrapolate and be honest about the situation. You and I don’t know, but the officer in the front did. He was there in living color and his actions are going to documented. There will probably add more info than the camera did.
Oh now it’s a real man issue? Those officers are not there to manhandle the dog. You conveniently ignored the reasons I gave you for why they cannot get into some struggle with the dog. You reach for a dog and bites the piss out of your hand, guess what? Now you are wounded and a liability for the mission and maybe your career is over because of nerve damage. Even if you don’t have nerve damage, a chief is going to suspend you for poor judgment. I have seen that happen to an officer.
They are there to clear a house of possible dangerous suspects, one who was already in custody and wanted for murder. And they are not going to do it with just three officers, there were more than that there.
If you had ever been a police officer, you would know it’s not pride that you feel when you don’t have to shoot, it’s profound relief, because shooting anything other than qual target is a GD headache. Just drawing your weapon is a multipage incident report.
One officer opened fire, not three. And the stupid neighbors are always told to go inside but just HAVE to see what’s going so they willfully put themselves into a volatile situation. Nothing new, see it everyday. Gunshots all night long and nobody saw nothing, but let the police shoot once and then EVERYONE saw it.
I did both and wore my badass gear before I got into police work.
Are you suggesting that people who have served their country should not serve their community as well? Officers who want to shoot people don’t do well in police work. Officers who WILL shoot people if necessary have a higher survival rate.
Our military is doing police work in foreign nations right now, against the advice of our founders.
The fact remains that the video does not document any aggressive behavior from the lab. Even if the lab did growl, a growling, but not advancing lab is not a de facto deadly threat.
It is well documented that corrupt cops have shot dogs and claimed to be threatened by them afterward, even when non-cop, non-owner witnesses to the shootings acknowledged that the dog in question was not showing aggression or otherwise threatening the cop.
However, aggressive behavior from the SWAT team was documented.
The lab in this video did not *have* to be shot. The SWAT team members had other options.
Those options were deliberately not attempted or exercised.
We have a military. I support them doing their job of killing people and breaking things. If members of SWAT teams want to kill people and break things, they should sign up there.
Police are not the military; they are people who have taken up an oath to protect and serve, operating by the principles Robert Peel established for the modern police force.
When the police become a standing army unto themselves, then we have created what the Founders warned against.
“Our military is doing police work in foreign nations right now, against the advice of our founders.”
This does not justify the militarization of police here in the states. It only highlights the need to restore both institutions to their proper functions.
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.