I have no real problem with them executing a legitimate search warrant. The way in which they executed it is the problem- throwing an old lady down and shooting two dogs because a bunch of candy-ass cops were afraid of a couple of Labrador retreivers.
So you're saying that mayors of tiny little towns with a population of 3000 people in a relatively bad area of the county can't be crooks? He should have been treated differently because he was the mayor?
I'm saying that anyone with half a brain could realize that given who lived in the house, there was zero chance of violence breaking out when they executed their search warrant. They stormed the house like they expected it to be full of methed-up bikers or MS-13 gangbangers.
They pretty much had to go in, and they had to treat the situation with the seriousness that it deserved.
What possible reason, other than their desire to get their jollies by playing military, did they have for storming the house like they did?
If this was just an ordinary citizen, they probably would have gotten away with their gestapo-tactics. But the cops here actually abused someone who has the power to fight back and get the media, state and Federal authorities involved. Hopefully, these JBT are the ones scared now.
I didn't see pictures of the woman, but her daughter isn't that old, so it's doubtful she was a fragile old woman. Having her get down on the ground and cuffing her keeps her out of the line of fire and keeps her from doing something rash that could be seen as threatening. It may not be dignified, or pleasant to be on the receiving end of it, but it is the safest way to handle such things for all involved.
Shooting the dogs seems far more questionable. Hopefully there is enough physical evidence at the scene to give a good indication of if it was justified or not. If it wasn't justified, then the officers involved need to be held accountable.
I'm saying that anyone with half a brain could realize that given who lived in the house, there was zero chance of violence breaking out when they executed their search warrant.
My fiance works in Children's aid. You would be very surprised to know what happens in some houses in nice neighborhoods with relatively normal and innocent people living inside. It's naive to believe that just because they live in a nice house, are white, and the mother-in-law was there, they couldn't possibly be involved in dealing drugs. You can afford to be naive, the police can't. They have to go where the evidence leads them.
I'm sure that the look of the house and the people make them skeptical, but there was still enough evidence that they had to take it seriously, and couldn't just walk away once they took the drugs inside, and didn't call the police shortly thereafter.
They stormed the house like they expected it to be full of methed-up bikers or MS-13 gangbangers.
The amount of drugs (close to $100,000 worth) make it a high risk warrant because people will do some pretty desperate things with that kind of money involved or to avoid going to jail for trafficking in large quantities of drugs, or to destroy evidence that might lead to other nasty people who would be very upset with the people in the house.
If you're going to go into a house, there's no good reason to go in undermanned. If an officer is faced with multiple threats without enough backup, the officer will likely have to take more drastic action to quickly neutralize one threat so he can deal with another.
That means if you go in undermanned, it is more likely that things like the dogs getting shot will happen, not less likely. If an officer is worrying about someone else being a threat and the dog is keeping them from dealing with that threat, the dog is going to have to be neutralized quickly, and in most cases that means shooting it.
A larger, and well trained team gives them more options. In some cases they are unfortunately still going to end up being justified in shooting the dogs. However, they are more likely to be able to have one or two officers chase the dogs into a room and shut them in without killing them while other officers deal with the people.
There's also the fact that a dangerous criminal might try and fight one or two officers, but is far less likely to fight if they know they don't stand a chance.
The quantity of drugs justified it being a high risk warrant, and the only reason to not take a good sized and well equipped team in on a high risk warrant is because they are too cheap to allocate the resources.
If this was just an ordinary citizen, they probably would have gotten away with their gestapo-tactics. But the cops here actually abused someone who has the power to fight back and get the media, state and Federal authorities involved. Hopefully, these JBT are the ones scared now.
Every time the police execute a warrant and it turns out the people weren't guilty it gets splashed all over the news. Even when the police go in and it really is a drug dealer, if they shoot dogs it gets splashed all over the news.
We live in the world of 24 hour news channels that love things that can be sensationalized. We live in a world where the ACLU is happy to jump up and down and scream about any instance where they might possibly be able to paint the police as being overly aggressive or abusive.
What alternate reality are you living in where you think that such an occurrence would just get quietly swept under the rug. You're tin foil hat is on way too tight if you really believe that.
Did they? I thought they stored the house like they expected it to be occupied by people who wouldn't shoot back. Most SWAT wannabes would be slaughtered if they actually went against dangerous crooks.