“Superficial damage”
That’s a lie, but keep going.
It’s almost as amusing as your performance on the biker threads, which you were wrong about.
And it’s funny, OTGER SWAT TEAMS CAN GET VIOLENT BSDGUYS WITHOUT DOING $400,000 IN DAMAGE OR DRIVING THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR.
Amazing concept!
Oh, and I was IB4TG
“Oh, and I was IB4TG”
Sad that that was the highlight of your day! But I am glad that I brought that tidbit to you!
“It’s almost as amusing as your performance on the biker threads, which you were wrong about.”
LOL! Are you saying the Bandidos and Cossacks are not organized gangs dealing in drugs, porn and human trafficking!
If those are the types of ‘bikers’ you love, what are you doing here?
You lovingly call them bikers. Reasonable people call them evil.
One of the partnerships mentioned in the report is the Bandidos motorcycle club and the hyper violent Mexican cartel Los Zetas. As previously reported by Breitbart Texas, Los Zetas is a large Mexican cartel that has terrorized most of that country by using ruthless violence to control vast territories for drug trafficking, human trafficking, kidnapping and extortion. The Zetas have also been linked to multiple executions on U.S. soil.
Brietbart.com
Thx, Dark.
And TG, the issue here is beyond tit-for-
tat or dollar value of the house.
It’s a constitutional issue and it’s about dangerous precedents.
Your defense of the police action in this specific instance is a defense of an armed state’s power to use their weapons of war however the state pleases, without any fear of judicial restraint or popular resistance.
My position in regard to the specific case is, the thug was inside a house, alone, surrounded by cops.
At some point, the dude would have assessed his options & chosen suicide (which may have left a mess of brains, but the house would have remained standing), suicide by cop, or surrender & be arrested.
The cops assessed *their* options: wait for him to get tired & surrender, wait for the opportunity for a sniper to take him out, or
decide they couldn’t wait & preferred to show off their big scary war toys instead.
And why did they choose the latter option?
To protect the public?
The public wasn’t in the house and wasn’t in danger.
Or because they could?
You’re in fact supporting a rotten judicial decision which sets an ati-constitutional precedent.
Far from protecting the public, it actually *sends a message* to the public: the cops get to have the **assault weapons** and do with them as they please, without restraint or penalty— and you don’t.
The state gets to commit crimes without penalty, and you dont.
I believe the cops acted as they did because they fully *intended* to send that message to the public: look what we’ve got, and look what we can do, and we can do this to you, too, and you can’t do anything about it.
So the fact that a bad guy was in the house is irrelevant to the property owner’s reasonable expectation that his property —
as spelled out in the BOR—must remain safe from armed invasion & demolition in peacetime, as well as his reasonable expectation that he himself, in future, will be safe in his own home from unrestrained assault by agents of the state.
This judicial decision erodes those reasonable expectations.