Replies

Recreational drugs... = Dealing, using and addiction, there is more to that than you are attempting to water down.

I've grown up in NY and I've seen that level of thing go off.

The other three times that department made that kind of mistake it was not with a person with a pre-existing heart condition so there isn't death everywhere by accident.

They have been successful all but 4 times out of 1900, that is a success rate of 99.98% without going to the wrong place and 99.995% of the time without accidental death.

For humans, they do pretty good. There is no major abuse by officers here at all.

For humans, they do pretty good. There is no major abuse by officers here at all.

I see you've been taking your Clinton lessons! An innocent person dies, and "there's no major abuse by officers here at all." No controlling legal authority. I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. The president did not rape Mrs. Brodderick. These facts, though regrettable, do not rise to the level of impeachment. There's no major abuse here at all.

Again, you're missing it. The entire concept of the "War on Drugs" (of which I was once an ardent supporter) is a constant and increasing infringement on our civil rights. Wether we use drugs or not, we're all diminished by;
1. "No Knock" warrants: This is where the officers do not have to knock and accounce themselves, but where they can move in, without warning, in order to prevent the loss of evidence. This, no doubt, was used on the old lady.
2. Dynamic Entry: Used in conjunction with "No Knock", they move in, weapons drawn. This is used under the pretext that the suspects are known or thought to have dangerous weapons. Guess what? This can be used in nearly any case, as a good percentage of the US is (rightly) armed. The FBI/HRT and numerous federal, state, and local agencies have increased this type of entry significantly in the past 20 years. God forbid somebody kicks down your door and comes in screaming and pointing, and you decide to defend yourself. Anyone else and it's called a "Home Invasion."
3. Again, random stops. Now you're required to stop and answer questions,. The act of stopping you, randomly and without probable cause, is a breach of your rights. Just stopping and rolling down your window is enough to give them access to "probable cause" ("I smelled something funny, Judge."). Someday, when you hear "Papers, please.", you'll get it.
4. Since you've grown up in NY, you're no doubt used to and desensitized to your loss of rights. Just because you've lived with and accepted the loss of your 2nd Ammendment rights (among others) doesn't mean that the rest of us are. I'm used to carrying, legally, without hassle. I don't get stopped randomly as part of a sweep. I don't get smoked by overzealous, militarized police as I reach for the identification that they request. As such, I don't accept these tactics as necessary and just.

You quote a significantly high success rate, but you can only accept those figures if you accept the premise: "Success" is determined by the number of times you violate people and their rights, but you stop short of killing them. Out here in "flyover", we don't accept that as police work. That is the hallmark of a Junta.