“You mean ‘the alleged’, right? Do you know the difference? Or do you simply think that since the cops shot him, he’s de facto a criminal?”
Sorry, we are not in court, so I’m not bound to use technically precise terms. Also, my statement was about “enough evidence for a judge to ok a warrant...”
“Was that before or after he opened fire on the police?”
It is not uncommon for people to interpret incorrectly when massive gunshots are heard in the fog of a dangerous situation. Do you honestly think that the police officers are out there to do harm and lie?
“I mean, rather than clear the building and apply medical attention to the target, they let the guy bleed out while waiting an hour for the robot to poke his dead body to make sure he’s dead”
Different set of of risk averseness in police versus military. Also, the officers state his body fell through a doorway and he was mostly obscured from their vision.
“My commander (prior to screaming at me to do my damn job) would have laughed himself to tears if I had asked for that in Tikrit.”
Seriously. Thanks for your service. I wonder how many of our strikes in Iraq and Afghan that are labeled as “civillians” are truly civies or just Talis and AQ in garb, hiding by some civies, knowing the PR effect.?
“Paying lip service to freedom and God given rights while cheering on the SWAT for acting like the Internal Security Bureau of some third world banana republic is intellectually dishonest.”
An objective look at our civil rights versus “third worlders” and even Euros, will show our civil rights are still intact and the strongest in the world.
Comparing the US to the Soviets is just not knowing the Soviets.
I appreciate and thank you for your reasoned response, even in the face of my snark. I need to run an errand at the moment but will reply again later.
FReegards, SW
Sorry, we are not in court, so I’m not bound to use technically precise terms. Also, my statement was about “enough evidence for a judge to ok a warrant...”
This is the problem. I don't know if this guy was guilty or innocent. I don't know if the discrepancies in the police report were honest mistakes or an institutional reflex to cover up bad news.
Even though the search warrant was legit, that doesn't mean he's a criminal, just that there were sufficient suspicions to merit checking out his house. You are very cavalier in pronouncing this guy guilty, even in the lack of evidence he was anything more than peripherally involved in criminal activity. Why would I or any other FReeper entrust someone with that kind of mentality as a protector of American society?
While drug gangs are a threat to society, unrestrained police are an order of magnitude more dangerous. This might be an either / or proposition to you, but to most Americans, aggressive SWAT operations for increasingly minor causes are wearing thin. The attitude that 'if people don't like what the police are doing, they can pound sand' is helping speed that process along.
“Was that before or after he opened fire on the police?”
It is not uncommon for people to interpret incorrectly when massive gunshots are heard in the fog of a dangerous situation. Do you honestly think that the police officers are out there to do harm and lie?
Out to harm and lie? No, they probably didn't know the target from Adam. Willing to cover up mistakes that could get their teammates in trouble? Sure.
When you operate on a small team, you're loyalty runs smallest to biggest. Team. Unit. Department. Force. State. Country. You entrust your life to your teammates, and human nature will lead you to treat any threat to your teammates as evil and wrong.
As far as the fog of battle, I know gunfights can be confusing, but this wasn't confusion, it was panic. One guy started shooting, then everyone started shooting. And kept shooting.
Between that event, and the fact that they incorrectly reported that he fired first, there is a distinct possibility that the initial shot was panic at seeing an armed man, and the 'he was pointing a weapon' part was added in later as a justification. I don't know that happened, but its worth investigating, given how sloppy the rest of their work was.
“I mean, rather than clear the building and apply medical attention to the target, they let the guy bleed out while waiting an hour for the robot to poke his dead body to make sure he’s dead”
Different set of of risk averseness in police versus military. Also, the officers state his body fell through a doorway and he was mostly obscured from their vision.
This is completely unconvincing. I'm not as familiar with law enforcement standards, but how to you clear a building if you stop and hide when you hit opposition? This is tactically unsound on several levels. If you're dynamically raiding the house to stop them from flushing the evidence, then you halt because you think there might be another threat inside, what's to stop *him* from flushing the evidence? It just makes no sense.
If SWAT teams are that risk averse, then they shouldn't be doing high risk operations. But their record isn't one of risk aversion. This same PD had paramedics on the scene in under 15 minutes when Giffords and a dozen other people were shot, in a far more uncontrolled event.
This is either rank incompetence, or intentionally running out the clock on a witness who was bleeding to death.
“My commander (prior to screaming at me to do my damn job) would have laughed himself to tears if I had asked for that in Tikrit.”
Seriously. Thanks for your service. I wonder how many of our strikes in Iraq and Afghan that are labeled as “civillians” are truly civies or just Talis and AQ in garb, hiding by some civies, knowing the PR effect.?
Do Muslim insurgents lie their asses off? Non stop, 24/7. It's all they know. Islamic culture actively encourages it. That said, it's not like the Army is married to the painful truth, either. Insurgents use lies as weapons, the Army lies as a shield.
Anyway, we weren't there to protect and serve the Iraqi or Afghan people. I don't really care what the locals though of our work, so long as they were compliant. We were there to further the interests of the United States, as directed by the lawful chain of command, not to make friends. (If any officers want to chime in now with 'Every Soldier an Ambassador'), I'll be happy to dismember your argument.)
We were always very careful not to hit civilians, out of basic human decency, but I'd be lying if I said our work was in any way comparable to what our police are supposed to be. All we cared about is doing the job and coming home alive. Caring about the good of the locals doesn't factor when you're on the other side of the world, in a country where no one wants you there, and you can't trust anyone from age 5 and up.
“Paying lip service to freedom and God given rights while cheering on the SWAT for acting like the Internal Security Bureau of some third world banana republic is intellectually dishonest.”
An objective look at our civil rights versus “third worlders” and even Euros, will show our civil rights are still intact and the strongest in the world. Comparing the US to the Soviets is just not knowing the Soviets.
Right now? You're correct. We're not the Soviets yet.
The problem is the trend. In 10 years, the police and the American people will have the same relationship that the Army and the Iraqis had five years ago. What's it going to look like in 20 years? Especially after the U.S. dollar collapses, and times get hard? Or when harder leftist leaders need to exert more control?
America in general ain't the country you grew up in, and in a short time, it'll look a lot more like the USSR. Moving to make the police more powerful, insular and militarized isn't good for the future of a free and democratic society.
It's time for a harder look at paramilitary LE teams in America. I understand that LEOs have a hard and thankless job, but their safety is less important than American freedom. You may feel that the cops are getting a bad rap here, but it's blowback. Conservatives trust cops more than anyone, but when cops prove themselves unworthy of that trust, the backlash is that much harder.