Hiring 300 more AFT agents

Status
Not open for further replies.
Benton,

The essence of our disagreement goes back to the earliest days of our Republic. You are on the side of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton or of a "broad" interpretation of the Constitution. I am on the side of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison or a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution.

I don't have any problem with the commando tactics in hostage situations with a clear and present danger to the hostages. In all other situations, I have a very great problem with it.

If surveillance is in truth the purpose, well, two little old ladies dressed as bird watchers make more sense to me than the commando bit.

I have talked about the initial scenario at Ruby Ridge with many state and local LEO's. All of them agreed that there was no justification for those agents to be on that land equipped for an assassination with no warrant of any kind. Yes, there is justification for camouflage but justification for silenced weapons? No, silenced weapons are not necessary for self defense. Being equipped for assassination leads people to believe that the purpose was assassination.

I have bluntly asked LEO's this question without specifically referencing Ruby Ridge:
Camouflaged, automatic silenced weapons, no warrants, and totally covert penetration-what's the mission? In every case, the state or local LEO's answer was that they were there to kill. So even if you believe that this behaviour is justifiable you have a big, big problem with not only the civilians but with fellow LEO's when you decide to utilize such tactics. Therefore, the pertinent question is this: Are the potential gains of such tactics worth the known losses in respect and trust? In my view, the people who persist in using these tactics in the face of such massive suspicion and loss of trust are either idiots or, if not, perhaps they have goals that make loss of trust and respect irrelevant.

As I have posted on a similar topic previously, my 70 year mother is as patriotic and middle of the road American as you can get. God and country, apple pie. Has always voted for both Republicans and Democrats. She is worried that the people who brought us Ruby Ridge and Waco might come do the same to me for simply speaking my mind in forums such as this. Believe me, if a lady as middle of the road as she believes this, the so do millions of other "centrist" Americans. This is the results of such tactics. Are these tactics really worth such a result?
 
It has never been established that David Koresh started the fire.There is much evidence that the fire was part of the operation involving the use of massive quantities of CS. There were operators, probably SF and/or FBI inside the compound and many of the victims were head-shot as in execution.
The fact that this is done by agents of my country to citizens of my country makes me sick.
AND if you want to say that I cannot prove that the FBI et al did this, let me point out that the FBI controlled the situation from Day 2 and has the sole responsibility for how it played out.
David Koresh could have been arrested outside the compound any day of the week by my grandmother or any other lone person.
Bill, Hillary,Janet,Sarah and a few others probably pulled the strings but in the end the FBI did the deed.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Dear Spart

I won't address most of your issues. You have you perceptions and I'm sure your the type of individual who wouldn't be running a Meth lab or growing Marijuana for sale anyway.

Oh yeah, good ole harmless marijuana. We had a double fatal last weekend. Some guy 51 yrs old with his dog, going home. 25 yr old driving way over speed limit, in the rain, making bad passes. Head on. Kills the 51 yr old immediately. The idiot died a little later. Had his little bag of marijuana between his legs when they cut him out of the car, but anyway.

I will mention to you the reason sound surpressed weapons have become popular with tactical units recently. I didn't "get" it for some time. If your operating with a team and your all working with surpressed weapons you konw immediately that if you hear a gun shot it's NOT one of your guys. Knowing who's doing the shooting can be very important some times. If the L E O's in your area haven't grasp that concept yet it's a shame.

Paul B. You saw this disgusting incident you've related in the 70's. You've never eaten out again ?? I mean that was one incident by some idiots 20 + years ago. Are have you witnessed that kind of behavior on a regular basis ??? I would have thought you would have mentioned all the other incidents like that you would have witnessed in the years since then.
 
Did I perhaps mis-speak? Have I at any time endorsed either the events of Waco or Ruby Ridge? No. No, in fact I did not. If you read the earlier posts you'll find that I in fact denounced these operations. They were inexcusable...but all I'm trying to say is, DO NOT lump those yahoos in the same group as honest cops out there trying to do an honest job.

Two little old ladies posing as bird watchers? Are you kidding me? You obviously do not understand the scope of the situation at hand. That option is not even plausible.

My guess is that you do not understand the complexities and the volitility of a meth lab. Missouri (where I work) constantly trades back and forth with California on who is the top meth producer. We see more labs in a month than most officers will see in their career.

My guess is, if there were a meth lab next door to you, you'd damn well better want something done about it....you're a taxpayer damn it....you want us to do our job.

As far as Ruby Ridge, no I do not endorse the behaivor of the Marshal's Service, they did in fact have a warrant....it would be called a felony, federal ARREST WARRANT! And yes, if I have a felony arrest warrant, I can (with out your permission) enter your property to execute it.

As far as Jordan goes....I hope you never have to call the police, for anything. That would be a fortunate life indeed. BUt if you ever do, do not expect any more respect from them than they have received from you.

As fas as those doing no wrong not fearing the peace keeper....I still stand on my words. These are not my words, but those from the book of Romans. Sorry to inflame everyone with a biblical quote.

[This message has been edited by Benton Quest (edited July 03, 1999).]
 
Benton: Your right. If a meth lab was operating next door, I'd want you to take it out now. I am a taxpayer. We don't want crime to effect us, we want our families to be safe, and we want you to do it, and we do not want to give you all the "tools" you need to do your job. We want your ability to do your job hampered, now and forever.

Take off your badge for a minute. Assume you made an arrest and perp intent on working off the charge informs you that a meth lab/THC grow is operating in a certain area. You narrow it down to four rural properties. Your daughter's property is one of those. Now your unit obtains the utility bills for all four properties. Your daugher grows hydroponic tomatoes in her garage--high utilities bills. The plane flies over her property and using infrared confirms what appears to be a grow operation. Now your unit goes through her garbage and discovers receipts for fertilizer and other items indicating a grow operation. Your unit gets her bank records and they show a large deposit in the last few weeks (Her grandmother died and she received an inheritance. Based upon what you have, your unit obtains a "no knock" warrant to search the property. Now your unit, armed with fully automatic weapons, assaults your daughter's home (in the early morning hours. Your daugher, her husband, and children, are pulled out of bed, with MP5s pointed at their heads.

What is wrong with this picture. Your unit obtained her financial records, utility bills, searched her garbage, and flew over her home taking photographs. These actions all initiated by a snitch working off a bust.
Is this "legal?" Yes. Is it wrong???

Sure, your tactics minimized the risk of harm to your unit. Are these tactics "legal"? Yes. Is it wrong???

No one blames you for doing your job using all the "legal" tools you have available.

Isn't one goal of terrorism to force the goverment to erode the civil liberties of its citizens to protect them from the terrorist acts, to the point where the citizens view the goverment as the oppressors and revolt against the goverment?
 
Is LE is out of control? Yes. Is it the individual LEO's fault? No.

Out of control = "no knock" warrants, road blocks for drunks/ins/seatbelts/citizenship (Border Patrol), illegal detention and search(US Customs), theft of property without conviction, etc.

Until LEAs no longer participate in events such as those above, then they are out of control as far as the abuse of civil liberties is concerned.

Most LEOs are decent enough folks. Hell the last gunshow I went to, most of those dreaded private dealers were cops.
 
I agree that the FBI was responsible for what happened. If 80+ people die in an hour they did something wrong. I do know that the Davidians set the fires. The FBI has a history of burning people out but they did not do it this time. Koresch and his followers are the ones that did the head shots, not SF or FBI. Koresch himself was killed by a head shot from a Barrett Light .50 inflicted by a follower. This info is from surviellence audio and FLIR surviellence video. The path was open for the followers to hide in a buried bunker where they would have survived, but Koresch would not allow them to go, which is why some were shot. There were excessive amounts of CS gas used, especially with children present, and when the fires started the CS becomes toxic. Some of the people died of poisoning as a result of this reaction. The excuse used to serve the warrant on Koresch at the compound rather than picking him up on a jog was that they were concerned that evidence would be destroyed before they could get out to the compound if Koresch was picked up first. I think that is a pretty flimsy excuse and tend to agree with Benton that a media event was wanted. Keeping in mind that we are dealing with a federal DA in Waco who got the warrant and ended up prosecuting the case in San Antonio, because he was wanting to be a federal judge.
 
TLH:
Explain to me again how marijuana killed those two motorists? I don't know much about marijuana or it's effects but I've never heard of it's influence (whether in the bloodstream or, in this case, between his legs) to incite fast and reckless driving any more than ANY 25yo male might drive recklessly. I frequently hold a cup of coffee between my legs. I hope it's not there the day I get in a fatal accident... more fodder for "the war on caffiene".

On the day this wreck occured, I wonder how many fatalities were attributed to ALCOHOL? And come to think of it-- there was a lot of money to be made (by the authorities) and corruption to be enjoyed (by the authorities) and liberties to be disposed of (by the authorities) from criminalizing that too. Sadly, without the benifit of the modern media machine, the "war on alcohol" was a recognised failure.

Benton Quest:
We could have used you a while back when we were having a bunch of disussions/arguments about "us vs them", "LE vs 'civilian" etc. Your posts could have created a landslide victory for the side who fear LE more than we fear common criminals.
 
(okay, enough already.......)

RR,

In your scenario, the officers would be justified in making the raid. THat has been covered. Personalizing the situation does make it any less clear.

Benton,

You have been doing a great job here, with the odds firmly stacked against you.

Spartacus,

I love ya man.

Dennis,

Your observation that LEOs sometimes believe that they "are" the law is interesting. IF this is your take from the "every order must be obeyed" reality of LE work, then I am afraid you are mistaken. The reason that an LEO must have compliance with his orders is safety. Benton alluded to it earlier. Any interaction with the public should end with everyone safe, I think we can get agreement on that. If the officer controls a situation, accorindg to his training, the end result will be that everyone is safe.. provided that the people he is interacting with comply with his instructions.


Eveyone:

To interject Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Louima into a conversation about responsible local LE is like tha anti-gunnners talking about AK-47s in a conversation about whether guns are used more in defense or in crime. Yeah, there have been some shootings with AKs, but the vast majority of shootings are with much more mundane weapons.
We are always ready to jump on Sarah Brady, et al, when they make a little tiny mistake about gun nomenclature or when they twist a statistic to their favor. Turn that scrutiny on the posts above. I certainly see some people who are mis-applying the lessons learned from Waco and Ruby Ridge. Hell, those were years ago.. If anything the Federal Gov't is getting better in its use of force, not worse. I think that is what got this whole conversation started in the first place. Benton made the comment that federal LE really wasn't as capable, sinister or militant as some mihgt believe. I think that is true, and I think we should be glad about it, not try to build them up and create an enemy.

WE have enemies as gun owners, 99% of them are political. The ones that are in LE are the minority.



------------------
-Essayons
 
RR,

Believe me, I understand your point. Now try to understand mine:

You want that meth lab that's next door to you gone? OK, we'll take care of the problem. But how?

Perhaps I should just stroll up to the door in full uniform and say, "Good evening, Sir. I understand you are running a meth lab here. That is illegal and RR wants it gone. Come with me."

Do you think that would work?

So what should we do?

Well, we work towards obtaining a search warrant.

Now a search warrant, as it clearly spells out in the 4th amendment, "Shall not be issued but upon probable cause."

Hmmm. Sounds like we may want to run a surveillance. Call the old lady bird watchers. Hve them pack their gear bags, we have an operation for them.

All well and good. The old ladys return from the bush with enough plain view evidence to be what we believe to be "probable cause".

But who decides that?

Ahhh....A judge. That's right, part of a different branch of government all together. Checks and balances, you know.

A search warrant is not something that we run back to the office and pull out of our ass. The judges in our county are very squared away gentlemen that aren't going to approve ANYTHING unless its all but a done deal.

Now, as far as the "Tomato Assault". I'm am not sure my boss would even let me go to the judge with that evidence, but if he did, he might sign it. Your premise is entirely plausible.

Now it comes time to serve the search warrant. Believe it or not, there are several criteria that must be met before we don the Darth Vader gear. There are checks and balances. Any such operation must be approved by the boss, who is, by the way, an elected official.

So what are these criteria? Well is there an officer safety issue? Who are these people and what is their propensity towards violence? How many people are there? Do they have past criminal records for violence?

Not sure? Well then we didn't do our jobs.

So, in the case of the tomato bandit...given the facts that you have so eloquently presented, if we were to obtain a search warrant, it would not meet the criteria of a "High Risk Search Warrant".

We would execute such a search warrant by sending a couple of uniformed officers to the door and knock on it. We would then explain that we had a search warrant of the premisis. No weapons being brandished. No weeping or wailing or nashing of teeth.

Now, when I return from the warrant and have to inform the judge what I found and what I seized how pleased with me is he going to be when I show him the beautiful, ripe tomatos.

Hmmm.

Do you think I will ever get another search warrant signed by him again, no matter how appreciative he may be of fine vegetables?

This brings me to another system of checks and balances:

A check and balance that any cop fears as much as the law itself.....CIVIL LAWSUIT...with PUNITIVE DAMAGES.....

Hmmm.

Are there some bad apples out there that will invent probable cause? Sure. Are there goof-ball judges that will sign off on it? You bet. But this is the extreme.

It is always a little odd from my point of view that those that feel they are victims of the criminal justice system feel that law enforcement has too much power. On the other hand, the victim of a crime feels that we do not have enough.

Now, what did you want me to do about that meth lab next door?

Who's ox is being gored here?
 
Benton:

I think we agree, you want the tools to do your job and keep your unit safe. I want you to do your job and get rid of the meth lab next door and keep your unit safe.

You are dead wrong on the issue of no knock warrants. The Supreme Court issued a decision limiting their use because of widespread abuse of these warrants. Yes, the judges sign them. Units such as yours know just what language to put in the affidavit to obtain the warrant. Now if you can't get the no knock, the knock is done 2 milliseconds before the entry.

No one accuses you of acting in bad faith. However, we went too far in providing to you the "legal" tools to do your job. We made it "legal" for you to search my garbage, fly over my home, and assault my home on nothing more that the word of a snitch working off a bust. And then we made you immune from liability, "bullet proof" from a lawsuit if you acted in good faith. We allowed the use of police roadblocks. We allowed you to stop us in airports and ask to search our luggage based on nothing more than the use of a "profile." We made it "legal" for police to lie to us when being questioned. The list goes on and on. WE went too far. Imagine coming back from a trip to the Bahamas and you are asked to have your luggage searched. Leave the airport, and on the way home, you are stopped at a roadblock and asked to allow your vehicle to be searched. You get home and see a LEO searching your garbage. You look up and see a helicopter (no, not black) circling your property. All legal. No warrant needed. It appears that you are asserting that we are protected from such intrusions because LEOs don't do these things without good reason. Sorry, but we don't want to depend on the discretion of LEOs. That is why we have the checks and balances you referred to. But WE gave them away, and because we gave them away more and more "tomato assaults" are occurring. More and more innocent people are having being pulled out of bed and having MP5s pointed at their heads. A frequent occurence-no. But one is too many.

Please don't take my posts to infer that you are anything but a responsible line officer who would not do anything to infringe upon the rights of anyone (and a good sport in responding). However, as an individual, don't you feel that we have went too far with respect to the laws designed to fight the war on crime?
 
Ya'll know I'm pretty much Libertarian but I draw the line at meth labs. There have been quite a few meth busts out near me....very rural low population density. The problem with a lab itself are the extremely toxic chemicals and quantities necessary to make the crap. These chemicals are really bad news and can poison the water table, kill off the wildlife, explode, burn....all around very nasty stuff. The jerks making it strew this poison all over or sneak onto someone else's land and poison it.
If it was up to me I'd shoot the meth producers on sight

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Benton,

This question is asked with no malice intended:

You said that another checks and balances was Civil lawsuites and Punative damages...

Let's see if I can pose the question properly...

In the Ruby Ridge case, the sniper was excused because he was acting as an agent of the government, right?

Assuming a no-know warrant was issued and the house entered and vigorously searched, and it is discovered that the wrong house was entered OR no such evidence was found to support the warrant (ie: fine hydroponically grown tomatos. ;)) What legal recourses does the victim of this misguided search have at his disposal, and is it only the agency/city that the suit can be filed against, or can the individual officers be held accountable as well?

One particular example is a thread posted on this forum about a man who returned to his house to find the door broken down, the house ransacked, and an apology note from the police stating that they got the wrong house.

------------------
John/az

"They come, they eat, they leave...
"They come, they eat, they leave...NOT!!

Bill Clinton (aka: Hopper) Al Gore (aka: Molt) Janet Reno (aka: Thumper)

Ants UNITE!
 
An interesting post on news:rec.guns :

Courtesy of RCuffe@Mindspring.com

Saw a great article in Friday's (7/2/99) "The Washington Times" metro
section. Seems firework of all kinds (sparklers included) are illegal
in Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, Maryland. As these counties
abut Washington, D.C., where low power fireworks are legally bought,
Maryland sees fit to stake out fireworks stands in D.C., and then follow
anyone with Maryland license tags, stop them, and confiscate any
fireworks they bought in D.C. and were presumably going to carry into
Maryland.

Here's the kicker: According to the article, the traffic stops are done
IN D.C., by Maryland Fire Marshals, CARRYING SIDE ARMS. As you likely
know, anyone but LEO is prohibited from possessing a handgun in D.C.,
with severe penalties. Now we have to worry about armed Maryland Fire
Marshals enforcing Maryland laws in D.C. by confiscating personal
property without due process?

Please send me a hand basket, we're all going to hell, it seems.

Yea or Nay, would you stop if pulled over by a fire marshall while
otherwise lawfully driving your POV?
 
Jordan,

It's called THC old boy. Has the same effect on reactions and judgemenmt as alcohol. It's measured in marijuana in %. The old ditch weed of the 70's went like 1% THC. The good cultivated stuff around here can go as high as 16% indoor cultivated, 13% outdoor cultivated. I got some last year that went almost 10%.
THC makes you stupid old man, I've dealt with pot heads for 22 yrs. Long time hard users loose a lot of their mental capacity. And unlike alcohol, where the receptors in the brain will make a come back after about 5 years or so, pot just wipes them out.

Is that what your refering to ????

Yes we arrest a lot of drunks.. usually with pot the idiots are drinking along with using so the alcohol gets the blame because it's easier to test for.

The idiot that killed the other motorist and himself last weekend doesn't appear to have been drinking so I very confident that the results will show a high level of THC.
 
John/az2,

Well...I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, however, I will answer your questions to the best of my ability at this time of the morning.

Most law suits that citizens lodge against police officers are for excessive force or violation of civil rights. On a federal level, this would most likely fall under USC 42, Sec 1983.

Of course, these matters can also be handled on a state level if applicable.

In such cases, the city/county can be sued, the person writing the search warrant, the individual officers executing the search warrant, in some cases the training academy that the officers attended...all can be sued. Remember, this is America. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Doesn't mean they'll win, but they can try.

In the Lon Horuchi case, that was the FBI. I'm sorry, but my agencies pockets are not quite as deep as those of the Justice Department's. Once again, not wild about the comparison either.

In a case of punitive damages, if the individual officer is sued, then he must fork out the money. His agency is not allowed to pay.

Keep in mind that a sec 1983 lawsuit is criminal. There are numerous civil remedies that can be brought such as pain and anguish, that kind of stuff.

As far as the guy with the wrong door kicked in? Maybe he'll be a little bit more careful with HIS police department when he OWNS THE CITY. Was his residence searched without a warrant, and therefore probable cause. Yep. Then he should win the prize.

Hope this helps. Maybe a lawyer (if they are allowed on this coard) could chime in and clarify.

Of course, not many have listened to what I have written thus far.....Whew, we sure havee gotten way off track about the ATF hiring 300 agents this year.



[This message has been edited by Benton Quest (edited July 04, 1999).]
 
Benton,

Thanks for the reply.

I hope you understand that I was not making a comparison between your department and what went on at Ruby Ridge.

I was just curious how far an effective civil suit could reach into a government department (state or local).

I've never been in such a situation. And, like I said earlier, I fear more how clinton is thinning out our military and the threat of a UN occupation of the States than I do an uninvited local LEO drop-in!

"Would you like one or two lumps?" :)

As Jeff Thomas says,

Warm regards from Arizona!

------------------
John/az

"They come, they eat, they leave...
"They come, they eat, they leave...NOT!!

Bill Clinton (aka: Hopper) Al Gore (aka: Molt) Janet Reno (aka: Thumper)

Ants UNITE!


[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 04, 1999).]
 
Cultivation of marijuana? Deja vu! About 18 months ago, I came home one morning after work. An unmarked car pulled up and two plainclothes investigators got out. Figuring they needed directions, I ambled over and asked if I could help. They said they were looking for Byron Quick. Guilty, I replied.
They then told me they had information that I was growing marijuana on my property and would I mind them looking the place over. Knock yourselves out I replied and headed into the house. After showering, eating breakfast and changing clothes I headed out back to meet with the investigators who were finishing up looking over my small acreage. I asked if they had found their quarry and they replied they had not. I asked if they were certain they had searched sufficiently to find cunningly hidden plants. They assured me they had been most diligent. When I asked the nature of their information regarding my alleged dastardly conduct they asked if I had any problems with my neighbors and if I would hold a grudge. I replied that I had no known difficulties with the neighbors and would not hold a grudge with a neighbor who had mistakenly given false information while attempting to do his perceived civic duty. On the other, if a neighbor was simply doing this to give me grief then I would hold no grudge after I kicked his butt.

How much simpler and saner this was than the camoed, suppressed weapons route. That would have been bad news when I let my attack Chihuaha out in the morning and he zeroed in on the intrepid comic book characters. They didn't have a warrant and did not need one. They asked permission and I freely gave it.

They are true professionals and I respect them. If they had been otherwise a tragedy could have ensued.
 
Spart,

I agree with you 100%. The information that the officers had was more than likely sketchy at best, certainly not enough to obtain a search warrant in any case.

Even if they had gotten a search warrant, they had evaluated the threat, determined that there was none, and treated you like a gentleman.

I wear a brown uniform a whole lot more than I wear black or camo. For every dynamic entry we do, we probably do 100 "knock and talks". We treat people right until it is unsafe to do so, and even after they are in custody, we treat them with the respect that they deserve as human beings.

I understand your point of view. Just realize that we're not all the enemy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top