Hiring 300 More ATF Agents Part II
- Thread starter RR
- Start date
- Status
Benton Quest
New member
Whew....so Ivan, since I'm a Deputy Sheriff, does that mean I'm not involved in this? Because, like I said before, I didn't get that memo, and would hate to miss out on any of the fun.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Well, darn! I didn't get told to pound sand! 
Seriously, Benton, I believe if you will look into it that you will find that many departments have not a clue how to responsibly use this type of power. Look at the articles I posted earlier if you haven't already. A detective obtained this search warrant on the word of a 14 year old runaway with charges pending in three or four hours.
There are two main negative effects with these types of tactics: 1) People are being killed by police who have not identified themselves in their own homes for no good reason. 2) These tactics are causing large segments of the law abiding public to distrust police and police motives.
Personally, I would argue that these "dynamic entry" tactics do not make police safer in most instances. In the Houston and Kansas City cases, it increased police danger for the people attempted to defend themselves from unknown assailants breaking down their doors. The fact that the victims failed to defend themselves is immaterial. There was not one thing in the background of either man to suggest they would respond with violence to an ordinary arrest. In fact, in one case, no arrest would have been possible for there would have been no charges (Houston). In the Kansas City case, a normal search would have resulted in a misdemeanour marijuana charge.
I wonder if a thorough search and analysis was done on the use of these tactics, how large a percentage of dynamic entries are like the three I have mentioned-targeted against innocent people with no history of violence whatsoever?
Please do not construe this as an attack on you personally or LEO's in general. It is rather an attack on a dangerous policy as well as an attack on the many idiots who have apparently infiltrated police departments.
Seriously, Benton, I believe if you will look into it that you will find that many departments have not a clue how to responsibly use this type of power. Look at the articles I posted earlier if you haven't already. A detective obtained this search warrant on the word of a 14 year old runaway with charges pending in three or four hours.
There are two main negative effects with these types of tactics: 1) People are being killed by police who have not identified themselves in their own homes for no good reason. 2) These tactics are causing large segments of the law abiding public to distrust police and police motives.
Personally, I would argue that these "dynamic entry" tactics do not make police safer in most instances. In the Houston and Kansas City cases, it increased police danger for the people attempted to defend themselves from unknown assailants breaking down their doors. The fact that the victims failed to defend themselves is immaterial. There was not one thing in the background of either man to suggest they would respond with violence to an ordinary arrest. In fact, in one case, no arrest would have been possible for there would have been no charges (Houston). In the Kansas City case, a normal search would have resulted in a misdemeanour marijuana charge.
I wonder if a thorough search and analysis was done on the use of these tactics, how large a percentage of dynamic entries are like the three I have mentioned-targeted against innocent people with no history of violence whatsoever?
Please do not construe this as an attack on you personally or LEO's in general. It is rather an attack on a dangerous policy as well as an attack on the many idiots who have apparently infiltrated police departments.
Benton, my understandingis that sheriffs and their departments are the only legaL law enforcement(I used that term enforcement.I must be slipping) organization under the constitution. But,dont get me wrong,under the corporate system, allthese other police organizations are legal. But I dont think the Founders would look too highly on alphabet soup forces(ATF FBI< DEA EPA, IRS(ARMED NOW),etc., or state police. I think they would see them as unconstitutional. The Founders, I believe, would call for a Constitutional Convention to find a way back to a Articles of Confederation form of government. My goodness, we could go back to a honest money system with no debt!(gold and silver backed money)All peoples could start to live like sovereigns,not serfs to the big COrporations who run this present system.
Benton Quest
New member
Spartacus,
Believe it or not, we are not that far apart. I agree that there are in fact abuses with the system. But it's not the system's fault. It's the idiots that are letting it happen.
The Supreme Court has given us 10 exceptions to the Fourth Amendment; with these rulings, law enforcement has a grave responsiblity to make sure that these exceptions are not abused. However, there are those out there that do "take advantage" of the system, and I in no way endorse thier behaivor or offer defense of thier actions.
Just like firearms ownership, a law enforcement officer must enforce the laws of the land using the key word "responsibly". And, just as in gun ownership, a few bad apples spoil it far all those involved. Yes, it is true; in law enforcement we must use the "tools" that have been granted us wisely, lest they be taken away.....Just as anybody using a firearm irresponsibly should have it taken away. But just because a few miscreants step out of line doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should suffer.
Tempers run hot on these issues, and I have no problem seeing the other side. I just feel that others sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. If I were going to fear an ominous force, it would not be law enforcement....it would be the military. People who HAVE to follow orders. But, that's a whole 'nother post, and I don't wish to awaken that beast.
Points well taken from most participants. I hope we have helped bridge the gap somewhat. See the enemy for who they are...Not the honest cop trying to do his job.
And Jordan......once again....POUND SAND!!!
And Spartacus...on a side note....something that concerns me....I read your profile and it stated that you are a "Registered Nurse"; Doesn't that scare you a bit? I mean, isn't registration the first step to confiscation?
Believe it or not, we are not that far apart. I agree that there are in fact abuses with the system. But it's not the system's fault. It's the idiots that are letting it happen.
The Supreme Court has given us 10 exceptions to the Fourth Amendment; with these rulings, law enforcement has a grave responsiblity to make sure that these exceptions are not abused. However, there are those out there that do "take advantage" of the system, and I in no way endorse thier behaivor or offer defense of thier actions.
Just like firearms ownership, a law enforcement officer must enforce the laws of the land using the key word "responsibly". And, just as in gun ownership, a few bad apples spoil it far all those involved. Yes, it is true; in law enforcement we must use the "tools" that have been granted us wisely, lest they be taken away.....Just as anybody using a firearm irresponsibly should have it taken away. But just because a few miscreants step out of line doesn't necessarily mean that everyone should suffer.
Tempers run hot on these issues, and I have no problem seeing the other side. I just feel that others sometimes do not see the forest for the trees. If I were going to fear an ominous force, it would not be law enforcement....it would be the military. People who HAVE to follow orders. But, that's a whole 'nother post, and I don't wish to awaken that beast.
Points well taken from most participants. I hope we have helped bridge the gap somewhat. See the enemy for who they are...Not the honest cop trying to do his job.
And Jordan......once again....POUND SAND!!!
And Spartacus...on a side note....something that concerns me....I read your profile and it stated that you are a "Registered Nurse"; Doesn't that scare you a bit? I mean, isn't registration the first step to confiscation?
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Benton, way too much sheeet would pile up if they confiscated the nurses 
Never happen and even if it did we would be released posthaste!
Never happen and even if it did we would be released posthaste!Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Ivan, I believe you should check out the beliefs and post Constitutional Convention political careers of ALL of the framers of the Constitution. Many followed the beliefs of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams into the Federalist Party (not the same thing as a pre-ratification federalist). The beliefs of the Federalist Party are the direct ancestors of today's mainstream Republican and Democratic thought. Others followed James Madison and Thomas Jefferson into the Jeffersonian Republican Party (not the same as today's Republican Party). By no stretch of the imagination would all or perhaps even most of the Founders assail the government we have today. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution most assuredly would be counted among those who would be implacable foes of the present day Republican and Democratic parties as well as unbelievably critical of the Supreme Court rulings that Mr. Quest points to. All in all, based on careful consideration of the issues at hand, as well as the lives of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, I am calmly prepared to base my actions and beliefs on the philosophies of Madison and Jefferson in the face of any and all Supreme Courts, Congresses, Presidents, police departments, and militaries. Come what may, with malice toward none, if to die for my beliefs I must-I will be in peerless company.
Benton, I don't think we are too far apart either. We'd probably enjoy drinking some beer and telling lies together. However, the political divide between us is, in truth, very great. This does not mean I believe you are the scum of the earth. I do believe you and thousands like you are being played for dupes by forces in this country who want to be good masters but mean to be masters-who want to be good rulers but mean to rule (to paraphrase Senator Daniel Webster).
You reiterated several times on the use of dynamic entry tactics to ensure the safety of officers. I wholeheartedly agree that the safety of LEO's in their endeavours is a matter of great concern. However, with me personally, it is the group of tactics that places the officers involved in the greatest amount of peril. I will not resist a little unarmed lady with a badge and a search warrant. On the other hand, I will shoot at close relatives who break my doors in-and I will shoot to kill. The incidents I related in Houston and Kansas City are tragic examples of this. Neither man had a criminal record of any significance. Neither man had a reputation for violence. They reacted exactly as I would react. The main difference being that I am better armed, better trained and my doors are much stouter.
So I maintain that in many of the dynamic entries of which I am aware- the danger to police was magnified by the use of totally inappropriate tactics.
A pertinent question is why were these tactics used in inappropriate manners?
1) A "cowboy" mentality among some of the officers trained for these tactics: Why train in tactics if you are not going to use them?
2) As mentioned previously, abysmal analysis of intelligence, especially as to grading the quality of the source of the intelligence.
3) The budget threat. Sadly, both police departments and the military must show "cause" to retain costly capability. It is extremely difficult to show cause to keep up expensive SWAT or SRT's if they are not used.
Talking of intelligence analysis reminded me of an old intelligence community maxim:
An event occurring once MIGHT BE happenstance.
An event occurring twice MIGHT BE
coincidence.
An event occurring thrice IS enemy action.
Think about it.
Benton, I don't think we are too far apart either. We'd probably enjoy drinking some beer and telling lies together. However, the political divide between us is, in truth, very great. This does not mean I believe you are the scum of the earth. I do believe you and thousands like you are being played for dupes by forces in this country who want to be good masters but mean to be masters-who want to be good rulers but mean to rule (to paraphrase Senator Daniel Webster).
You reiterated several times on the use of dynamic entry tactics to ensure the safety of officers. I wholeheartedly agree that the safety of LEO's in their endeavours is a matter of great concern. However, with me personally, it is the group of tactics that places the officers involved in the greatest amount of peril. I will not resist a little unarmed lady with a badge and a search warrant. On the other hand, I will shoot at close relatives who break my doors in-and I will shoot to kill. The incidents I related in Houston and Kansas City are tragic examples of this. Neither man had a criminal record of any significance. Neither man had a reputation for violence. They reacted exactly as I would react. The main difference being that I am better armed, better trained and my doors are much stouter.
So I maintain that in many of the dynamic entries of which I am aware- the danger to police was magnified by the use of totally inappropriate tactics.
A pertinent question is why were these tactics used in inappropriate manners?
1) A "cowboy" mentality among some of the officers trained for these tactics: Why train in tactics if you are not going to use them?
2) As mentioned previously, abysmal analysis of intelligence, especially as to grading the quality of the source of the intelligence.
3) The budget threat. Sadly, both police departments and the military must show "cause" to retain costly capability. It is extremely difficult to show cause to keep up expensive SWAT or SRT's if they are not used.
Talking of intelligence analysis reminded me of an old intelligence community maxim:
An event occurring once MIGHT BE happenstance.
An event occurring twice MIGHT BE
coincidence.
An event occurring thrice IS enemy action.
Think about it.
Spartacus, I agree that men like Hamilton and Adams were in favor of a more centralized system than men like Jefferson or Madison. But ,if push came to shove, I bet they would join Jefferson and his crowd in opposing this monsterous Federal system that even Hamilton would think is pure dictatorial. If any of those Federalist saw how the Judicial system is nothing but a enforcement arm of the Feds and not a check on Federal power, even they would be up in arms. If those Federalist saw that the Senate is popularly elected ,they also would be pissed. Both Federalist and the Jeffersonian people made the Senate elected by the state legislatures so that THE SENATE,THROUGH ITS REPRSENTATIVES, COULD KEEP A EYE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Since 1913, the same year we got the Federal Reserve System, the Senate is a popularly elected special interest organization. And we have seen how corrupt that body has become. Big Alexander Hamilton would be in agreement with his rival Jefferson: The modern Federal government is way too big and must be reigned in to DC and Puerto Rico. Too bag we cannot bring those good old boys back to settle these arguements!
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, was dissatisfied with the state legislatures control of Senate elections from the beginning as well as state equality in Senator numbers. He thought that the Senate should also be apportioned according to population. Research what he thought of the so called "Great Compromise." Check how John Adams and the Federalists packed the Federal Judiciary upon the eve of Adams' leaving office.
I haven't posted on TFL for a few months now due to a lot of factors, but this thread brings me back.
Benton has done a great job of making points, but it seems to me that no one really even wants to hear what he has to say. Throughout this debate several people have taken the opinion that drug abuse is a victimless crime. WAKE UP!!! Drug abuse of any kind, legal, illegal, alcohol, marijuana, hard drugs whatever, leaves numerous victims in its path. The family members that watch their loved one drown in the hell of addiction, the innocent person creamed on the road by the drunk driver, the neighbors whose house gets burglarized by little johnny next door so he can buy crack, the children of the cop who gets blown away by a meth freak, the wife who can't put food on the table because her husband is too stoned to work, and on and on. I have been a local cop for 5 years and 6 months, before that I spent 4 years and 6 months in the Coast Guard. I have never been on a SWAT team, in fact my Dept. doesn't have one. The fact is, whether you all like it or not, I am going home to my pregnant wife and 3 year old son after my shift. I do not start fights. I do not abuse people. If someone decides that they are going to test me and see how far they can push the cop, they are going to lose. My safety is the #1 priority taking into account that I have a duty to perform. If you don't like that, "POUND SAND" By refusing to acknowledge that cops are ever right in useing force or using military style tactics, you folks show exactly why we have an us vs. them attitude. The vast majority of Americans want to see the police riding around in patrol cars and want us to find their stolen bicycle, but truly have no idea what we deal with on a day to day basis. That's OK. We get paid to keep you having to know what we deal with. Just don't take a small amount of the facts that you get from the news media and indict, convict and sentence us without ever knowing the whole truth. This is one reason why very few cops are disciplined in many of the well known media cases. The media shows you a video of a cop hitting someone and gets you all shook up and only at the trial does anybody see the rest of the tape where the poor "victim" kicked a cop in the nuts. I have a few more things to get out, but I have to go to work. Oh, I guess you didn't realize that while you are at home on a Sunday night with your family, we are out there trying to keep the wolves at bay. By the way, nothing I have said is meant to support corrupt police (yes, they do exist,) or abusing anyone. I just want you to think and try to see the whole situation before you make up your mind.
Benton has done a great job of making points, but it seems to me that no one really even wants to hear what he has to say. Throughout this debate several people have taken the opinion that drug abuse is a victimless crime. WAKE UP!!! Drug abuse of any kind, legal, illegal, alcohol, marijuana, hard drugs whatever, leaves numerous victims in its path. The family members that watch their loved one drown in the hell of addiction, the innocent person creamed on the road by the drunk driver, the neighbors whose house gets burglarized by little johnny next door so he can buy crack, the children of the cop who gets blown away by a meth freak, the wife who can't put food on the table because her husband is too stoned to work, and on and on. I have been a local cop for 5 years and 6 months, before that I spent 4 years and 6 months in the Coast Guard. I have never been on a SWAT team, in fact my Dept. doesn't have one. The fact is, whether you all like it or not, I am going home to my pregnant wife and 3 year old son after my shift. I do not start fights. I do not abuse people. If someone decides that they are going to test me and see how far they can push the cop, they are going to lose. My safety is the #1 priority taking into account that I have a duty to perform. If you don't like that, "POUND SAND" By refusing to acknowledge that cops are ever right in useing force or using military style tactics, you folks show exactly why we have an us vs. them attitude. The vast majority of Americans want to see the police riding around in patrol cars and want us to find their stolen bicycle, but truly have no idea what we deal with on a day to day basis. That's OK. We get paid to keep you having to know what we deal with. Just don't take a small amount of the facts that you get from the news media and indict, convict and sentence us without ever knowing the whole truth. This is one reason why very few cops are disciplined in many of the well known media cases. The media shows you a video of a cop hitting someone and gets you all shook up and only at the trial does anybody see the rest of the tape where the poor "victim" kicked a cop in the nuts. I have a few more things to get out, but I have to go to work. Oh, I guess you didn't realize that while you are at home on a Sunday night with your family, we are out there trying to keep the wolves at bay. By the way, nothing I have said is meant to support corrupt police (yes, they do exist,) or abusing anyone. I just want you to think and try to see the whole situation before you make up your mind.
"Drug abuse of any kind, legal, illegal, alcohol, marijuana, hard drugs whatever, leaves numerous victims in its path"
And the 'numerous victims stuff' is illegal and are actual crimes against persons and properties.
"Coast Guard"
Routinely violates civil rights during law enforcement practices. Most recently pepper spraying Cubans swimming in the ocean.
"If someone decides that they are going to test me and see how far they can push the cop, they are going to lose."
Surely you mean you defend yourself instead of seeking revenge over petty remarks or a chase?
"By refusing to acknowledge that cops are ever right in useing force or using military style tactics, you folks show exactly why we have an us vs. them attitude"
I don't think that has ever been alluded to that too much. I don't have a problem with ninja suits, suppressed autos, use of force (try pulling two chicks apart when their fighting, you got too pull HARD and hold HARD), etc. Of course even though it is legal for you to do things that are unConstitutional in my opinion (road blocks for ins, seatbelts, drunks; no knock warrants; etc.), it does make it 'right'.
"The media shows you a video of a cop hitting someone and gets you all shook up and only at the trial does anybody see the rest of the tape where the poor "victim" kicked a cop in the nuts."
If the suspect is hit after cuffed or while being searched and not resisting, it is wrong. (I've seen this btw and the cop was disciplined.)
"Oh, I guess you didn't realize that while you are at home on a Sunday night with your family, we are out there trying to keep the wolves at bay."
Thanks.
The sad fact is certain parts of LE suck because the laws suck. Laws suck because legislators and judges suck. And this all happens because voters suck. Now I've worked in Welfare. Welfare sucked. But I didn't. And it doesn't mean that you do or others like you do.
And the 'numerous victims stuff' is illegal and are actual crimes against persons and properties.
"Coast Guard"
Routinely violates civil rights during law enforcement practices. Most recently pepper spraying Cubans swimming in the ocean.
"If someone decides that they are going to test me and see how far they can push the cop, they are going to lose."
Surely you mean you defend yourself instead of seeking revenge over petty remarks or a chase?
"By refusing to acknowledge that cops are ever right in useing force or using military style tactics, you folks show exactly why we have an us vs. them attitude"
I don't think that has ever been alluded to that too much. I don't have a problem with ninja suits, suppressed autos, use of force (try pulling two chicks apart when their fighting, you got too pull HARD and hold HARD), etc. Of course even though it is legal for you to do things that are unConstitutional in my opinion (road blocks for ins, seatbelts, drunks; no knock warrants; etc.), it does make it 'right'.
"The media shows you a video of a cop hitting someone and gets you all shook up and only at the trial does anybody see the rest of the tape where the poor "victim" kicked a cop in the nuts."
If the suspect is hit after cuffed or while being searched and not resisting, it is wrong. (I've seen this btw and the cop was disciplined.)
"Oh, I guess you didn't realize that while you are at home on a Sunday night with your family, we are out there trying to keep the wolves at bay."
Thanks.
The sad fact is certain parts of LE suck because the laws suck. Laws suck because legislators and judges suck. And this all happens because voters suck. Now I've worked in Welfare. Welfare sucked. But I didn't. And it doesn't mean that you do or others like you do.
When the criminal behavior happens out of a need for the drug or because of intoxication by the drug, how can you say that the victims are not victims of the drug.
I have been out of the Coast Guard for 7 years, but I am proud of my service there and would have to see facts of the cases of abuse (not CNN coverage) before I could form an opinion.
I do not mean to imply that I would ever abuse people, I believe I stated that in the first post. The fact is, police are taught to maintain control of the situation. If I can do that by my presence alone, that is great. Sometimes it takes verbal commands and sometimes physical control. The citizen is the one who decides how much force will be used by forcing me to go farther to keep the given situation under control. As for striking someone in handcuffs, I have NEVER done it and do not condone it by others. I personally work on the principal of treating everybody like they are the nicest person in the world, while always keeping a plan on how to engage them ready in my mind. If someone fights me, they get everything I have until the fight is over and when it is over, it is over. Remember that we are people too. We do get mad when someone assaults us, just like anyone on this forum would. I have found that most police actually tend to underreact during fights, while most citizens tend to bluster about how they would kick someone's but for every little minor offense. Short form, you will get from me the respect that you give me. No law says that I must be polite while you curse me or turn the other cheak when you strike me.
I have been out of the Coast Guard for 7 years, but I am proud of my service there and would have to see facts of the cases of abuse (not CNN coverage) before I could form an opinion.
I do not mean to imply that I would ever abuse people, I believe I stated that in the first post. The fact is, police are taught to maintain control of the situation. If I can do that by my presence alone, that is great. Sometimes it takes verbal commands and sometimes physical control. The citizen is the one who decides how much force will be used by forcing me to go farther to keep the given situation under control. As for striking someone in handcuffs, I have NEVER done it and do not condone it by others. I personally work on the principal of treating everybody like they are the nicest person in the world, while always keeping a plan on how to engage them ready in my mind. If someone fights me, they get everything I have until the fight is over and when it is over, it is over. Remember that we are people too. We do get mad when someone assaults us, just like anyone on this forum would. I have found that most police actually tend to underreact during fights, while most citizens tend to bluster about how they would kick someone's but for every little minor offense. Short form, you will get from me the respect that you give me. No law says that I must be polite while you curse me or turn the other cheak when you strike me.
Rob Pincus
New member
If I may be so bold...
This thread has over 50 posts and just about none of them have anything to do with 300 new ATF agents (okay, not directly)
sooooooooo.....
Feel free to start a new thread on any of the side topics.
------------------
-Essayons
This thread has over 50 posts and just about none of them have anything to do with 300 new ATF agents (okay, not directly
)sooooooooo.....
Feel free to start a new thread on any of the side topics.
------------------
-Essayons
- Status