Illegal Home Entries Put Police Unit Tactics on Trial

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gusgus:
mrat,
I am sure that the vast majority of LEOs are good, hard working individuals, who care greatly about performing their duties, in order to protect and serve their true bosses, the US Citizen. I would be greatly saddened to hear of any of these brave men or women, needlessly giving of their lives in the line of duty.

That said, there is a deadly cancer creeping into the Law Enforcement community. This is the cancer of "elitism". Here in the North East, it is most prevalent. Though there are still many fine officers in the North East, there is an ever increasing number of brain washed cowboys (no offense to our Texan brothers/sisters). Many of these LEOs feel that NO Citizen should be allowed to own any weapon. It is their "duty" to disarm as many law abiding citizens, on any and all minor technicalities. They are the elite, and ALL citizens are the enemy. Some actually display the mentality of an "occupying force". To them, it would be just fine to kill a few innocents, in order to protect their lives. These are the LEOs that we are addressing in this thread. The ones above the law. The ones that feel that it's OK to break law after law, in order to reduce risk to themselves. The ones that feel that it's OK to shoot a citizen in his/her bed, because, "we knew he/she had guns, and might have resisted".

You may think I'm crazy, as hopefully, these self righteous elitists don't yet exist in your department. But believe me, they do exist, and the cancer is growing.[/quote]

Gungus,

I'm afraid the cancer of American Fascism is spreading faster then most of us realise.

Yes indeed, the Elitist Cowboy Kops also exist in ever increasing numbers, here in the Land of Fruits & Nuts, sometimes known as the Peoples' Republik of Kalifornia. :eek:

IMHO, it won't be all that long until we see the checkpoints going up and the sound of "your papers please" here in left-wing Fascist occupied Kalifornia.

See you in the camps ;)




[This message has been edited by Randy Davis (edited July 04, 2000).]
 
The Washington Post is notorious for scholarly sounding "objective" pieces which in fact conceal a depraved left wing agenda, in this case probably a general anti traditional authority preoccupation.

I'd like to see other documentation before I condemn the police. They were, after all, trying in one case to detain a potential suicide.

Suicidals are extremely high-risk people: a sneakier bunch of psych patients I've never had to work with. They're more dangerous than homicidals. Some suicidal people will kill anyone who stands in their way to kill themselves, while most homicidals focus on one particular person or bunch they want to do in. The difference may seem semantic but it is tremendous.

For an excellent example read recent Japanese history.

The other case involved a legal search of a dope fiend's residence, and there aren't enough of them in jail anyway.



[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited July 04, 2000).]
 
mrat,

I agree that this is a contributor of some of the problems we as subjects experience with LEO's but we must all remember that when people get into a position of authority it gives them power. When they get power (especially when superiorly armed) they tend to abuse it. It was some wise mind that once said "power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely".

mrat writes:
______________________________________
Gusgus,
I agree with you that there is a problem with some LEOs doing the things you describe in your post (I believe this is a very small percentage of LEOs). What you need to remember though is where we recruit LEOs, from the population of the USA. LEOs are a representation of the beliefs of the population. Therefore if there is antigun sentiment in the population you are going to end up with some antigun LEOs, etc. I think the problem is with a large majority of the of our population.
__________________________________

Regards,

Joel H.
 
Oh my -- where to begin...

<Rhetorical>

Is it okay to violate the civil rights of a private citizen in order to ascertain whether or not that citizen has broken / may break the law?

</Rhetorical>

The whole "forced entry" thing gives me the willies, and I can only hope that the LEOs are of the same mind. Not that I've ever had to contend with such a thing myself (aherm) but I can't imagine that I'd be certain to hear the LEOs yelling "POLICE OFFICER!" over the pounding of jump boots on stairs as I'm waking up and reaching for my 12ga.

Regardless of the circumstances preceding the event, both sides are put into a position of forcefull (dare I say lethal) defense once the door comes off the hinges. From a purely tactical standpoint, I think that'd be something to be avoided, even at the cost of letting the guilty destroy evidence or the mentally ill harming themselves.

I suppose there will be circumstances when all other efforts have failed and a forced entry is the FINAL option, but I'm shocked that some law enforcement agencies (and some private citizens) feel that the civil rights of the general populace are best protected by busting in doors FIRST and asking questions LATER.

To borrow from the Hypocratic Oath: "First do no harm."

Translation for the feeble-minded: "You can't defend a Right by attacking it, uphold the law by breaking it, or save a life by taking it."

Re: LEOs and non-response

Contrary to popular belief, law enforcement is not under any legal obligation whatsoever to respond to any specific call for help (and that includes 911 calls). There are lots of instances all over the country where victims have sued their LEOs for non-response and lost, the courts upholding the notion that LEOs are a "general deterent" and not a private protection service.

There is no "[insert name here]" in "Protect and Serve."

The only problem I have with this is that the state of Maryland (where I now live), which defends itself with that notion, in the same breath denies me my Constitutional Right to defend myself and my family except under the very specific and highly restrictive circumstances described by state law... which, by the way, does not include firing upon LEOs that forcibly gain entry to my private residence without properly identifiying themselves (go figure).

Re: LEOs are paid to risk their lives

Only if they're Secret Service on personal protection detail (and who decided that being an elephant keeper was more dangerous?!?).

I don't expect an LEO to take a bullet for me any more than I'd expect him to drop everything and come rushing over to my house every time I heard a noise.

LEOs are paid to see and be seen, deal with the aftermath of all the unsavory acts the rest of us would rather not, and attend to the dregs of humanity -- all of which, although inherently risky, does not necessarily entail continuous threat to life and limb.

To quote mrat: "LEOs are people just like you, they have mortgages, families, little league, vacations, etc ... What you need to remember though is where we recruit LEOs, from the population of the USA. LEOs are a representation of the beliefs of the population."

Bravo, mrat. LEOs are people, just like you and me... which is why people like Munro scare the hell out of me when they say: "They were, after all, trying in one case to detain a potential suicide ... The other case involved a legal search of a dope fiend's residence, and there aren't enough of them in jail anyway."

I suppose many of the LEOs in Fairfax think the same way -- that what they did was justified, because it was just a suicidal whacko and a dope fiend. I guess other undesireable elements like religous whackos and white seperatist gun runners should expect the same consideration?

Did we learn nothing from Waco and Ruby Ridge?

I'm not a cop... you couldn't pay me enough to do that job. But I have friends who are cops, and my brother is a cop... and I wouldn't trade one of their lives for all the drunks, manic depressives, drug dealers, carjackers, gangbangers, and assorted perps in the country.

But, at the same time, heaven forbid my brother should be the first one through my bedroom door at 3am ... because 00 doesn't respect familial ties.

I don't like drug dealers, and I don't want the mentally ill hurting themselves -- but above all I don't want someone "just like me" trampling my civil rights (either inadvertantly or on purpose) in some misguided attempt to "protect" me.

The Fourth Ammendment affords us protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures" -- and I don't think that our founding fathers would have seen a SWAT team armed with Bennellis and MP5s as any different than a squad of Her Majesty's Marines, regardless of whether or not they announced their identity after kicking in the door.
 
All of you are overlooking one of the culprits in some of these entry cases, though not the one the thread started with.

Judges.

Judges issue search warrants. They have a consitutional duty to examine the grounds for the warrant and they have the power to restrict the methods used if they want. They don't because most of them are either clueless, or former prosecutors, or both.

But it's about time to start educating them. Here in Oklahoma warrants can only be served at night, for example, if there is good evidence that evidence of the crime will be destroyed before morning. It's a good rule, but judges rubber-stamp such a finding far too much without asking any questions.

Judges also should demand more info on informants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top