Police: Oops, wrong house.
- Thread starter kkb
- Start date
if you read you will see that my comment was in response to the comment from the poster prior about making a wrong threat assessment
Being killed does not make shooting an invader any less an appropriate response.
So um, unless you think that the courts will find in favor of a home invasion robber if he manages to kill the homeowner then your point has no relevance to the comment that you are trying to discredit
Sometimes we get a little too quick to post a response before actually reading and practicing the requisite comprehension
Being killed does not make shooting an invader any less an appropriate response.
So um, unless you think that the courts will find in favor of a home invasion robber if he manages to kill the homeowner then your point has no relevance to the comment that you are trying to discredit
Sometimes we get a little too quick to post a response before actually reading and practicing the requisite comprehension
This will continue to happen unless and until society decides to make police responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, all too often, conservatives (many of whom are gun owners) tend to "support your local police" even when the police are clearly wrong and even reckless. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to see the police as always wrong and real criminals as innocent victims.
Until everyone agrees that police must be allowed to do their job without undue interference, but at the same time be held responsible for mistakes, incidents like that will continue. And police contribute to an "atmosphere of terror" by dressing in black, covering their faces, and arming themselves with super weapons. They feel that their own "terrorism" is needed to intimidate bad guys and ultimately save lives, but they fail to see that it also causes the public to see police not as community crime fighters but as outsiders and government thugs who may well be criminals themselves.
Since for the most part, police are never prosecuted, successfully sued, or held responsible for mistakes, even when innocent lives are taken, I am afraid we will continue to see that kind of "mistake."
Jim
Until everyone agrees that police must be allowed to do their job without undue interference, but at the same time be held responsible for mistakes, incidents like that will continue. And police contribute to an "atmosphere of terror" by dressing in black, covering their faces, and arming themselves with super weapons. They feel that their own "terrorism" is needed to intimidate bad guys and ultimately save lives, but they fail to see that it also causes the public to see police not as community crime fighters but as outsiders and government thugs who may well be criminals themselves.
Since for the most part, police are never prosecuted, successfully sued, or held responsible for mistakes, even when innocent lives are taken, I am afraid we will continue to see that kind of "mistake."
Jim
5-6 man raid team armed with MP5's maybe even M4's bust through the door and you fire at them with a pistol you happen to be carring on you. People will be reading your obituary the next day. On top of all that the team is more than likely wearing armor so the rounds you just fired did nothing to the officers except sting them a little.
Police raid + Shooting home owner = Dead Home owner
Police raid + Shooting home owner = Dead Home owner
I have no reluctance to conclude that "no knock" warrants are un American. The police have a tough job, and they should have all the tools they need under the Constitution to do that job. Hitler's goons used nighttime no knock entries against the jews and others who were judged "enemies of the state." When we allow the constitution to be ignored, we start down a very slippery slope.
I do not wish to live in a "Police State" and so I will call my representatives to protest No Knock. I hate to see police officers wearing masks and black uniforms battering down doors and throwing explosives into houses. The possiblity of mistake is too real to allow this kind of action on the part of our defenders of the peace. I will also shoot anyone who enters my house that way. And my weapons will go right through body armor.
I thank God that we do NOT live in a police state. We have the ability to control this kind of action and I urge all of you to immediately call or write your representatives about this. If you do not register your view with your representative then please stop posting on any forum. You do not have the right to comment if you are not part of the process.
I do not wish to live in a "Police State" and so I will call my representatives to protest No Knock. I hate to see police officers wearing masks and black uniforms battering down doors and throwing explosives into houses. The possiblity of mistake is too real to allow this kind of action on the part of our defenders of the peace. I will also shoot anyone who enters my house that way. And my weapons will go right through body armor.
I thank God that we do NOT live in a police state. We have the ability to control this kind of action and I urge all of you to immediately call or write your representatives about this. If you do not register your view with your representative then please stop posting on any forum. You do not have the right to comment if you are not part of the process.
I understood exactly what your post was about. I was simply pointing out that part of the threat assessment is the rather high likelihood of the death of the homeowner, and that some individuals might very well conclude that this makes 'shooting an invader...less an appropriate response'.
I wasn't trying to discredit your post! I was EXPANDING on it. People do that. It isn't some personal attack on you, for pete's sake.
You were, yes, but that's ok.
Springmom
Slugthrower
New member
Being secure in your person, papers, and effects is just not good enough. Prohibition part two is the primary reason for this. Since the government knows what to do with your body better than you do, they reserve the right to end it as well.
Makes me wonder why I give donations to so many police agency's. Oh yeah, it's because I trust them to do the right thing, I suppose that I need to rethink that. If people want to be stupid and poison their minds and bodies with alcohol and drugs, let them. When they operate a vehicle or otherwise commit a crime while on those drugs they should have their sentence doubled. That will serve the people better than these storm trooper antics.
This war on drugs is so stupid, in and of itself, that it defies comprehension. If a dolt wants to destroy themselves in the privacy of their own home, I could care less. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a person wants to alter their perception of the world. It is their body, mind, and spirit though.
Unless these alcoholics and drug addicts are in public and/or committing crimes to feed their habits and/or harming other people, they should be allowed to kill themselves. Maybe if we let them die, there will less of them and others will get a clue. Don't do any drugs or drink alcohol, it is the stupidest thing that you can ever do. Self control and self sought medical aid is the best way to avoid or treat this problem. If you are on drugs get medical and psychological help before you end up dead or in prison. There is no reason to waste tax dollars on this problem as it is a futile solution. The real solution is for the addicts to take responsibility for themselves and seek help.
I am sick and tired of seeing innocent people being abused and/or killed for a supposed need for this war on drugs. Liberty is fraught with peril and will not be kept by increasing ones security through the use of law enforcement. All that you get for trading liberty for security is less freedom.
Makes me wonder why I give donations to so many police agency's. Oh yeah, it's because I trust them to do the right thing, I suppose that I need to rethink that. If people want to be stupid and poison their minds and bodies with alcohol and drugs, let them. When they operate a vehicle or otherwise commit a crime while on those drugs they should have their sentence doubled. That will serve the people better than these storm trooper antics.
This war on drugs is so stupid, in and of itself, that it defies comprehension. If a dolt wants to destroy themselves in the privacy of their own home, I could care less. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a person wants to alter their perception of the world. It is their body, mind, and spirit though.
Unless these alcoholics and drug addicts are in public and/or committing crimes to feed their habits and/or harming other people, they should be allowed to kill themselves. Maybe if we let them die, there will less of them and others will get a clue. Don't do any drugs or drink alcohol, it is the stupidest thing that you can ever do. Self control and self sought medical aid is the best way to avoid or treat this problem. If you are on drugs get medical and psychological help before you end up dead or in prison. There is no reason to waste tax dollars on this problem as it is a futile solution. The real solution is for the addicts to take responsibility for themselves and seek help.
I am sick and tired of seeing innocent people being abused and/or killed for a supposed need for this war on drugs. Liberty is fraught with peril and will not be kept by increasing ones security through the use of law enforcement. All that you get for trading liberty for security is less freedom.
If you aren't going to knock on the door and politely present the search warrant. This is how you do it.
1. Turn off water to the place. As the saying goes, if they can destroy it in one flush, it isn't worth it.
2. Surround the place so nobody can get out.
3. Get on the loudspeaker/call their phone and tell them to come out.
4a. If they do come out, you can then search without spending all that time busting down doors.
4b. If they set fire to the place and run (and get caught), have the FD come up and put it out. Then charge the perps with Arson of an occupied structure (That is a good 5-10+ years in most places.) along with whatever else you find.
If I ever get my own place, I'm gona get interior doors filled with concrete. They may kick them down, but not without breaking their foot.
Of course the best solution would be ending Prohibition II.
1. Turn off water to the place. As the saying goes, if they can destroy it in one flush, it isn't worth it.
2. Surround the place so nobody can get out.
3. Get on the loudspeaker/call their phone and tell them to come out.
4a. If they do come out, you can then search without spending all that time busting down doors.
4b. If they set fire to the place and run (and get caught), have the FD come up and put it out. Then charge the perps with Arson of an occupied structure (That is a good 5-10+ years in most places.) along with whatever else you find.
If I ever get my own place, I'm gona get interior doors filled with concrete. They may kick them down, but not without breaking their foot.
Of course the best solution would be ending Prohibition II.
DonR101395
New member
Sure police make mistakes, sometimes big mistakes. In this case it's a big mistake. Whoever had lead didn't have the attention to detail required and should be disciplined. The guys on the entry team, they may or may not have had a paper copy of the address. I'll let it play out and see what happens. They aren't robots. Of course, I'm sure none of us would ever makes a mistake.
+1 Springmom
It's easy to sit in your living room and say you're going to bust a cap into anyone who comes through the door..........right up until you have twelve cops bust your door in and point twelve guns at you. You'll not know your response until it happens. As for me, it's never happened to me or anyone I know or as far as I can tell anyone who knows anyone I know.
+1 Springmom
It's easy to sit in your living room and say you're going to bust a cap into anyone who comes through the door..........right up until you have twelve cops bust your door in and point twelve guns at you. You'll not know your response until it happens. As for me, it's never happened to me or anyone I know or as far as I can tell anyone who knows anyone I know.
no knock warrants
A "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. Certainly, the tactic is appropriate in a few limited “emergency” situations. Virtually all of the notorious “no knock” cases you see in the news arise when the tactic is used to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.
While the Cato figures are shocking, it is hard to determine exactly how many “no knock gone wrong” raids occur each year. Police and prosecutors try to cover them up.
To understand how we continue to have tragic outcomes related to drug searches, you need to understand the connection between “The War on Drugs”, militarization of the police, and the sudden use of “no knock” warrants.
When the police use a “no knock warrant” it is intended to be “shock and awe”, typically carried out by masked, heavily armed SWAT teams using paramilitary tactics. Before the late 1970s / early 1980s (about when I entered legal practice) “no knock” warrants and tactics were relatively rare and confined to cases where there was an actual rationale for the use of the tactic, such as hostages, a known armed and violent offender, etc. Two trends in law enforcement run in a tightly linked course – the rapid increase in the use of “no knock” warrants and the spread of SWAT teams and their use. Typically, a major portion of a SWAT team’s activity will be serving drug warrants. The “no knock, shock and awe” tactical raid usually involves early morning entry with masks, overpowering weaponry, and sometimes flash bangs (although these are now out of favor a bit).
This Cato briefing paper tracks the militarization trend, as previously noted:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html
A "no-knock" raid occurs when police forcibly enter without first knocking and announcing that they're the police. Certainly, the tactic is appropriate in a few limited “emergency” situations. Virtually all of the notorious “no knock” cases you see in the news arise when the tactic is used to serve routine search warrants for illegal drugs.
While the Cato figures are shocking, it is hard to determine exactly how many “no knock gone wrong” raids occur each year. Police and prosecutors try to cover them up.
To understand how we continue to have tragic outcomes related to drug searches, you need to understand the connection between “The War on Drugs”, militarization of the police, and the sudden use of “no knock” warrants.
When the police use a “no knock warrant” it is intended to be “shock and awe”, typically carried out by masked, heavily armed SWAT teams using paramilitary tactics. Before the late 1970s / early 1980s (about when I entered legal practice) “no knock” warrants and tactics were relatively rare and confined to cases where there was an actual rationale for the use of the tactic, such as hostages, a known armed and violent offender, etc. Two trends in law enforcement run in a tightly linked course – the rapid increase in the use of “no knock” warrants and the spread of SWAT teams and their use. Typically, a major portion of a SWAT team’s activity will be serving drug warrants. The “no knock, shock and awe” tactical raid usually involves early morning entry with masks, overpowering weaponry, and sometimes flash bangs (although these are now out of favor a bit).
This Cato briefing paper tracks the militarization trend, as previously noted:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html
Whither SCOTUS?
What about the Supreme Court and the 4th Amendment?
In Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court acknowledged the widely recognized rule that requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private dwelling. The Court referred back to the "Castle Doctrine" from English common law: a man has the right to defend his home and his family from intruders.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/se...on V Arkansas&url=/supct/html/94-5707.ZS.html
The Court also recognized exceptions to the announcement requirement under the heading of emergency, or “exigent” circumstances. If officers reasonably believe that announcing themselves before entering would present a threat to officer safety, or if they believe a suspect is particularly likely to destroy evidence, they may enter a home without first announcing.
A no-knock raid can legally happen in one of two ways. Officers can present the case for exigent circumstances to a judge, who then issues a no-knock warrant. The second occurs if officers determine at the scene that exigent circumstances exist. In the second circumstance, a court will determine after the fact if officers were justified.
What about the Supreme Court and the 4th Amendment?
In Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court acknowledged the widely recognized rule that requires police to knock and announce themselves before entering a private dwelling. The Court referred back to the "Castle Doctrine" from English common law: a man has the right to defend his home and his family from intruders.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/se...on V Arkansas&url=/supct/html/94-5707.ZS.html
The Court also recognized exceptions to the announcement requirement under the heading of emergency, or “exigent” circumstances. If officers reasonably believe that announcing themselves before entering would present a threat to officer safety, or if they believe a suspect is particularly likely to destroy evidence, they may enter a home without first announcing.
A no-knock raid can legally happen in one of two ways. Officers can present the case for exigent circumstances to a judge, who then issues a no-knock warrant. The second occurs if officers determine at the scene that exigent circumstances exist. In the second circumstance, a court will determine after the fact if officers were justified.
Richards
In 1997, the Supreme Court decided Richards v. Wisconsin, ruling Wisconsin's practice of serving all drug warrants with no-knock entry to be unconstitutional.
Finally, the United States Supreme Court held that a blanket exception for the announce requirement in all felony drug cases violates the Fourth Amendment. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 396 (1997).
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-5955.ZS.html
In that case the Court reviewed a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court holding that exigent circumstances justifying a no-knock entry are always present in felony drug cases because each case involves a risk of injury to the police and the potential for the disposal of drugs by the occupants prior to entry. In Richards, the Court rejected a blanket rule for all drug cases and required more particularized findings. The Court held that “police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.”
The Court in Richards specifically distinguished the standard for issuance of the warrant itself, probable cause, from the standard for an unannounced entry, which is reasonable suspicion. In describing the reasonable suspicion standard, the Court noted, “this showing is not high, but the police should be required to make it whenever the reasonableness of a no knock entry is challenged.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens stated: "The common law recognized that individuals should be provided the opportunity to comply with the law and to avoid the destruction of property occasioned by a forcible entry. These interests are not inconsequential."
In 1997, the Supreme Court decided Richards v. Wisconsin, ruling Wisconsin's practice of serving all drug warrants with no-knock entry to be unconstitutional.
Finally, the United States Supreme Court held that a blanket exception for the announce requirement in all felony drug cases violates the Fourth Amendment. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 396 (1997).
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-5955.ZS.html
In that case the Court reviewed a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court holding that exigent circumstances justifying a no-knock entry are always present in felony drug cases because each case involves a risk of injury to the police and the potential for the disposal of drugs by the occupants prior to entry. In Richards, the Court rejected a blanket rule for all drug cases and required more particularized findings. The Court held that “police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.”
The Court in Richards specifically distinguished the standard for issuance of the warrant itself, probable cause, from the standard for an unannounced entry, which is reasonable suspicion. In describing the reasonable suspicion standard, the Court noted, “this showing is not high, but the police should be required to make it whenever the reasonableness of a no knock entry is challenged.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens stated: "The common law recognized that individuals should be provided the opportunity to comply with the law and to avoid the destruction of property occasioned by a forcible entry. These interests are not inconsequential."
just when we seemed to be doing well. . . .
Unfortunately, in 2003 the Court adopted an entirely different approach. In U.S. v. Banks, the justices unanimously ruled that 15 to 20 seconds was an adequate wait time between police announcement and forced entry.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-473.ZS.html
The reasoning of Justice Souter’s opinion was vastly different than the preceding cases. His concern was the opportunity to destroy evidence, drugs, and stated that it was the fact of imminent destruction of evidence rather than not the time it would take to answer the door, that determined when police could enter.
In effect, Justice Souter:
-ignored the common-law principle that announcement protects the innocent from an unjustified home invasion
-instructed police to treat everyone named in a drug search warrant as if they were already guilty.
If the police don’t have to allow time for you to answer the door, a rule requiring announcement is a sham.
Unfortunately, in 2003 the Court adopted an entirely different approach. In U.S. v. Banks, the justices unanimously ruled that 15 to 20 seconds was an adequate wait time between police announcement and forced entry.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-473.ZS.html
The reasoning of Justice Souter’s opinion was vastly different than the preceding cases. His concern was the opportunity to destroy evidence, drugs, and stated that it was the fact of imminent destruction of evidence rather than not the time it would take to answer the door, that determined when police could enter.
In effect, Justice Souter:
-ignored the common-law principle that announcement protects the innocent from an unjustified home invasion
-instructed police to treat everyone named in a drug search warrant as if they were already guilty.
If the police don’t have to allow time for you to answer the door, a rule requiring announcement is a sham.
Hudson and the future
Hudson v. Michigan did not help things much. In that case, the Supreme Court held that drugs or other evidence seized at a home could be used in a trial even if police failed to knock and announce their presence in violation of such a requirement. This ruling was a major shift in Supreme Court rulings on illegal searches by police.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZS.html
That 5-4 decision in Hudson undercut the rule that evidence found during an unlawful search cannot be used. The decision also indicates that the Court is more likely to rule in favor of the government in such cases with Justice Samuel Alito in the place of retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor, who was on the court when the case was first argued, had worried about "the sanctity of the home." Alito, on the other hand, sided fully with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, which emphasized that tossing out evidence acquired in violation of the knock-and-announce rule — but with a valid warrant — could mean "releasing dangerous criminals."
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer called the majority’s decision "doubly troubling."
"It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents. It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." Breyer wrote in his dissent, joined by John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In Hudson, officers had a warrant to search for drugs and firearms. They called out their presence and, after three to five seconds, entered through an unlocked front door.
Hudson tried to suppress the cocaine that police found, failed and was convicted of drug possession. On appeal, he argued that unless tainted evidence is suppressed, police will not be deterred from barging into homes.
O'Connor was sympathetic at oral argument.
After she retired, the eight remaining justices were deadlocked. The case was re-argued with Alito on the court. His vote gave Scalia the majority. Joining them were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
Scalia maintained that police are sufficiently deterred from improper searches by the right of occupants to bring a Bivens action. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed claims against federal officials who violate an individual's constitutional rights in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens action is the federal equivalent of a 1983 action and would apply to employees of the Public Health Service, the CDC, and other federal agencies. Bivens actions, 1983 actions, and related actions against public health officials have similar requirements.
In his dissent, Breyer countered that such lawsuits are rare and often do not bring much relief for victims.
Note that the issue of self defense is specifically noted in the majority opinion. Justice Scalia said this in Part III.A: "One of those interests is the protection of human life and limb, because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self-defense by the surprised resident."
Unfortunately, Justice Scalia’s hostility to whole chapters of 20th-century jurisprudence extends to the notion of self-defense. A lawsuit, in the form of a Bivens action, seems to be his solution.
Having never fired a Bivens, I will stick with S&W or Colt.
The exclusionary rule's primary purpose is to serve as a deterrent against Fourth Amendment violations. If police know that breaking a particular Fourth Amendment protection will result in the suppression of any evidence they find, there's strong incentive for them to follow the law. Without the application of the exclusionary rule, there really isn’t any effective sanction for police who violate it the 4th Amendment or the announcement requirement. For a while post-Richards, we seemed to be stepping back from the “assault” type of entry in ordinary cases. Now, post – Hudson, we may see more of these dangerous searches, conducted by SWAT teams with no prior announcement. And we know that in some of these the “targets” will be innocents, that at best they will be terrorized, some will suffer injury, and some will lose their lives.
Hudson v. Michigan did not help things much. In that case, the Supreme Court held that drugs or other evidence seized at a home could be used in a trial even if police failed to knock and announce their presence in violation of such a requirement. This ruling was a major shift in Supreme Court rulings on illegal searches by police.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZS.html
That 5-4 decision in Hudson undercut the rule that evidence found during an unlawful search cannot be used. The decision also indicates that the Court is more likely to rule in favor of the government in such cases with Justice Samuel Alito in the place of retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
O'Connor, who was on the court when the case was first argued, had worried about "the sanctity of the home." Alito, on the other hand, sided fully with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, which emphasized that tossing out evidence acquired in violation of the knock-and-announce rule — but with a valid warrant — could mean "releasing dangerous criminals."
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer called the majority’s decision "doubly troubling."
"It represents a significant departure from the court's precedents. It weakens, perhaps destroys, much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock-and-announce protection." Breyer wrote in his dissent, joined by John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In Hudson, officers had a warrant to search for drugs and firearms. They called out their presence and, after three to five seconds, entered through an unlocked front door.
Hudson tried to suppress the cocaine that police found, failed and was convicted of drug possession. On appeal, he argued that unless tainted evidence is suppressed, police will not be deterred from barging into homes.
O'Connor was sympathetic at oral argument.
After she retired, the eight remaining justices were deadlocked. The case was re-argued with Alito on the court. His vote gave Scalia the majority. Joining them were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy.
Scalia maintained that police are sufficiently deterred from improper searches by the right of occupants to bring a Bivens action. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed claims against federal officials who violate an individual's constitutional rights in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens action is the federal equivalent of a 1983 action and would apply to employees of the Public Health Service, the CDC, and other federal agencies. Bivens actions, 1983 actions, and related actions against public health officials have similar requirements.
In his dissent, Breyer countered that such lawsuits are rare and often do not bring much relief for victims.
Note that the issue of self defense is specifically noted in the majority opinion. Justice Scalia said this in Part III.A: "One of those interests is the protection of human life and limb, because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self-defense by the surprised resident."
Unfortunately, Justice Scalia’s hostility to whole chapters of 20th-century jurisprudence extends to the notion of self-defense. A lawsuit, in the form of a Bivens action, seems to be his solution.
Having never fired a Bivens, I will stick with S&W or Colt.
The exclusionary rule's primary purpose is to serve as a deterrent against Fourth Amendment violations. If police know that breaking a particular Fourth Amendment protection will result in the suppression of any evidence they find, there's strong incentive for them to follow the law. Without the application of the exclusionary rule, there really isn’t any effective sanction for police who violate it the 4th Amendment or the announcement requirement. For a while post-Richards, we seemed to be stepping back from the “assault” type of entry in ordinary cases. Now, post – Hudson, we may see more of these dangerous searches, conducted by SWAT teams with no prior announcement. And we know that in some of these the “targets” will be innocents, that at best they will be terrorized, some will suffer injury, and some will lose their lives.
Last edited:
Slugthrower
New member
Since we are failing to learn from past behavior and do not respect history. We may very well end up with the "new untouchables", which will once again prove that history repeats itself constantly. Seems as if people enjoy living in ignorance.
What a spectacle we are. People are as water, the tighter you squeeze them more they slip through your fingers. I love it when supposed elites order people to take anger management classes when they become upset at asinine policies. These supposed intellectual superiors are the ones who have the problems. They suffer greatly from delusions of grandeur and have major control issues. What are these fools going to do when the people finally decide that enough is enough and this game needs be started over?
What a spectacle we are. People are as water, the tighter you squeeze them more they slip through your fingers. I love it when supposed elites order people to take anger management classes when they become upset at asinine policies. These supposed intellectual superiors are the ones who have the problems. They suffer greatly from delusions of grandeur and have major control issues. What are these fools going to do when the people finally decide that enough is enough and this game needs be started over?
Langenator
New member
Refinement to this tactic: cut the water about an hour before dawn, when the subject are most likely to be asleep. Wait until they've had time to wake up and take their morning leak (thus emptying the toilet tank) before the cops announce their presence.