SWAT Team overview.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plus the entire drug task force was suspended over the incident. And it's being investigated by the FBI and the Justice Department.

But moving beyond that specific incident, paramilitary swat raids lend themselves to innocent homeowners getting shot. And it leads to police getting shot.

Can it really be considered due process when the warrent is served after the fact? Regardless of what SCOTUS might think.

In light of POTENTIAL consequences (death), is it a legitimate use of force (to do a home invasion over the sale of recreational illicit drugs)?
 
I don't know how many raids and/or no-knock raids are conducted each year, and I have no doubt we get a skewed picture via the media (like everything else), but I do think that the militarization of police that seems to be taking place is absurd. Police should not be paramilitary. It seems that the entire PD is pseudo-SWAT now, rather than SWAT being a select group of troopers. I fail to see how that is necessary.

IMO, going after ONE drug offender via a police raid is not worth it. If it's a major crack house bust of a WELL-KNOWN crack house, at least that seems plausible (if you agree with the illegality of drugs). But going on a tip that one guy might be inside, it's ridiculous to go in guns-a-blazin. Even druggies have kids, significant others, etc. They don't deserve to die in the crossfire. I think the "shoot first, ask questions later" type of police (not saying that the majority of police fit this description) need to have a refresher in public service or else they should go over to Iraq or Afghanistan and take their Rambo-esque frustrations out over there on the terrorists and suicide bombers.

The "war on drugs" is not worth the collateral damage...period. It needs to stop. These raids are most often drug-related. I just fail to see how a cost/risk to benefit ratio comes out looking good for the "war on drugs". Just my $.02 .....
 
Dave_pro2A

I'd like to point out that Dave_pro2a is not a threat to the Bill of Rights, public safety, the Constitution, the future of the Republic, or American Thought. Dave didn't swear to protect and serve. He's not going to kick down any doors. He's not going to arrest folks and send them to jail. He's not going to search and seize anything. He's just...you know....this GUY.
On the other hand, any American Police Department operating in extra-legal areas IS a threat. Looks like the Atlanta PD might be one of those departments.
 
still waiting for the swat defenders to answer this...


Quote:
unfortunately i, as well as many others, don't have a "perfect" way to execute search warrants to ensure the safety of everyone.

Then dont you think we should err on the side of protecting those that the police have sworn to "protect and serve" rather than benifiting those that are supposed to serve?

I am all for protecting the servants of the people, but am not willing to sacrifice people being secure in their own homes to do so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
 
Blackfork: lol, yeah you got that right, I'm not even a threat to mice or flys :D <~Mr Nice guy.
 
Quoted from the news webpage:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10408234/detail.html

Now, Chief Pennington confirmed there are questions as to whether there was ever a drug buy at Kathryn Johnston’s home – the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit he was told to lie.
Click to expand...

who told him to lie, the cops or someone who had a beef with this old lady or her family members? if indeed the cops told him to lie then of course it is illegal. if the informant lied because someone else told him to lie, then the cops shouldn't be held totally responsible. the informant should be held responsible as well.

let's not jump to conclusions.
 
????

who told him to lie, the cops or someone who had a beef with this old lady or her family members?

let's not jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how the entire unit was suspended because of what was found out during their internal investigation, I would not call it jumping anywhere!
 
Legalize drugs, end the prohibition, 99% of this crap goes away. The law enforcement is the single bigist ally of the drug dealers anyway- no, no, I am not accusing them of deliberate collaboration, I am just saying from a practical sense, would'nt any businessman be happy with a government effort to ensure his monopoly?
I would suggest anyone with a serious interest in this listen to Milton Friedman, possibly the greatest economist ever, and a conservative icon. His take is that the war on drugs is a complete ethical, moral and economic disaster.
 
Again we digress to focusing on just one incident.

Here's another potential solution to no-knock warrents: a rifle in every home.

An armed society is a polite society. If the police know that every home had an ak47, or an ar15, imagine how polite they would be? Dang, they'd probably use the doorbell when serving papers.
 
Tokugawa: damn straight, Milton Friedman rocked.

"You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us.

You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve. Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore. Of course the problem is demand, but it is not only demand, it is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials; illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.

Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use converts that tragedy into a disaster for society, for users and non-users alike. Our experience with the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages."
 
sounds like someone is advocating the killing of police officers. in the past someone on another THR post said that there was a tone of anti-LE sentiment on here. im thinking he's right.
 
Not jump to conclusions?


One person said he bought pot at a house and they launch a paramilitary offensive without corroborating evidence, investigation, or non black army soldier police work. Now they are left holding the bag of a shady witness, someone's personal stash, three shot cops and....A DEAD WOMAN.


I should go tell the cops my annoying neighbors are running a meth lab and watch the Waco madness erupt.
 
nobody accused you. you must have a guilty conscience. and ive never tried to put words in your mouth. the only thing that has happened with you and me is that we disagree on this issue and you said that i made all kinds of assumptions, of which, you cannot find one to support your unfounded claim.

you are stating things without supporting evidence.
 
Skywarp: actually the confidential informant (paid informant?) claimed he purchased a small amount of crack at the home. He is now saying that he lied about that, and in fact was instructed to lie about it by the police officers (and the entire drug task force has been suspended).

What the cops claim they eventually found in the home was a small amount of pot.

I suspect that the buy had to be crack to get the no-knock warrent. Buying a gram of pot might not have convinced the judge it was needed, but for a crack den... Sounds like a case of "if ya can't find the evidence, then manufacture it."
 
In the same article

Now, Chief Pennington confirmed there are questions as to whether that drug buy ever happened.

When Pennington was asked if it was his understanding that the informant was told to lie about a possible drug purchase, Chief Pennington replied, “Yes. According to the informant, after we brought that informant in and interviewed that informant, he told us he had no knowledge of going into that house and purchasing drugs.”
Click to expand...
 
Is is amazing to me, that no matter how Unconstitutional and morally repugnant these no knock raids are, some will still try to justify them.
 
Really, use some commone sense Spreadfire.

Now, Chief Pennington confirmed there are questions as to whether there was ever a drug buy at Kathryn Johnston’s home – the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit he was told to lie.

“Officers are saying one thing – confidential informant is saying something else,” said Chief Richard Pennington.

Why is IE interested in the informant if he's claiming that someone other than the police told him to lie? Why is the ENTIRE drug taskforce on suspension if it is alleged that someone other than the police told him to lie (bty, I believe more members of the task force are suspended than were involved in the raid).

Why is the FBI, and Justice Department involved if there was not this allegation of police corruption?

BTW, the informant is now in FBI custody, so I suspect we might actually findo ut what happened, more likely than if he was just being interviewed by Atlanta PD IE.

The chief out-right said "either the police officers are lying, or the informant is." http://www.cbs46.com/ (see the vid, not the article).

I'm not making some WAG here, rather I'm drawing a perfectly reasonable conclusion based on what is being said, and the actions that are being taken.

You have been wrong about nearly everything you've said regarding this issue. Each NEW news report paints the police in a worse and worse light (and refutes your past arguments one by one), and as you lose point after point you continue grasping at straws to defend them in THIS instance. Unbelievable.
 
Spreadfire Arms:

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/local/16105278.htm

"Monday evening, WAGA-TV aired an interview with a man who said he was the informant, and that he had never purchased drugs at Johnston's home. The man, whose identity was obscured by the TV station, also said police had asked him to lie about providing the information, but that was before he knew that the 88-year-old woman had been killed in a shootout at the home"

"the informant is in protective custody and would be a key part of the investigation." (with the FBI it seems, maybe there is some fear that he'll be killed by?)

There, a direct quote that plainly says it was the police who asked him to lie. I am sure you'll find some other apologist argument in defense of the police officers actions.
 
"They were going to pay me to cover it up." http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/ (video of actual informant)

He said the police called him AFTER the shooting and fed him the "story."

The police say he's been a reliable source, maybe he's reliable NOW too, in his claim they tried to force him to give false testimony.

No lie detector test given yet, and the cops are of course saying "he could be lying." I guess the FBI will have to (hopefully) get to the bottom of this.

I'll be the first to admit that this could be a publicity seeking dumb kid.
 
thanks for the source cite Dave....thats what i was looking for. if the cops lied on the search warrant affidavit, then whoever lied and filed it under oath needs to be punished for the unlawful killing of the female. i agree with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Swat raids galore. You might want to think on the following.
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
Thin Black Line
T
B
  • Locked
110 SWAT Team raids TODAY
Replies
18
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
A
  • Locked
Anotrer SWAT OP gone astray? How will trhis cookie crumble in federal court?
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Preacherman
P
B
  • Locked
Lima Ohio Swat team kills mom, shoots infant.
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
F
  • Locked
The dangers of defending your home.
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top