Canada, SWAT team called for no trigger locks.

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

USAF_Vet

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
5,773
Location
Hastings, Michigan
Last edited by a moderator:
That's interesting. I wonder how this one will turn out - Canada isn't nearly as lost as England, so I hold out some hope.
Makes me very glad again I live in a Free State
 
Soon the region's emergency response ream and the canine unit joined in and the place was swarming with officers with machine guns.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's just light that area up with machine guns, right?


Edit: Maybe that's a little unfair.

But law enforcement causing problems for folks once they have gone and made themselves look bad is not a uniquely Canadian problem. CYA is universal.
 
Last edited:
Like someone once said; " A government has a law against everything if they want to charge you with something".

In the old days a LEO or two would have showed up to get the facts. Now seems many police departments are spring loaded to worse case scenario and go into a situation with guns blazing or flash boom throwing!

Personally due to certain acts by LEOs lately I believe they are losing the high road and the trust of their population.

Used to be you thought of police as a protector..a friend...many do not feel that way now due to widely reported abuses on youtube type channels. I hope things settle down and someone with a brain realizes that it is a lose lose situation for both sides.

Just a thought and not a rant but am serious about keeping trust and respect of a population otherwise ?? not good . It becomes a self feeding cycle of violence for both sides.
 
I rarely saw a police officer when I lived in Canada, and I rarely saw them when visited England. But if you do anything wrong they come out of the woodwork very quickly.

Guns are another issue on which Canada deliberately tries to differentiate itself from America. They try very hard to be the opposite of America sometimes. Its part of their struggle to build a solid national identity. Sovereignty; that was the buzzword when I lived in Ontario.
 
Sky said:
In the old days a LEO or two would have showed up to get the facts. Now seems many police departments are spring loaded to worse case scenario and go into a situation with guns blazing or flash boom throwing!
Click to expand...

I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. if a SWAT team shows up at your door, there has already been an investigation, a judge has reviewed it, decided that there was probable cause, and signed a warrant.

There are times when SWAT shows up without a warrant, but those are usually active killer/hostage situations.
 
but in the U.S. if a SWAT team shows up at your door, there has already been an investigation, a judge has reviewed it, decided that there was probable cause, and signed a warrant.
Click to expand...
Yeah? Like the guy in the news today, that had a SWAT team kick his door in at 6AM, because they were looking for his (ex?) wife, who had outstanding student loans?
 
What I got from this is that the SWAT team got called because of a Squabble between grown men were involved.
It ended up with a charge for cable locks. But let's not confuse the facts with second rate reporting techniques, shall we?
 
Tom488 said:
Yeah? Like the guy in the news today, that had a SWAT team kick his door in at 6AM, because they were looking for his (ex?) wife, who had outstanding student loans?
Click to expand...
Yes, like that guy. Do you think there wasn't a warrant involved there? If so, why? Do you think DoE showed up because she didn't pay her student loans or was it an actual crime like fraud? Or do we now accept the media's account without scrutiny?

Does it suck to be the person who's married to someone under a criminal investigation? Sure does, but that doesn't mean the warrant to search the home wasn't valid.
 
Unistat said:
Yes, like that guy. Do you think there wasn't a warrant involved there? If so, why? Do you think DoE showed up because she didn't pay her student loans or was it an actual crime like fraud? Or do we now accept the media's account without scrutiny?

Does it suck to be the person who's married to someone under a criminal investigation? Sure does, but that doesn't mean the warrant to search the home wasn't valid.
Click to expand...

Even if the search warrant is valid, does that particular situation warrant a SWAT team deployment? Obviously not, but some tax parasite needs to justify the DOE pet SWAT team budget, hence the grossly inappropriate usage.
 
Based on the examples of ...

Alberty Spruill, 16 May03
Williemae Mack 03 Sep 02
Robert and Marie Rogers 15 Oct 02
Maichael Thompson 14 Oct 02
Timothy Brockman 14 May 03
Mary and Cornelius Jefferson (no date)
Ellis Elliott 27 Feb 98
The Crown Heights Raid 01 May 98
Sandar Soto 05 Jun 97
Saunsia Patterson 27 Feb 98 and about Twenty more pages of examples cited by The Cato Institute, I don't think 'having a warrant' is the problem.
 
"... Larry Glick, former executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association, an organization that represents the interests of SWAT teams and paramilitary police units, told the National Journal in 2000: “The original mission of SWAT teams has changed. If the SWAT team is not busy responding to initial barricades, people say they’re lazy. Departments want to give them something to do. Some agencies have given them too much to do. Some are overused.” The article went on to report that SWAT teams are now being used to respond even to calls about angry dogs..."
ibid, page-17

"...An overwhelming number of mistaken raids take place because police relied on information from confidential informants..."
ibid, page-21.

"...One can’t help but wonder why so many cases of bad warrants based on bad information from unreliable informants get by the judges and magistrates of the justice system entrusted with safeguarding the Fourth Amendment. In truth, the process has become little more than a rubber stamp exercise...
ibid, page-23.

'...A 2000 Denver Post investigation found that judges exercise almost no discretion at all when it comes to issuing no-knock warrants. The Post found that Denver judges had denied just five of 163 no-knock applications over a 12-month period (local defense attorneys were surprised to learn there were even five). “No-knock search warrants appear to be approved so routinely that some Denver judges have issued them even though police asked only for a regular warrant,” the Post wrote..."
ibid, page-24.
 
Last edited:
dmancornell said:
Even if the search warrant is valid, does that particular situation warrant a SWAT team deployment? Obviously not, but some tax parasite needs to justify the DOE pet SWAT team budget, hence the grossly inappropriate usage.
Click to expand...
Unkown. SWAT teams are deployed for high risk warrants. This is usually when there are know to be, or strong suspicions of, weapons in the house. Another reason for SWAT deployment are if there are known violent persons. Could be either of those.

Additionally, we only have the one person (and the media) saying it was a tactical team. What if it was five DoE investigators in body armor with shotguns? Does it make a difference who serves a high risk warrant?
 
Yes, like that guy. Do you think there wasn't a warrant involved there? If so, why? Do you think DoE showed up because she didn't pay her student loans or was it an actual crime like fraud? Or do we now accept the media's account without scrutiny?

Does it suck to be the person who's married to someone under a criminal investigation? Sure does, but that doesn't mean the warrant to search the home wasn't valid.
Click to expand...
What possible education loan related issue could justify a SWAT response? Maybe it was a felony warrant, fraud maybe? Serving the warrant with a swat team was excessive. Oh yeah, she doesn't live there either. Whatever happened to serving a summons on someone? Or simply sending officer Bob to her place of work? That might be more appropriate in these situations.
What's next?
City Sanitation Tactical response team? Maybe one week you forget to sort out your recyclables.
Wait till the library gets Tactical for overdue books.
If you didn't know better, you'd think this stuff should be a SNL skit, not reality.
 
Unistat said:
Unkown. SWAT teams are deployed for high risk warrants. This is usually when there are know to be, or strong suspicions of, weapons in the house. Another reason for SWAT deployment are if there are known violent persons. Could be either of those.
Click to expand...

Weapons in the house eh? Gun owners have no protection against police bruality and unreasonable searches?

The real issue here is that the definition of "high risk" has been redefined to justify SWAT funding and the absurd concept of "officer safety".
 
Just the other day our "SWAT" or Swift-response team got called out because some guy got in arguement with GF, hit her ,threatened her to leave (which she did) so like 9-HOURS LATER they finally approach the house (after locking-down a 2-block radius) only to find him hiding in the garage,, Turns out the strucken-GF told police he had "guns"
So here's our response-team all decked out in green-camo and black-vests surrounding a house, spooking all the neighbors,re-routing busy morning traffic,and the guy (except for his fists) was unarmed.. Nice waste of my tax-dollars !!
 
dmancornell said:
Weapons in the house eh? Gun owners have no protection against police bruality and unreasonable searches?

The real issue here is that the definition of "high risk" has been redefined to justify SWAT funding and the absurd concept of "officer safety".
Click to expand...
It's not an unreasonable search if a judge has signed off on a warrant, by definition.

But since I see I will not be able to convince you that 99.9% of SWAT actions are against genuine dirtbags or that the media has as much bias against cops as they do against gun owners or that the police are not just salivating for the opportunity to use their tac teams, I'll bow out of this thread and go back to reading books about how awsome the moon landing was.
 
or that the media has as much bias against cops as they do against gun owners
Click to expand...

This bears repeating. An officer sneezing during an arrest leads to a civil rights suit these days.
 
WOW this is just dumb, its pretty clear that at some point they realized they raided this place and had to come up with something so the trigger locks was the only thing they could find. Now this guy is stuck with the hassle and bill for all of it.
 
And what exactly is wrong with sending SWAT officers (who are also police officers) to arrest someone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top