Right to defend your home?

[withdrawn34]

When you "need" to trample on civil liberties in order to enforce your laws, perhaps the laws themselves need to be examined. What exactly are we trying to do that requires such violent raids by paramilitary forces?

*That* is the primary question here, and we can no longer afford to sit apathetically. Thousands of people are being killed every year, and our prisons are overflowing. The US isn't the only place affected by this, either.

Ask the hard questions. Have the difficult conversations.

 

[rogerjames]

When you have county/state/federally funded programs such as SWAT, you have to justify the need and funding. How do you do this? Use them more often. Next time government budget comes into consideration... Do we need to to keep funding SWAT? Yessir... SWAT was deployed 75 times last year. You get the picture...

 

[martialartsblackbelt]

When you have county/state/federally funded programs such as SWAT, you have to justify the need and funding. How do you do this? Use them more often. Next time government budget comes into consideration... Do we need to to keep funding SWAT? Yessir... SWAT was deployed 75 times last year. You get the picture...

i was banned from another forum for making this same point.

 

[avs11054]

When you "need" to trample on civil liberties

Well they had a search warrant, which is what the 4th ammendment says is needed for a search, so what civil liberties were "trampled on?"

When you have county/state/federally funded programs such as SWAT, you have to justify the need and funding. How do you do this? Use them more often. Next time government budget comes into consideration... Do we need to to keep funding SWAT? Yessir... SWAT was deployed 75 times last year. You get the picture...

hmmmm...a patrol officer with a glock .40 cal up against a guy with an AR or a SWAT team up against a guy with an AR? I'll take the SWAT team. Police Departments aren't paid to lose.

 

[Bonesinium]

Well they had a search warrant, which is what the 4th ammendment says is needed for a search, so what civil liberties were "trampled on?"



hmmmm...a patrol officer with a glock .40 cal up against a guy with an AR or a SWAT team up against a guy with an AR? I'll take the SWAT team. Police Departments aren't paid to lose.

First, here is the actual text "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"

It says unreasonable AND a warrant WITH probable cause. I'm not going to argue it wasn't, but it could be argued that not all these things were present.

But if you want to talk about civil liberties, the right to life comes to mind. But how about we stick with the Constitution.

How about the 5th Amendment?

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

8th Amendment?

"nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Even the 9th maybe? Not that I'd argue this one.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Secondly.

While not directed toward my post, I would wager he isn't saying there shouldn't be any SWAT period, but rather was looking at it politically, and financially. Because that is how the world is run, through politics and finance, and not always on people's best interest.

 

[matty-vb]

IMHO we need more Andy Griffith and less Rambo in our LE agencies. Shock and Awe belong in war, not on our streets.

......and yet one more opportunity for some THR members to rant and rave about law enforcement. The Andy Griffith approach worked great in Newhall, eh?

 

[Neverwinter]

IMHO we need more Andy Griffith and less Rambo in our LE agencies. Shock and Awe belong in war, not on our streets.

......and yet one more opportunity for some THR members to rant and rave about law enforcement. The Andy Griffith approach worked great in Newhall, eh?

Just in case you didn't get it the first time, I'll rephrase it so you can understand.

As far as police responses go, the trend has been toward overly aggressive tactics such as no-knock warrants. The overly aggressive actions that are characteristic of the Rambo end of the scale have resulted in casualties that hopefully society does not find desirable or acceptable. This is not to say that police should not be equipped or trained to sufficiently deal with crisis situations, but that their response should be proportional and guarded. The Shock and Awe approach is a bankrupt mindset for our law enforcement agencies to widely employ.

 

[rbernie]

This topic is only tangentially topical for THR to begin with, with the tangent being the legal aspects of HD. Since the thread has managed to amass 132 posts, most of which ignore that aspect of the situation in favor of debating police tactics, I have little choice but to delcare this thread as having run its course and needin' to be closed.

And so it is.