never_retreat
Member
I think I need to harden my doors.
(SIGH) Is this happening more often?
- Thread starter ebd10
- Start date
- Status
grampster
Member
Get the government out of the drug business and I can see no reason for ever having a no knock or violent entry ever again anywhere. I agree with El T.
ebd10
Member
Good luck with that:
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/vehicles/specialty/articles/1244834/
U.S. police departments deploying heavy armor
BY RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI
The Associated Press
PITTSBURGH, Pa. — After six people were shot in the city's Homewood neighborhood, Pittsburgh police rolled in with a 20-ton armored truck with a blast-resistant body, armored rotating roof hatch and gunports.
No arrests were made during the sweep in the $250,000 armored vehicle, paid for with Homeland Security money. But the show of force sent a message.
Whether it was the right message is a matter of debate.
With scores of police agencies buying armored vehicles at Homeland Security expense, some criminal justice experts warn that their use in fighting crime could do more harm than good.
When the armored truck moved through the Homewood neighborhood late last year, residents came out of their homes to take a look. Some were offended.
''This is really the containment of crime, not the elimination, because to eliminate it you have to address some of the social problems,'' complained Rashad Byrdsong, a community activist.
Law enforcement agencies say the growing use of the vehicles, a practice that also has its defenders in the academic field of criminal justice, helps ensure police have the tools they need to deal with hostage situations, heavy gunfire and acts of terrorism.
''We live on being prepared for 'what if?' '' said Pittsburgh Sgt. Barry Budd, a memer of the SWAT team.
Critics say that the appearance of armored vehicles may only increase tensions by making residents feel as if they are under siege.
Most departments do not have ''a credible, justifiable reason for buying these kinds of vehicles,'' but find them appealing because they ''tap into that subculture within policing that finds the whole military special-operations model culturally intoxicating,'' said Peter Kraska, an expert on police militarization.
budney
member
ebd10:
That's just scary. I live east of Pittsburgh; Homewood is a neighborhood notorious for its crime, and the vast majority there all belong to a certain demographic.
And here just yesterday I was talking about how much good it would do to arm the women of Homewood to resist the rampant crime in their neighborhood! Big pink pistols for poor and minority women everywhere!
Unsurprisingly, the authorities have a different idea: start patrolling Homewood in a tank. It may not make the victims of crime any safer, but at least "gang bangers" make a satisfying crunch under the treads. :banghead:
--Len.
That's just scary. I live east of Pittsburgh; Homewood is a neighborhood notorious for its crime, and the vast majority there all belong to a certain demographic.
And here just yesterday I was talking about how much good it would do to arm the women of Homewood to resist the rampant crime in their neighborhood! Big pink pistols for poor and minority women everywhere!
Unsurprisingly, the authorities have a different idea: start patrolling Homewood in a tank. It may not make the victims of crime any safer, but at least "gang bangers" make a satisfying crunch under the treads. :banghead:
--Len.
<SLV>
Member
What is the history of police "raids", and are they really necessary? It seems to me that raiding was previously reserved for Federal agencies, but now everyone is raiding - even the Mall Ninja!
If my house was accidentaly raided you can bet that in the confusion of the moment I would get a few rounds off before being out gunned. WHO WOULDN'T! I mean, wouldn't any respectable husband and father shoot back if his family was under seige by unknown assailants???
If my house was accidentaly raided you can bet that in the confusion of the moment I would get a few rounds off before being out gunned. WHO WOULDN'T! I mean, wouldn't any respectable husband and father shoot back if his family was under seige by unknown assailants???
budney
member
"Dynamic entry" raids are brought to you courtesy of the "War on Drugs." The theory is that if they don't get in there right smart quick, you might flush your doobies down the toilet. The obvious answer is riot gear, assault weapons and tear gas.
Once the precedent is set, of course, "no knock" warrants become easier to get over time. They're used today even in situations where there's no danger of the evidence being flushed, which was the original justification.
--Len.
Once the precedent is set, of course, "no knock" warrants become easier to get over time. They're used today even in situations where there's no danger of the evidence being flushed, which was the original justification.
--Len.
pacodelahoya
Member
I personally think that was an unreasonable search.
From Ron Pauls weekly column.
TallPine
Member
Um ... does this answer the question about why private citizens might need a crew served weapon...?
Elza
Member
Small problem here: you shoot a cop (and through some miracle manage to live through it) you’ll end up with a needle in your arm. Circumstances won’t matter.
Cops harm/maim/kill innocent people all they have to do is say “oops” and wink at each other on the way back to the station.
Elza
Member
We keep hearing more and more of cops using armored vehicles. How long is it going to be before the bad guys start arming themselves with RPG’s?
“For every better mousetrap there comes a better mouse”.
pcosmar
member
All of this made my blood run cold. Then I stumbled on this. It will make your blood boil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8WijDe5BhQ&mode=related&search
It is a 5 part video.
This is Fouad Kaadys page.
http://www.fouadkaady.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8WijDe5BhQ&mode=related&search
It is a 5 part video.
This is Fouad Kaadys page.
http://www.fouadkaady.com/
Lucky
Member
pacodelahoya Can you link to the column?
Elza - criminals don't need them. And every dept simply prays for the day when they capture a criminal who had one and planned to use it as such, so that they could justify purchasing M1 Abrams with a TUSK package. Of course it's actually you who pays for it, and you who is stopped by it at internal check-points though.
Elza - criminals don't need them. And every dept simply prays for the day when they capture a criminal who had one and planned to use it as such, so that they could justify purchasing M1 Abrams with a TUSK package. Of course it's actually you who pays for it, and you who is stopped by it at internal check-points though.
Elza
Member
The videos as linked to by pcosmar are simply disgusting.
Can you imagine the public outcry if a GI had done this to a prisoner in Iraq? What the government would have done to that soldier? Yet, it is entirely acceptable for our citizens to be treated this way by a cop. Something is really wrong here!
Can you imagine the public outcry if a GI had done this to a prisoner in Iraq? What the government would have done to that soldier? Yet, it is entirely acceptable for our citizens to be treated this way by a cop. Something is really wrong here!
pacodelahoya
Member
thexrayboy
Member
This has been discussed here before and the consensus among most of us is yes, these alphabet soup named teams using military equipment, military tactics and operating with hoods anonymously would qualify most distinctly as
the standing army we were warned to avoid by Jefferson et.al.
As for the question of whether these injustices are occurring more frequently or are they simply being reported more I'd have to say probably both. They are happening at an ever increasing rate and thanks to the internet more and more people are being made aware of them.
The only realistic solutions to this at the moment is to force our legislators to
remove immunity to civil action from the table. If a JBT has no fear of being held accountable the JBT has no reason to act responsibly.
Neo-Luddite
Member
Quote:
I think I need to harden my doors.
Doing so might be illegal depending on what state/town you're in--no kidding.
(I'm really suprised this thread isn't locked yet.)
I think I need to harden my doors.
Doing so might be illegal depending on what state/town you're in--no kidding.
(I'm really suprised this thread isn't locked yet.)
brerrabbit
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 401
Art
All due respects.
The problem with comparing driving to no knock warrants is two fold. If there are millions of no knock warrants being served, then that is the first problem. The second problem is that because the no knock warrants are relatively rare, the amount of problems that arise from them that become newsworthy is relatively high.
Just my two cents on no knocks.
I would submit the story of Rocky Eales. IIRC an Oklahoma highway patrolman that was shot and killed by Ken Barrett while assisting in a no knock warrant for drugs.
The Oklahoma jury mistrialed in first court case over the matter of Eales death, the second trial awarded him only 30 years over Eales death. The third trial which was federal trial awarded Barret a death sentence over it.
There was no doubt in the jury's mind that Barrett's rifle fired the round that killed Eales in any of the trials. Yet two out of the three trials they refused to award the death penalty. It can be argued that in the second trial the only reason they gave him thirty years was to appease the prosecution because on all the other convictions he recieved, he would have never walked out of jail.
Considering the prosecution overall had three bites of the apple to convict him and the only way they got it was effectively having two practice trials, a stacked jury and the entire resources of the DOJ to convict him, it seems to me that the local population is starting to withdraw support for stronghanded tactics by LEO.
Jury nullification will eventually remove the ability to convict cop killers if LEO continue acting in an abusive manner to the constitution.
BTW I am not sticking up for Barrett, he was and still is a dirtbag.
All due respects.
The problem with comparing driving to no knock warrants is two fold. If there are millions of no knock warrants being served, then that is the first problem. The second problem is that because the no knock warrants are relatively rare, the amount of problems that arise from them that become newsworthy is relatively high.
Just my two cents on no knocks.
I would submit the story of Rocky Eales. IIRC an Oklahoma highway patrolman that was shot and killed by Ken Barrett while assisting in a no knock warrant for drugs.
The Oklahoma jury mistrialed in first court case over the matter of Eales death, the second trial awarded him only 30 years over Eales death. The third trial which was federal trial awarded Barret a death sentence over it.
There was no doubt in the jury's mind that Barrett's rifle fired the round that killed Eales in any of the trials. Yet two out of the three trials they refused to award the death penalty. It can be argued that in the second trial the only reason they gave him thirty years was to appease the prosecution because on all the other convictions he recieved, he would have never walked out of jail.
Considering the prosecution overall had three bites of the apple to convict him and the only way they got it was effectively having two practice trials, a stacked jury and the entire resources of the DOJ to convict him, it seems to me that the local population is starting to withdraw support for stronghanded tactics by LEO.
Jury nullification will eventually remove the ability to convict cop killers if LEO continue acting in an abusive manner to the constitution.
BTW I am not sticking up for Barrett, he was and still is a dirtbag.
Tyro
Member
''tap into that subculture within policing that finds the whole military special-operations model culturally intoxicating,''
One side of my family has a tradition of service in law enforcement. What the author refers to is a known problem. Frankly a lot of cops are very uncomfortable with this trend.
Nowadays you get an element of people joining the force who have no interest in community service - they're Special Forces wannabes - and regard themselves as 'a force within the force'. They don't consider themselves standard LEOs and they look down on cops who aren't 'tactically trained'. But when they screw-up they wrap themselves in the mantle of law enforcement.
One side of my family has a tradition of service in law enforcement. What the author refers to is a known problem. Frankly a lot of cops are very uncomfortable with this trend.
Nowadays you get an element of people joining the force who have no interest in community service - they're Special Forces wannabes - and regard themselves as 'a force within the force'. They don't consider themselves standard LEOs and they look down on cops who aren't 'tactically trained'. But when they screw-up they wrap themselves in the mantle of law enforcement.
blo0dyhatchet
Member
"If my house was accidentaly raided you can bet that in the confusion of the moment I would get a few rounds off before being out gunned. WHO WOULDN'T! I mean, wouldn't any respectable husband and father shoot back if his family was under seige by unknown assailants???"
I have to say, if it was at night, and some people kicked in my door and came running in with guns, not mentioning that they were the police..... If i did not get a good look at them, a few rounds probably would go off. That is just a moronic thing to do.
I have to say, if it was at night, and some people kicked in my door and came running in with guns, not mentioning that they were the police..... If i did not get a good look at them, a few rounds probably would go off. That is just a moronic thing to do.
Deanimator
Member
Now that raises a very interesting question about Chicago and other cities with repressive gun controls. I haven't lived there since '86, but still have relatives there and visit once a year.
Violent crime is so bad, the police are so incompetent [and criminal themselves], and people disarmed by the law, that houses on the South Side look like little fortresses, with high fences and bars on doors and windows.
When I was in gradeschool, home invasions got so bad, and so frequent, that my father bought a steel prop-rod kit for our front door [along with bars on the back door and windows] to prevent someone from kicking in the door. There were corresponding sockets in door and floor into which the steel rod fit. You literally had to destroy the door to get in when the rod was set.
Are such devices illegal there now?
What does it say about a city [or state] which:
Will not [in truth CANNOT] protect its citizens
Will not allow them to protect themselves
Will not even allow them to barricade themselves in their own home
You'd start to think the fix was in, WOULDN'T you?
Of course there have been some recent police home invasions in Chicago [NOT raids]...
Sindawe
Member
Nope, not no more. I've heard and read about so many such incidents that I no longer get angry about such. I make note of it and move on. I have come to view (a bit unfairly I will admit) the majority of the police departments and individual cops the same way I do wasp nests and individual wasps. A nuisance and a hazard to be avoided when possible, eradicated when they make a pest of themselves. Since I don't muck about with my fellow citizens and generally conduct my affairs in what others see as a law abiding fashion, the cops have not made pests of themselves in my life.
Yet.
Same thought here. Since I can not find steel door and frame sets that would fit into the look of my HOA, I'm strongly considering using the products from these folks.
http://www.djarmor.com/Home-Page
Then moving on to strengthening the windows in my home so they are penetration resistant.
Neo-Luddite
Member
There is (or was) a law in IL about 'fortifying' a house. It was aimed at drug dealers. Don't know the status.
- Status
