The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Video Killed the Marine [Arizona Police Stupidity Thread]

1246789

Posts

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    HuffPo wrote:
    The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed.... The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks.
    This is the part that always sends me ballistic. Their first instinct is to lie, cover things up, or at least attempt to do so.
    That's also their middle instinct, and their last instinct.

    It's fucking stupid that we give police extensive training in how to lie, then, when we investigate them, we give them way more leeway than we do any other suspect. They have it built into their contracts that they get days to concoct whatever bullshit they're going to feed to a fawning public.

    But hey, maybe if they keep doing this, someday, enough people will give a shit that something will be done about it. But I doubt it.

    i can't help but think the strength of the police unions contributes to this. you see this lying for each other bullshit (or at least keeping silent) in almost all unions, but it's especially heinous with police since the police have, you know, guns and shit.

    not really sure how to deal with this issue though. cause honestly, if any group needs a strong union, it's the police.
    Really though...who fights the police union? As a politician you can take on the Teamsters. Or the SEIU. Hellm, you can even dogpile your budget problems on the teachers. But the police union? Why are you so soft on crime? Do you WANT our children to get hooked on dope, sold to pimps, and found dead in ditches?

    Might as well just resign ahead of time.

    JihadJesus on
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    It also doesn't help that the police tend to fight tooth & nail against any additional oversight or scrutiny of their actions. To the point where there are efforts to criminalize and/or prosecute citzens for recording their interactions with the police.

    These are the same people who love to claim, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

    DivideByZero on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Malkor wrote: »
    HuffPo wrote:
    The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed.... The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks.
    This is the part that always sends me ballistic. Their first instinct is to lie, cover things up, or at least attempt to do so.
    That's also their middle instinct, and their last instinct.

    It's fucking stupid that we give police extensive training in how to lie, then, when we investigate them, we give them way more leeway than we do any other suspect. They have it built into their contracts that they get days to concoct whatever bullshit they're going to feed to a fawning public.

    But hey, maybe if they keep doing this, someday, enough people will give a shit that something will be done about it. But I doubt it.

    i can't help but think the strength of the police unions contributes to this. you see this lying for each other bullshit (or at least keeping silent) in almost all unions, but it's especially heinous with police since the police have, you know, guns and shit.

    not really sure how to deal with this issue though. cause honestly, if any group needs a strong union, it's the police.
    Really though...who fights the police union? As a politician you can take on the Teamsters. Or the SEIU. Hellm, you can even dogpile your budget problems on the teachers. But the police union? Why are you so soft on crime? Do you WANT our children to get hooked on dope, sold to pimps, and found dead in ditches?

    Might as well just resign ahead of time.

    You can make that same argument when they do it to teachers. Sadly people seem to not care as much.

    SniperGuy on
  • powersurgepowersurge Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Why the hell do the police forces have their own small military?

    Why don't we just use stateside special forces like the British do, especially if they're intent on going in and shooting everything that moves?

    EDIT: as Kyougu said, an actual military force would cause less collateral damage as well.

    Wait, this is Arizona, are these Sheriff Joe's cronies?

    I wondered this as well. They fired 70 bullets? And hit him with 60? Dear god, what the hell? Was Sheriff Joe riding a tank outside waving his cowboy hat around?

    Damn Arizona.

    I like how folks automatically blame the conservative when the article the OP linked clearly states this was under Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who was blaming Republican Rhetoric right after the Giffords shooting without knowing the details.
    The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.

    Stupidity and corruption know both sides of the Isle IMO.

    powersurge on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    It's terrible that this guy was killed by an obviously trigger happy group of guys. 70 shots? Maybe if it was a couple of 3 round bursts that put the guy down or something less ridiculous, I could give the SWAT guys less grief for taking someone completely innocent out, but 70 shots? To me, that sounds like a group of men that wanted to play army and just kill someone because, hey, we've got some guns.

    And if anyone is thinking, "Well, military and police are trained to protect themselves and their team with deadly force if necessary" or something similar, you can shut right the fuck up. This was an obvious overuse of force on one man that could have been easily diffused if they would have announced their presence or taken any precautions whatsoever.

    And the bigger, overarching issue (besides the use of excessive police force) is that this was a raid for marijuana. Are you kidding me? I've never smoked it, but I am 100% for the legalization of it. This is not cocaine or heroin we're dealing with here, people. You don't have a bunch of gun toting loonies bust into someone's house for weed. It's just not that serious.

    This is stupid and tragic on multiple levels.

    i can't help but think that the number of bullets has something to do with liability. if the bullets that killed the guy were found to be from one or maybe even two guns, it would be easy to pinpoint who actually killed the guy. But if it's 70 bullets? Who knows. Can't hold any specific person responsible, can we know?

    Ketherial on
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Ketherial wrote: »
    It's terrible that this guy was killed by an obviously trigger happy group of guys. 70 shots? Maybe if it was a couple of 3 round bursts that put the guy down or something less ridiculous, I could give the SWAT guys less grief for taking someone completely innocent out, but 70 shots? To me, that sounds like a group of men that wanted to play army and just kill someone because, hey, we've got some guns.

    And if anyone is thinking, "Well, military and police are trained to protect themselves and their team with deadly force if necessary" or something similar, you can shut right the fuck up. This was an obvious overuse of force on one man that could have been easily diffused if they would have announced their presence or taken any precautions whatsoever.

    And the bigger, overarching issue (besides the use of excessive police force) is that this was a raid for marijuana. Are you kidding me? I've never smoked it, but I am 100% for the legalization of it. This is not cocaine or heroin we're dealing with here, people. You don't have a bunch of gun toting loonies bust into someone's house for weed. It's just not that serious.

    This is stupid and tragic on multiple levels.

    i can't help but think that the number of bullets has something to do with liability. if the bullets that killed the guy were found to be from one or maybe even two guns, it would be easy to pinpoint who actually killed the guy. But if it's 70 bullets? Who knows. Can't hold any specific person responsible, can we know?

    He was hit (from what I read) 22 times.

    I just hope the guy that blind fired is out on his ass. What if there had been someone on the floor? Whoops! No time for lookin' only shootin'

    Xaquin on
  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i can't help but think that the number of bullets has something to do with liability. if the bullets that killed the guy were found to be from one or maybe even two guns, it would be easy to pinpoint who actually killed the guy. But if it's 70 bullets? Who knows. Can't hold any specific person responsible, can we know?

    I don't think that was the case here, judging from that video alone.

    (Has it been verified that video is legitimate?)

    BlazeFire on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    powersurge wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    Why the hell do the police forces have their own small military?

    Why don't we just use stateside special forces like the British do, especially if they're intent on going in and shooting everything that moves?

    EDIT: as Kyougu said, an actual military force would cause less collateral damage as well.

    Wait, this is Arizona, are these Sheriff Joe's cronies?

    I wondered this as well. They fired 70 bullets? And hit him with 60? Dear god, what the hell? Was Sheriff Joe riding a tank outside waving his cowboy hat around?

    Damn Arizona.

    I like how folks automatically blame the conservative when the article the OP linked clearly states this was under Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who was blaming Republican Rhetoric right after the Giffords shooting without knowing the details.
    The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.

    Stupidity and corruption know both sides of the Isle IMO.

    I did not blame a conservative, I wondered along with the other guy if these were in any way connected to Sheriff Joe. In fact someone in this thread has suggested that both Sheriffs are in fact buddies.

    But yeah, people are dumb on both political sides, but we aren't talking about political parties.

    SniperGuy on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i can't help but think that the number of bullets has something to do with liability. if the bullets that killed the guy were found to be from one or maybe even two guns, it would be easy to pinpoint who actually killed the guy. But if it's 70 bullets? Who knows. Can't hold any specific person responsible, can we know?

    I don't think that was the case here, judging from that video alone.

    (Has it been verified that video is legitimate?)

    Uh, it's from the police department, so yes?


    Also:
    The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena.

    SniperGuy on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2011
    The idea of a "culture of respect" is an interesting one. Most people I know have a vague dislike of police, considering them as fairly dim power-hungry assholes. But at the same time, there's a reverence for the idea of policing, of being Tough On Crime. The average person I know thinks cops have too much power, but would also never dream of implementing any change in law which would reduce that power.

    It's a culture of disrespect of police coupled with a worship of policing in the abstract. And the average person probably has no idea that the two are linked, that the police in this nation are corrupt and power-mad largely because we grant them unlimited power and demonize them if we see any sniff of crime anywhere at all. We want our cops to be the lawless vigilante thugs we see in film, because they Get Things Done and Bring Down the Bad Guy - we just don't want those thugs anywhere near us, personally, because they're lawless vigilante thugs. And apparently we haven't collectively realized that they don't Bring Down the Bad Guy so much as Bring Down Whoever Is Standing Closest And Has A Vaguely-Gun-Shaped Object In His Hand.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ZomroZomro Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    What's wrong with letting them vent their frustrations out on the internet? It hurts no one.

    Because there is the not unreasonable counterpoint that a culture with no respect for its police force will end up with an unhealthy police force. If it's always met with hostility it will become more insular, more violent, and more inscrutable. If it's looked down upon, fewer good people will join it.

    To have a good police force, you need a police force with a good reputation. It's chicken and egg, but such is lief.
    We already have unhealthy police forces though, and most people think police are great.

    There seems to be this illusion that police officers are in the job because they see themselves as noble defenders of the public.

    I'm sure there are some really great people who are police. It seems that they're mostly self serving at best, and terribly corrupt at worst. This doesn't seem to be that uncommon.

    The bolded bit is also an illusion that people have about military personnel. People have this notion that someone joins the military for the noble goal of protecting our (usually presented as "your") freedoms. I would wager that there are quite a few service men and women who believe it is their patriotic duty to protect our country, that I have no doubt. But how many are they in comparison to the people who join so they can get their college tuition paid, or who couldn't get into college, or who come from a military family trying to make a career of it? And there's probably a few (very few, I imagine) people who are in the military who are, for all intents and purposes, terrible human beings. But, military men and women get this hero worship where they're automatically entitled to respect and anything less is met with anger and accusations of being unpatriotic or unamerican. This thread even being posted is proof of that, the OP specifically stated he only posted this up because the man who was killed was a marine.

    Now, before anyone rages about this, let me be clear that I do respect the members of our armed forces. But, I respect them as much as I respect any other human being I meet, I treat them with respect unless they prove otherwise. I treat cops the same way, as well as any other person with any other job (doctor, teacher, McDonald's employee) that I've ever met. As far as I'm concerned, no job you currently hold entitles you to any more (or less) respect than anyone else, I feel that your actions define if you should be respected or not.

    I apologize for heading off topic a bit, but I felt it needed pointing out in response to the quote I listed above.

    I also might as well go ahead and say that I'm done with this topic. I never said that everyone in the thread were demonizing / generalizing police, just that there were some and I've proven that was the case (whether it was intentional or not doesn't matter).

    Zomro on
  • BlazeFireBlazeFire Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i can't help but think that the number of bullets has something to do with liability. if the bullets that killed the guy were found to be from one or maybe even two guns, it would be easy to pinpoint who actually killed the guy. But if it's 70 bullets? Who knows. Can't hold any specific person responsible, can we know?

    I don't think that was the case here, judging from that video alone.

    (Has it been verified that video is legitimate?)

    Uh, it's from the police department, so yes?


    Also:
    The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena.

    Sorry, I saw the news channels logo in the corner and didn't realise the Sheriff's office had given it to them. Thanks for pointing that out.

    As to the 2nd thing you quoted, I'm not sure if that was directed at me but I'll respond like it was. My "I don't think that was the case..." was in response to the number of bullets being related to liability. It didn't look like anyone thought "hey I know how we can cover our asses" and more of "WTF is going on? Pull trigger!"

    BlazeFire on
  • Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    SammyF wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »

    Okay, so the recorder is a bit far away but from what I can tell

    - Light tapping on the door to signify knocking
    - No announcement that it's the police
    - Opening the door
    - Immediately opening fire

    Trigger. Happy. Pricks.

    Dude, come on. I'm pretty sure I heard someone on the entry team announce they were with the police, but it's impossible not to hear them running their siren for a couple seconds once the entry team disembarks from the vehicle.

    I have no idea what actually happened once the entry team was inside the house itself, but the breach, at least, was clean.

    So the neighbors who claim they heard nothing are lying?

    Burden of Proof on
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    SammyF wrote: »
    Warrant service on a narcotics bust usually has to be fast to prevent the destruction of evidence that you need to make your case, is why it's usually turned over to SWAT and executed without a surround and call-out.

    I agree that this shit goes wrong far too often, though.

    If we don't endanger the lives of innocent people, we won't be able to free our streets from the scourge of marijuana, which depending on the evidence you believe, might even be as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol.

    Except Marijuana is bad, because the cartels and other major producers use it as their money maker to fund their gun running and their heroin and coccaine manufacturing operations.

    But thats an issue for another thread.
    SammyF wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »

    Okay, so the recorder is a bit far away but from what I can tell

    - Light tapping on the door to signify knocking
    - No announcement that it's the police
    - Opening the door
    - Immediately opening fire

    Trigger. Happy. Pricks.

    Dude, come on. I'm pretty sure I heard someone on the entry team announce they were with the police, but it's impossible not to hear them running their siren for a couple seconds once the entry team disembarks from the vehicle.

    I have no idea what actually happened once the entry team was inside the house itself, but the breach, at least, was clean.

    So the neighbors who claim they heard nothing are lying?

    I dont know how anyone can hear anything in that video, all I hear is the god damn stereo in their SUV blaring.

    Buttcleft on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    What is really twisted about this is how the PD changes its story: First the raid was for Pot distributors. Then when they turned up empty on that front and had to explain 60 bullets into a marine, it became about a "Home invasion crew". Now the fact that the Marine had a rifle, a bullet proof vest and a cap with "border control" becomes part of a home invasion kit. Despite the fact that there are thousands of Arizona Citizens that have such equipment in their home and none of it was illegal.


    Its also the fact that when there is evidence that incriminates the cops, its classified "to avoid ruining the investigation". When there is evidence that incriminates the victim, its leaked "by anonymous sources inside the department".

    Real trustworthy behavior there.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    Warrant service on a narcotics bust usually has to be fast to prevent the destruction of evidence that you need to make your case, is why it's usually turned over to SWAT and executed without a surround and call-out.

    I agree that this shit goes wrong far too often, though.

    If we don't endanger the lives of innocent people, we won't be able to free our streets from the scourge of marijuana, which depending on the evidence you believe, might even be as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol.

    Except Marijuana is bad, because the cartels and other major producers use it as their money maker to fund their gun running and their heroin and coccaine manufacturing operations.

    Except if marijuana is legal, then there is no reason to buy it from the black market and they can't use it to fund gun running and harder drug operations.

    Drug dealers and cartels want marijuana to be illegal.

    joshofalltrades on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    Warrant service on a narcotics bust usually has to be fast to prevent the destruction of evidence that you need to make your case, is why it's usually turned over to SWAT and executed without a surround and call-out.

    I agree that this shit goes wrong far too often, though.

    If we don't endanger the lives of innocent people, we won't be able to free our streets from the scourge of marijuana, which depending on the evidence you believe, might even be as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol.

    Except Marijuana is bad, because the cartels and other major producers use it as their money maker to fund their gun running and their heroin and coccaine manufacturing operations.

    Except if marijuana is legal, then there is no reason to buy it from the black market and they can't use it to fund gun running and harder drug operations.

    Drug dealers and cartels want marijuana to be illegal.

    And even if you count the indirect effects of marijuana, I'm pretty sure it still comes up as "might even be as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol"

    Burtletoy on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i can't help but think that the number of bullets has something to do with liability. if the bullets that killed the guy were found to be from one or maybe even two guns, it would be easy to pinpoint who actually killed the guy. But if it's 70 bullets? Who knows. Can't hold any specific person responsible, can we know?

    I don't think that was the case here, judging from that video alone.

    (Has it been verified that video is legitimate?)

    Uh, it's from the police department, so yes?


    Also:
    The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena.

    Sorry, I saw the news channels logo in the corner and didn't realise the Sheriff's office had given it to them. Thanks for pointing that out.

    As to the 2nd thing you quoted, I'm not sure if that was directed at me but I'll respond like it was. My "I don't think that was the case..." was in response to the number of bullets being related to liability. It didn't look like anyone thought "hey I know how we can cover our asses" and more of "WTF is going on? Pull trigger!"

    That second bit was in reference to the guy who said he got hit 22 times or whatever. As that is not the case. Not you, sorry for the confusion.

    SniperGuy on
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    BlazeFire wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i can't help but think that the number of bullets has something to do with liability. if the bullets that killed the guy were found to be from one or maybe even two guns, it would be easy to pinpoint who actually killed the guy. But if it's 70 bullets? Who knows. Can't hold any specific person responsible, can we know?

    I don't think that was the case here, judging from that video alone.

    (Has it been verified that video is legitimate?)

    Uh, it's from the police department, so yes?


    Also:
    The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena.

    Sorry, I saw the news channels logo in the corner and didn't realise the Sheriff's office had given it to them. Thanks for pointing that out.

    As to the 2nd thing you quoted, I'm not sure if that was directed at me but I'll respond like it was. My "I don't think that was the case..." was in response to the number of bullets being related to liability. It didn't look like anyone thought "hey I know how we can cover our asses" and more of "WTF is going on? Pull trigger!"

    That second bit was in reference to the guy who said he got hit 22 times or whatever. As that is not the case. Not you, sorry for the confusion.

    The 22 hits was from a CNN article that I see has been taken down. Of course, I'm starting to ignore CNN as most of their stories completely contradict their headlines and are mostly garbage.

    where's a good news source? BBC?

    Xaquin on
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Now, before anyone rages about this, let me be clear that I do respect the members of our armed forces.

    I think, on average, most people would acknowledge that if nothing else you have to be reasonably brave to sign up for an active service position given what the army is currently engaged in.

    surrealitycheck on
    3fpohw4n01yj.png
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Reasonably brave or completely devoid of alternatives that might provide a decent career. Oh look, they recruit straight from terrible high schools in incredibly poor areas!

    It does take a lot of sacrifice to serve, and I'm thankful for it. But there's a *reason* you don't see the bulk of enrollment coming from well-off white kids who have lots of other options.

    JihadJesus on
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Xaquin wrote: »
    The 22 hits was from a CNN article that I see has been taken down. Of course, I'm starting to ignore CNN as most of their stories completely contradict their headlines and are mostly garbage.

    where's a good news source? BBC?
    Al Jazeera?

    Ofc. you could maybe hit up Reuters or AP and go direct to the source too.

    Mr_Rose on
    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Reasonably brave or completely devoid of alternatives that might provide a decent career. Oh look, they recruit straight from terrible high schools in incredibly poor areas!

    It does take a lot of sacrifice to serve, and I'm thankful for it. But there's a *reason* you don't see the bulk of enrollment coming from well-off white kids who have lots of other options.

    Yeah see this is the thing. You have kids going through training right from high school to the SWAT team.

    In big cities, to get onto SWAT requires intense competition. In the small counties they do the same "can you fog a mirror" test that the Marines require for their infantry (ololol).

    This is why the State police should be the ones responsible for the SWAT/ETF actions, and this is why they should cross-train with the FBI HRT and other world class agencies. If you have a centralized command and the leeway to have a force that spends their time training or responding to genuine emergencies, then you avoid the problem of SWAT teams being deployed under grossly inappropriate conditions.

    Also, you have departments that have more beat cops, which means more community involvement which means (GASP) more effective policing. Cases still get solved by cops and detectives fucking talking to people.

    As for the "minutes vs. hours" argument welp
    Black-Hawk-helicopter-aft-002.jpg
    These things move at 180 MPH and can't get held up in traffic.

    Hostage situations and standoffs, AFAIK, don't often involve running gunbattles unless the local cops really fuck the dog and don't establish a proper cordon. Unless we're counting the Hollywood robbery thing, but that was one crime in a million.

    Robman on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Local news sources are often more detailed than the national ones.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The hallmarks of a profesional and well trained police force.
    "I just started boom, boom, boom, boom," said another voice on the tape
    While outside, a SWAT member asked the team leader if they were going inside the house. The team leader can be heard on the tape saying no, and the team member said, "Why not? ... Might as well finish what I started."

    Buttcleft on
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I don't know it it's wrong of me, but the moment I saw the title I knew the marine was Hispanic. I just knew it. There's no way that Arizona pigs would shoot a white marine to death.

    CaptainNemo on
    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The "most cops are nice people" defense works fine until you get a situation like the one we currently have in Portland, wherein multiple officers witness abuses of power by other officers, report the violations to their superiors, then get fired or intimidated into resignation alternatively by 1) being threatened by those same superiors for not knowing use of force rules backward, forward and sideways and 2) being told they won't be backed up on the job by their fellow officers.

    If most cops were good people this kind of shit wouldn't be tolerated.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The "most cops are nice people" defense works fine until you get a situation like the one we currently have in Portland, wherein multiple officers witness abuses of power by other officers, report the violations to their superiors, then get fired or intimidated into resignation alternatively by 1) being threatened by those same superiors for not knowing use of force rules backward, forward and sideways and 2) being told they won't be backed up on the job by their fellow officers.

    If most cops were good people this kind of shit wouldn't be tolerated.

    Years ago I was briefly considering police work as a career, and this was the kind of thing that made me ultimately reject the idea. I knew that sooner or later, I would end up in a spot where I'd have to choose between Doing the Right Thing (both in the legal and moral sense) and doing what my superiors and fellow officers would expect me to do - looking the other way, keeping my mouth shut, backing them up no matter what. I didn't want to be put in a position where I had to choose between my livelihood/career/reputation, and my conscience.

    There are bad cops who are on the take, who abuse suspects, violate due process etc.
    There are dumb cops who make negligent mistakes that get people hurt or killed.
    And there are "good cops" who look the other way or are pressured to do so, so that the bad/dumb cops get away with their shit.

    Who protects the "good cops" who don't want to protect the bad cops? Nobody.

    DivideByZero on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • HurtdogHurtdog Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Sirens wailing, megaphones blasting


    There was no question that this was the police.


    Unless you suspect robbers are actually disguising themselves as police there is little to no reason to arm yourself with intent to kill. And in that case, you better be ready to start shooting immediately. Only take out a gun if you intend to use it.

    Hurtdog on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Sirens wailing, megaphones blasting


    There was no question that this was the police.


    Unless you suspect robbers are actually disguising themselves as police there is little to no reason to arm yourself with intent to kill. And in that case, you better be ready to start shooting immediately. Only take out a gun if you intend to use it.

    How often have you heard a siren outside your house and gone "oh shit, the police must be here to arrest me!"

    If you heard a siren for a few seconds, then later heard someone kicking your fucking door, you'd be a tad worried too, especially if you had family that was murdered in a home invasion. If you're a former marine? You grab your defense, protect your family, and defend your home. Had he fired a shot or raised his rifle I'd be more sympathetic to the police, but this was heinous. Given the time frame of the video, it looks like he got hit gun, ran into the hallway, and was then gunned down.

    SniperGuy on
  • Mr_RoseMr_Rose 83 Blue Ridge Protects the Holy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Sirens wailing,
    Twice for 3-4 seconds each, and not at the time of the forced entry. From inside a house that sounds like two cop cars going past on a pursuit, as I pointed out earlier.
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    megaphones blasting
    Yeah, no. Police radios are not megaphones, no matter how much you want them to be.
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    There was no question that this was the police.
    There was no reasonable evidence this was the police available to the occupants of the house.
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Unless you suspect robbers are actually disguising themselves as police there is little to no reason to arm yourself with intent to kill. And in that case, you better be ready to start shooting immediately.
    Or a member of your family recently died in a home invasion , or you're a Marine trained in the 'safe' use of lethal weaponry who is attempting to determine who's breaking in to your house.
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Only take out a gun if you intend to use it.
    So you agree the cops went there with the intent to shoot a bunch of rounds off, no matter what?

    Mr_Rose on
    ...because dragons are AWESOME! That's why.
    Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
    DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Unless you suspect robbers are actually disguising themselves as police there is little to no reason to arm yourself with intent to kill. And in that case, you better be ready to start shooting immediately. Only take out a gun if you intend to use it.

    Or what likely happened is the Marine used the same fire discipline all Marines are trained in, saw no dangerous target, and kept his weapon at the low ready and on safe. The cops, being fucking cowboys, lack anything approaching that, which is why they executed an innocent civilian, and you see their shitty, shitty breach and fire technique that would have got them killed against a more dangerous target, along with the hilariously stupid guy on the far left leaning into to shoot at a target he cannot see and getting in the way.
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    Reasonably brave or completely devoid of alternatives that might provide a decent career. Oh look, they recruit straight from terrible high schools in incredibly poor areas!

    It does take a lot of sacrifice to serve, and I'm thankful for it. But there's a *reason* you don't see the bulk of enrollment coming from well-off white kids who have lots of other options.

    It's definitely a part, but a lot of other factors like family history play into it as well (a lot of people can relate their grandfather's war stories). I don't actually mind that, so long as the benefits and pay are fair, and it is used responsibly (though I have a hawkish definition of such). I think military service is a good way to push reasonable and effective socialism-like policy in the US with a powerful shield from intellectually bankrupt but very loud right wing criticism, though that is starting to veer off topic.

    programjunkie on
  • HurtdogHurtdog Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Sirens wailing,
    Twice for 3-4 seconds each, and not at the time of the forced entry. From inside a house that sounds like two cop cars going past on a pursuit, as I pointed out earlier.

    Uh no. I grew up in a neighborhood where police sirens were going off regularly and let me tell you those sirens are loud as fuck, and if you were in that house at the time there would be no mistake that police cars were right outside your door. The sirens were loud and clear, of this there can be no doubt.

    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    megaphones blasting
    Yeah, no. Police radios are not megaphones, no matter how much you want them to be.

    Maybe what I heard wasn't a megaphone but either way the police were shouting right outside the door and knocking on it very loudly. Sure in the video it doesn't sound like much, but again this is just an amateur sound recording with shitty quality. In fact, at the distance the camera is from the action, the fact that you can hear the police signifies that they were being loud and clear.

    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    There was no question that this was the police.
    There was no reasonable evidence this was the police available to the occupants of the house.

    There was also no reasonable evidence that these were armed robbers coming in to steal his shit and kill his family; the fact is the guy chose to make a wild assumption that cost him his life; I argue that he could have just as easily assumed it was the police; If it were you or me, we would have probably waited behind cover to assess the threat before going in with guns blazing like this was Rambo 4. Moral of the story is don't make assumptions about shit you don't know


    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Unless you suspect robbers are actually disguising themselves as police there is little to no reason to arm yourself with intent to kill. And in that case, you better be ready to start shooting immediately.
    Or a member of your family recently died in a home invasion , or you're a Marine trained in the 'safe' use of lethal weaponry who is attempting to determine who's breaking in to your house.

    The amount of people in his family killed by home invasions is only an interesting aside, not a relevant detail of this particular situation.

    I find it laughable that people say this Marine was trained in the "safe" usage of lethal weaponry and yet overlooked the fact that he neglected any attempt to take cover to shield or hide himself from enemy fire. If I see a dude standing in the open with an assault rifle in his hands it would not be unreasonable to imagine that he has decided to forgo his self preservation instincts and go on an all out attack.

    Mr_Rose wrote: »
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Only take out a gun if you intend to use it.
    So you agree the cops went there with the intent to shoot a bunch of rounds off, no matter what?

    Yes, if cops are going into a building with guns and armor, it is possible that some bullets will be exchanged.
    You think they're just going to fucking walk in there with sparkly tasers and some harsh words? Get real.

    Hurtdog on
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Only take out a gun if you intend to use it.
    Yes, if cops are going into a building with guns and armor, it is possible that some bullets will be exchanged.
    You think they're just going to fucking walk in there with sparkly tasers and some harsh words? Get real.

    No, I think he was just poking a hole in the idea that if you take out a gun it means you plan to kill someone with it. As opposed to, you know, assessing a threat and dealing with it. Which it seems like the marine was doing. Which is probably why he didn't immediately put holes in the officers in question. Shame they didn't extend him the same courtesy.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • HurtdogHurtdog Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Ego wrote: »
    Only take out a gun if you intend to use it.
    Yes, if cops are going into a building with guns and armor, it is possible that some bullets will be exchanged.
    You think they're just going to fucking walk in there with sparkly tasers and some harsh words? Get real.

    No, I think he was just poking a hole in the idea that if you take out a gun it means you plan to kill someone with it. As opposed to, you know, assessing a threat and dealing with it. Which it seems like the marine was doing. Which is probably why he didn't immediately put holes in the officers in question. Shame they didn't extend him the same courtesy.

    If I take out a gun I am most certainly planning to use it on any perceived enemy who may also be armed with a gun.

    Which they did.

    Hurtdog on
  • edited May 2011
    This content has been removed.

  • edited May 2011
    This content has been removed.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Hurtdog wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    Only take out a gun if you intend to use it.
    Yes, if cops are going into a building with guns and armor, it is possible that some bullets will be exchanged.
    You think they're just going to fucking walk in there with sparkly tasers and some harsh words? Get real.

    No, I think he was just poking a hole in the idea that if you take out a gun it means you plan to kill someone with it. As opposed to, you know, assessing a threat and dealing with it. Which it seems like the marine was doing. Which is probably why he didn't immediately put holes in the officers in question. Shame they didn't extend him the same courtesy.

    If I take out a gun I am most certainly planning to use it on any perceived enemy who may also be armed with a gun.

    Which they did.

    What does that have to do with anything? No one much cares about what random PA'er number 30,000 thinks when he pulls out a gun. You made an incorrect statement (taking out a gun = you are planning to shoot someone) and since you didn't figure that out when Mr_Rose pointed it out, I'm pointing it out again for you, bolding the relevant.

    Grok?
    And which he didn't.

    So the question is, whose training does this call into question...his or theirs?

    :^:

    Ego on
    Erik
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Zomro wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote:
    The guy on top looks fat, stupid, and ready to shoot anybody that he feels vaguely threatened or insulted by. Obviously a cop.

    Yup. I said it.
    cabezone wrote:
    The soldier looks like a fucking professional and the police officer is the one that looks like a jackass in a costume.
    That's from this thread alone. None of these posts even attempt to exempt good law enforcement officials to the ones that plague our society. They have basically called all cops bad (or at least so incompetent it's bad), unintentionally or not. There is no attempt to differentiate officer Bob who puts his life on the line to protect and serve his community from Sheriff Joe, who is pretty much the poster child of police corruption. That is completely unnecessary and completely unfair to patrolman Bob, period.
    Logical implication does not work that way. There is a difference between "slob with a gun? Must be a cop" and "Cop? Must be a slob with a gun." Can you spot it? This is a disgusting abuse of logic stemming from some unrealistic sense of persecution and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing it.

    As others have said, I'll start making a point of exempting hypothetical patrolman Bob as soon as he becomes actual patrolman Bob who spoke out against the misconduct of his fellow officers.

    Bama on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    There is very clearly no time for the swat team to have asked the guy to surrender. After the door goes down there's about a half a second before shots start up. As soon as someone laid eyes on the guy they opened fire and everyone else followed suit. Their entry method is pretty sloppy as well.

    As far as whoever arguing that the sirens were loud and clear, how do you explain the neighbors not hearing it? It doesn't sound that loud to me. All it seems like to me is the guy heard someone beating down his front door and armed himself as fast as he could.

    If you aren't making any assumptions, and you hear someone beating down your front door, what would YOU suggest they do? Go answer it and hope it isn't someone here to kill you and take your shit? Unless you're actively a criminal (which this person was not) people just DO NOT ASSUME the police are going to be kicking in their front door. There's no reason for them to assume that. At all. It is overwhelmingly more likely in that scenario that it is a home invasion. If your door started getting kicked in right now you bet your ass you wouldn't think "Oh, the police must be here!" Unless you have a kilo of coke on the table or something.

    edit: also, we don't know he wasn't in cover. He could have been standing halfway in a door frame looking into the hallway. Look at the house, do you think those walls are incredibly bullet proof? Well they aren't, because neighboring houses got hit by the hail of gunfire.

    SniperGuy on
Sign In or Register to comment.