Wise from yo grave!
Anyway, part of me didn't feel the need to reply. I mean, my lengthy post summed things up nicely, I thought, and I don't think Shinobi has substantively addressed a tenth of what I've posted.
But I'm bored, so whatev.
According to that article and several others I've seen on the subject, police in the U.S. do not always immediately announce themselves as such.
That's nice. Apart from the acknowledgement that yes, you might be able to find an instance where this has been the case, thinking rationally about the subject, you should realize that
it is in our best interest to announce our presence upon entry, to limit the likelihood of us being shotYes, you can find examples of police screwups. But there are police screwups because
A) Police are fallible human beings
B) There are an awful lot of police in the United States (sworn police officers numbering nearly 700,000)
C) Police actions tend to be in stressful, chaotic, and fluid situations.
Finding a few examples of where things go badly and then railing against the system is not a rational argument. It is not evidence of dangerous, systemic flaws in the current system.
Several articles claimed that they occasionally choose to open things with the use of flash-bang grenades.
And? Flashbangs serve a purpose. A nonlethal purpose to boot.
Furthermore, when they're doing things in the middle of the night, they run the risk of encountering people who have just been woken up and are completely disoriented.
If they are
completely disoriented, then they shouldn't be in a position to retrieve a firearm and blast away at the police before the SWAT team puts 'em in handcuffs.
Suffice to say there are a number of reasons why someone might not immediately recognize police.
Maybe. But none of those reasons are sufficient for someone to
1) Not immediately recognize the police
2) Make the conscious decision to go searching for one's shotgun (all the while police are storming in, again, marked as police, yelling "Police", etc.)
3) Aim at the police
4) Pull the trigger at the police.
I think part of this disagreement is that you are a Canadian trying to argue that these raids are always conducted the exact same way in the U.S. as you would do them. According to a number of articles I've read, they aren't. Now it's possible that those articles are wrong, or are exaggerating the situation, in which case I would revise my argument.
Hiding behind the fact that I am Canadian and therefore all of my arguments are invalid due to the presumably vast chasm between American and Canadian legal and policing systems is absolute
cowardly bullshit. It is indicative of how COMPLETELY you are losing this debate.
Yes there are differences between Canada and the United States in its approach to policing, and in its drug policy (see: attitude towards marijuana, and sentencing of drug users and dealers)
But you are trying to say that because I am a Canadian
police officer my arguments are less knowledgeable about American police than you, because you've
read a few articles?!Do you have ANY IDEA HOW STUPID THIS MAKES YOU LOOK? You probably have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the differences between Canadian and American policing are. It's not like I'm a British police officer, who doesn't even fucking CARRY a gun. Police officers are police officers. The details and nuances may vary, the nature of the job doesn't.
Boogie: Trained, sworn Canadian police officer.
Green Shinobi: umm, what the fuck does he even do for a living? Taught english in Korea for a while or some shit? I think he plays music or something too. Anyway, he's read a couple articles from the CATO institute...
I'd say a big reason for it is that these types of raids are a very traumatic and violating experience for most people, which you aren't taking into account.
A big reason for "it"? No knock raids may be traumatizing, but "raids" aren't the entirety of the "militarization of police" that CATO refers to, and so is a very weak explanation. Plus, since I would wager that in the majority of raids the occupants tend to end up being, err,
guilty, I really don't give two shits if they feel traumatized or violated. Poor muffins, you had a police officer wearing body armour yell at you. I guess you shouldn't have been pushing smack on kids. :'(
That's why I argued that their use should be restricted to dealers with a previous history of violence or some other type of crime, or at least to cases where there is already some substantial evidence that the person being raided is guilty.
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW SEARCH WARRANTS WORK. YOU HAVEN'T LISTENED TO ANYTHING I'VE SAID ON THE SUBJECT. FUCK OFF.
If police can just break down the door of any house based on some anonymous tip,
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW SEARCH WARRANTS WORK. YOU HAVEN'T LISTENED TO ANYTHING I'VE SAID ON THE SUBJECT. FUCK OFF.
they run a good chance of inflicting all this trauma on an innocent person.
Not that good a chance.
Did you not read that at least one person has had a heart attack due to the stress of a no-knock raid?
A tragedy. But we shouldn't base policy around people with dodgy hearts.
they absolutely should not be used against someone when the only evidence against the person is an anonymous tip.
Once more: YOU DON'T KNOW HOW SEARCH WARRANTS WORK. YOU HAVEN'T LISTENED TO ANYTHING I'VE SAID ON THE SUBJECT. FUCK OFF.
Maybe in Canada. Have you not been following the increasing rate of taser use in the U.S?
wait, hold on...
Yeah, because there's been no increasing rate of taser use in Canada.
No public controversy about somebody getting videotaped dying after getting hit with a taser in the Vancouver airport in the fall of 2007.
And no media hysteria regarding the device.
GTFO. How is referencing the taser even a
relevant response to my quote? And you clearly have no idea about the taser as a use of force option.
I'm betting you don't keep track of the cases where cops have killed unarmed suspects or people who weren't even suspects at all. Just last month there was a case of an undercover officer shooting a man who came at him with a broom because he thought the cop was a burglar. The cop was cleared of any wrongdoing. He killed a man who came at him with a broom rather than get off the property. Sure it was the most efficient way for him to resolve the situation, but it resulted in an innocent man's death.
And this is the substitute for rational debate from you. You simply pick and choose some controversial incident involving the police and the use of force, throw up your hands and say "See?! Clearly the police are out of control and unaccountable! And somehow this has to do with drugs!"
I'm surprised you haven't brought up the BART shooting. It would have about as much relevance to the argument.
But the relevant part is "the cop was cleared of any wrongdoing". That would mean, as is the case in our Western societies, that when a police officer kills someone, there is an investigation. If there is enough evidence to go to trial, he will be charged. He is subject to the same laws as the rest of society, and has the same rights too. And that, in this case, either an investigation, or a judge, or a jury of his peers weighed the incident and determined that the officer was not guilty of an offence.
So, with that, in the face of your unfocused handwringing, I say again: fuck off.
Of course there will always be controversial incidents of police using force. Because
1) The United States is a relatively violent society
2) The police have to deal with this violent society. They have to respond to 911 calls, etc.
3) There are lots of police in the United States. (again, about 700k)
Lots of police dealing with lots of violence = some controversial, unfortunate, tragic incidents. And yes, in some of those incidents, the police may even be at fault. But you deal with those incidents.
This is becoming a theme in the U.S: police using deadly force because it is the most efficient way to do things, without regard for the potential civil rights violations that can result.
Bullshit. That's your completely unsubstantiated opinion, and you have certainly done a piss-poor job of backing it up in this thread.
And since this statement was in the same paragraph as your taser comment, you probably think that the taser is "deadly force" too
Making no-knock warrants the de-facto means of drug searches is just another symptom of this.
De-facto? You mean, other than the fact that the affiant has to request, justify, and defend the inclusion of no-knock entry? GTFO.
I know these cases aren't even close to a majority of police operations,
Holy shit, finally a concession to reality.
but the fact remains that there have been a disturbing number of excessive uses of force in the U.S.,
Excessive use of force in whose opinion? The law's? Or your own (ignorant) opinion?
and it's not unreasonable to conclude that it has something to do with the increased militarization of police forces.
Sure it is, and I think I've proven that pretty well in this thread.
I don't disagree that these tactics are safer for police officers, which is why I conceded that they have a place.
Where did you concede that point? All I've seen from you is whining about "the militarization of police" and thinking that police officers should execute drug warrants with guns holstered.
I mean, clearly you don't
know the place for these tactics with your expressed ignorance of the violent potential of drug dealers.
Under the Fourth Amendement, Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Having your door broken in and a gun pointed at your head based on an anonymous tip is not a reasonable search.
The American courts would seem to disagree. Since they are the ones authorizing these searches, and convicting those charged due to these searches, and upholding those convictions upon appeal.
With a search warrant a JUDGE DECIDES WHETHER IT IS A REASONABLE SEARCH. And then in trial, the presiding judge will AGAIN DECIDE WHETHER IT IS A REASONABLE SEARCH.
I think it's inherently unconstitutional, but I also have a pretty polarized view on civil rights. I understand that it's a safer method of serving warrants.
Okay, let's try something different here.
Rather than me calling you distinguished mentally-challenged for this statement, and then lecturing you like you're a 4th grader as to
why you're distinguished mentally-challenged for this statement, I'm going to ask you to defend it.
Rather than just asserting your opinion that it is unconstitutional, explain
why you think it is. And don't just quote the Fourth Ammendment and say "because Americans have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures". Because your average run-of-the-mill search warrant also infringes upon one's right to be free from search and seizure, and I don't see you calling that unconstitutional.
So explain to me how, when a judge has to specifically authorize a no-knock entry and judge whether it is a "unreasonable" or "reasonable" search, that a no-knock warrant is "inherently" unconstitutional. (And, by the way, calling it "inherently" unconstitutional would "inherently" contradict your previous statement where you "conceded that they have a place". If the
very idea of a no-knock warrant is that it is
inherently unconstitutional, you shouldn't be able to concede that they have a place at all.)
spoiler (click to show/hide)
but then, maybe that's like you saying that "ALL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGALIZED" and then upon being challenged on your position dither and say "OKAY, ALL DRUGS EXCEPT MAYBE METH
