PLAYER57832 wrote:
Because the police were the professionals,the ones who are supposed to know the constitution and support it, not break it.
lol
The police are payed to enforce an abundance of unconstitutional laws and they don't complain so..
LOL
You are slightly correct. Police enforce laws that are enacted. A law cannot be ruled unconstitutional until it is enacted and objections are brought to the court. Sometimes that happens very quickly, before the bill is even implemented. (for example, a bill with a future activation date may be struck down before that date). In many cases, that process is slow. In the meantime, the police are to enforce all laws, whether they like them or not.
In general I support the police but not when they enforce unjust laws or when they mess up, and especially not when they refuse to take responsibility for their mistakes.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
targetman377 wrote:none of you have stayed any thing to that fact. well???? the police could of handled it better YES but she could have too. U guys are only blaming the girl.
The girl wasn't hoisting military-style weaponry and busting anything up illegally. The same cannot be said for the police, in this instance. I suspect that might be a reason why...
to this i would say the police will NOT SHOOT at you if you come out slowly and you show your hands. and can you answer this WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU JUST SIT INSIDE YOUR HOUSE WITH POLICE SURROUNDING IT FOR OVER AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because it's my house. Why isn't that sufficient?
GabonX wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Because the police were the professionals,the ones who are supposed to know the constitution and support it, not break it.
lol
The police are payed to enforce an abundance of unconstitutional laws and they don't complain so..
The police are not, in fact, paid to enforce ANY unconstitutional laws. Your mistake is in thinking that a law is unconstitutional as soon as it is written...it must be found to be so...until then, it is only an opinion that it is unconstitutional, not fact.
GabonX wrote:THE POLICE SHOULD FUCKING PAY FOR THE DAMAGES THEY CAUSED.
This is certainly true.
Last edited by Woodruff on Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
In general I support the police but not when they enforce unjust laws or when they mess up, and especially not when they refuse to take responsibility for their mistakes.
Police are not in the judiciating business. They are not allowed to decide a law is unjust, except in the most extreme (Geneva convention, etc.) cases.
Screwing up is, well, human. Though this was a pretty BIG screw up and should have been prevented.
Taking responsibility .. in another issue entirely.
I, too think the police should be held responsible.
targetman377 wrote:it said no where in either peace that they did not have a search warrant so what if they did then it is a lawful!!!!
Dude...a search warrant will have a specific address listed. If they had a search warrant, then they're either too stupid or too careless to read it. We were giving them the benefit of the doubt by saying there wasn't one, because to think otherwise is just too embarrassing for them.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Listen to the video. It says that they thought a burglar was in the apartment.
Based on this they were probably acting under the pretense that they were in hot pursuit rather than having obtained a warrant.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
GabonX wrote:Listen to the video. It says that they thought a burglar was in the apartment.
Based on this they were probably acting under the pretense that they were in hot pursuit rather than having obtained a warrant.
There is such a thing as "proportional response"
As in, usually you don't cause thousands in damage and potentially endanger many people simply to catch a petty burgler.
SWAT is generally supposed to be reserved for the most serious, life-threatening situations. They are the guys who shoot the perpetrators first and ask questions later if they feel it is necessary to protect innocent civilians. BUT, they are supposed to take more than usual care to ensure they ARE going after a perpetrator and not other victims!
I'm surprised the police department is not carrying some sort of "Cops mess up and thrash the wrong place." insurance to pay for the damages.
Woodruff wrote:
targetman377 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
targetman377 wrote:none of you have stayed any thing to that fact. well???? the police could of handled it better YES but she could have too. U guys are only blaming the girl.
The girl wasn't hoisting military-style weaponry and busting anything up illegally. The same cannot be said for the police, in this instance. I suspect that might be a reason why...
to this i would say the police will NOT SHOOT at you if you come out slowly and you show your hands. and can you answer this WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU JUST SIT INSIDE YOUR HOUSE WITH POLICE SURROUNDING IT FOR OVER AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because it's my house. Why isn't that sufficient?
The excuse will be "Because you might be a terrorist." So you know, good luck with that in the future. I agree with you though.
2dimes wrote:I'm surprised the police department is not carrying some sort of "Cops mess up and thrash the wrong place." insurance to pay for the damages.
They would if they had to pay damages more than "once in a blue moon"
targetman377 wrote:
to this i would say the police will NOT SHOOT at you if you come out slowly and you show your hands. and can you answer this WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU JUST SIT INSIDE YOUR HOUSE WITH POLICE SURROUNDING IT FOR OVER AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because it's my house. Why isn't that sufficient?
The excuse will be "Because you might be a terrorist." So you know, good luck with that in the future. I agree with you though.
They might try that, true enough. Though my 23 years in the military with a security clearance high enough that most of you wouldn't be aware it even exists would tend to deter that excuse if they were to try it.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
targetman377 wrote:
to this i would say the police will NOT SHOOT at you if you come out slowly and you show your hands. and can you answer this WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU JUST SIT INSIDE YOUR HOUSE WITH POLICE SURROUNDING IT FOR OVER AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because it's my house. Why isn't that sufficient?
The excuse will be "Because you might be a terrorist." So you know, good luck with that in the future. I agree with you though.
They might try that, true enough. Though my 23 years in the military with a security clearance high enough that most of you wouldn't be aware it even exists would tend to deter that excuse if they were to try it.
targetman377 wrote:
to this i would say the police will NOT SHOOT at you if you come out slowly and you show your hands. and can you answer this WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU JUST SIT INSIDE YOUR HOUSE WITH POLICE SURROUNDING IT FOR OVER AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because it's my house. Why isn't that sufficient?
The excuse will be "Because you might be a terrorist." So you know, good luck with that in the future. I agree with you though.
They might try that, true enough. Though my 23 years in the military with a security clearance high enough that most of you wouldn't be aware it even exists would tend to deter that excuse if they were to try it.
That would likely work for you, but not for the rest of us. Even if we do have (somewhat lower) clearances ourselves.
targetman377 wrote:
to this i would say the police will NOT SHOOT at you if you come out slowly and you show your hands. and can you answer this WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU JUST SIT INSIDE YOUR HOUSE WITH POLICE SURROUNDING IT FOR OVER AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GabonX wrote:Listen to the video. It says that they thought a burglar was in the apartment.
Based on this they were probably acting under the pretense that they were in hot pursuit rather than having obtained a warrant.
so your whole argument is based on an assumption that you do not know. that's what i call a strong solid argument.
Actually it doesn't affect my argument at all.
Whether or not they had a warrant doesn't change the fact that they trashed the apartment of the woman who they were supposed to be protecting AND they didn't even pay for the damages they caused.
Even though it's irrelevant, based on the circumstances we can be fairly certain that they didn't have a warrant.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
GabonX wrote:Listen to the video. It says that they thought a burglar was in the apartment.
Based on this they were probably acting under the pretense that they were in hot pursuit rather than having obtained a warrant.
There is such a thing as "proportional response"
As in, usually you don't cause thousands in damage and potentially endanger many people simply to catch a petty burgler.
SWAT is generally supposed to be reserved for the most serious, life-threatening situations. They are the guys who shoot the perpetrators first and ask questions later if they feel it is necessary to protect innocent civilians. BUT, they are supposed to take more than usual care to ensure they ARE going after a perpetrator and not other victims!
Umm yeah, that's what I've been saying the whole time...
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
targetman377 wrote:
to this i would say the police will NOT SHOOT at you if you come out slowly and you show your hands. and can you answer this WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU JUST SIT INSIDE YOUR HOUSE WITH POLICE SURROUNDING IT FOR OVER AN HOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because it's my house. Why isn't that sufficient?
The excuse will be "Because you might be a terrorist." So you know, good luck with that in the future. I agree with you though.
They might try that, true enough. Though my 23 years in the military with a security clearance high enough that most of you wouldn't be aware it even exists would tend to deter that excuse if they were to try it.
That will be of little comfort to the widow.
True, though the $500,000 would be (why she hasn't already killed me, I have no idea...).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
The saddest part is this is a prospective TEACHER talking!
I think we all wish we could forward the comment to any and all future employers.
the fact that you have never even talked to me face to face yet you call me dumb is sad. you are making prejudgments on me and accusing me that i would be a bad teacher. I really do not appreciate that. this is because i agree with the police. on this matter? well sorry. in this case that you have been making is all dependent on them not having a search warrant and there is no proof for them not having one. i will admit i was wrong saying she was in the house at the time.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
The saddest part is this is a prospective TEACHER talking!
I think we all wish we could forward the comment to any and all future employers.
the fact that you have never even talked to me face to face yet you call me dumb is sad. you are making prejudgments on me and accusing me that i would be a bad teacher. I really do not appreciate that. this is because i agree with the police. on this matter? well sorry. in this case that you have been making is all dependent on them not having a search warrant and there is no proof for them not having one. i will admit i was wrong saying she was in the house at the time.
Actually, it's based on the fact that you suck at the English Language and come across as incoherent, and apathetic towards your short-comings.
If you're dyslexic, tell us. I've got a friend on here who is, and while otherwise a smart guy, does struggle with simple spelling and grammar. If you have no such 'crutch' to hold up as a reason, then we'll continue to rag on you, because you're writing skills are those of an 11 year old, NOT of someone who is going to be a public school teacher.
PLAYER57832 wrote:
The saddest part is this is a prospective TEACHER talking!
I think we all wish we could forward the comment to any and all future employers.
the fact that you have never even talked to me face to face yet you call me dumb is sad. you are making prejudgments on me and accusing me that i would be a bad teacher. I really do not appreciate that. this is because i agree with the police. on this matter? well sorry. in this case that you have been making is all dependent on them not having a search warrant and there is no proof for them not having one. i will admit i was wrong saying she was in the house at the time.
Dude.. It makes no difference whether or not they had a search warrant or not!
A search warrant is for searching a place. It's not a "search and destroy warrant," just a search warrant.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
