Court rules the OK for police to shoot barking or moving dogs

[MarkChambers]

You've got to be blind not to see the militarization of the police and that they operate above the law more and more frequently.

 

[Regalis]

I'm kinda surprised at how many peiole are ok with cops shooting digs without realizing they end up at the wrong house fairly often. I've personally had it happen at an old apartment. I was sitting insude with a friend when I saw what was in essence a tactical retrieval squad pull in. Didn't think too much of it until my friend says "hey, they're headed this way". Low and behold, they knocked on my door. Being a 17 year old kid, I did the best I could think of which was to answer because I knew they weren't there for me or the friend. But what if I had not answered because I was scared? And I don't think that's far fetched. Seeing a squad of dudes in full tactical gear on your front porch is scary, even if you know beyond a doubt you've done nothing wrong. Half of them already had weapons out. Lucky for me I was always pretty level headed even at that age. Turns out they were there to pick up a previous resident who was considered a violent offender. Had I not answered, they would have come in anyways. What if I had a dog then? Heaven forbid a protection breed? There wasn't time to secure one dog, let alone two.

So yeah. Having been there, I think more thought needs to go into these raids. Inoccent until proven guilty and all that jazz. Coming in, guns blazing to serve a warrant is not ok. Why? Because there's no way to know who or what may be inside. Or if it's even the right damn address.

 

[MarkChambers]

"Because there's no way to know who or what may be inside. Or if it's even the right damn address."

The police have become the standing army prohibited by the constitution and the citizen is the enemy. Harm incurred by the innocent, like in any military assault, is just collateral damage. It ain't Mayberry anymore.

 

[Oh Little Oji]

"Because there's no way to know who or what may be inside. Or if it's even the right damn address."

The police have become the standing army prohibited by the constitution and the citizen is the enemy. Harm incurred by the innocent, like in any military assault, is just collateral damage. It ain't Mayberry anymore.

Mark, I know you're probably going to upload a picture of your Dobe puppy when you get him/her, but you can use this one for now.
See, I was watching Ring of Honor Wrestling the other night and I saw this guy: On the back of his speedos was the moniker "The Last Real Man."

 

[MarkChambers]

Mark, I know you're probably going to upload a picture of your Dobe puppy when you get him/her, but you can use this one for now.
See, I was watching Ring of Honor Wrestling the other night and I saw this guy: On the back of his speedos was the moniker "The Last Real Man."
View attachment 75801

LOL. We may be a dying breed, but I'm definitely not the last. And I sure don't want to be the one that has to turn out the lights.

 

[Gelcoater]

See, I was watching Ring of Honor Wrestling the other night and I saw this guy: On the back of his speedos was the moniker "The Last Real Man."

On his Speedos...noted.

 

[Gelcoater]

You've got to be blind not to see the militarization of the police and that they operate above the law more and more frequently.

I recall a bank robbery here in Ca years back which to me was the trigger of police gearing up with militarization.
Several guys in Kevlar tactical gear and automatic weapons unleashed in the streets and the cops were flat out gunned.
Fast forward a few years to the LA riots in the 90s...not to be confused with the earlier one

I could argue either way on the militarization.

On one hand, I wouldn't want to have to face them. I'd be way out gunned. I'm not a criminal, nor do I go out and loot, riot, or burn down buildings and cause civil unrest.

On the other, if I were a buisness or home owner in the immediate area...

I've seen photos to back the rumors the only buildings in that area that didn't burn were the ones owned by folks of Korean decent that protected from the rooftops with rifles.

It should just be the new mantra in the country....You loot, we shoot.
You come out of the shoe store with 3boxes of Air Jordan's...Bang!
Now, I might turn the other way if I happened to see one of these young dudes come out of a Men's Warehouse with a belt.
Or coming out of a Big 5 with some blankets or K rations. Basics like food or water, you know.

St. Louis... Another example.
How should a situation like that be handled?
Protect and Serve... Hard to protect if you're out gunned. Or if your hands are tied from really making people want to leave the area.

If the police don't deal with the situation then what do you have?

 

[DD4MSpock]

I recall a bank robbery here in Ca years back which to me was the trigger of police gearing up with militarization.

And I believe it started with the Miami Bank Robbery/Shootout with the FBI in 1986. I think this is what led to LEOs getting semi autos with greater capacity.

I could argue either way on the militarization.

...

If the police don't deal with the situation then what do you have?

I think the problem with criticizing the "militarization" of police is it's that we use the same argument against anti's in re: gun control. "Gun's don't kill.... people do." Likewise, "Military gear, MRAV's, etc. don't kill.... the people operating them do..." Now, a proper argument might be that having these tools and technologies might "embolden" the LEO to be more "aggressive..." in their approach and tactics. That's a valid argument. That, or that the tools are used without proper training, or without policies as to when it's appropriate to use them, etc. etc.

I'm all for the LE having all the tools they need to combat the foes they might encounter, if only because I want the same for myself. As long as, of course, said tool or technique does not interfere with any/all Civil or constitutional rights. What we need to do, though, is ensure that LEOs are properly trained in the use of those tools (including policies on when to use them), and hold them strictly accountable for their use. That's what's missing, I think.

 

[MarkChambers]

"(including policies on when to use them), and hold them strictly accountable for their use. That's what's missing, I think."

Accountable to whom for what? You see this assumes that police such as those referenced in the OP are actually operating contra policy. And not necessarily written policy either. Because if they are not acting contra, which I am inclined to believe, it goes a long way in explaining why when such things are done, they are done with relative impunity.

There are any number of factors that need to be explored. Anecdotal situations such as those referenced above are of little value in proving or disproving anything. But even some casual research on police using google will yield enough evidence to show that police infractions are occurring at epidemic levels. So my question is what conditions exist in our culture that require police to be what amounts to a civilian military force and more important why do such conditions exist. And I'm going to stop there. I came here to talk about Dobermans.