Bye Bye Louisville

[luthervol]

"Who says protests need to be peaceful?" That's not a defense of the violence?

And "You'd better start denouncing this since it's affecting us in the polls" is in not a good look at all.

I'll leave it to you to look up lemon's comments making excuses for Antifa violence leading up to that. He literally defended the violence on the level of ideals, and then asked the Dem politicians to start denouncing it since the polls showed that the majority of the public finds it repugnant.

I'm already on record, so no backing out now. Anyone who is unwilling to condemn violent rioters is an idiot and not representative of the vast majority of the protestors. If that's Lemon, then he's an idiot on this issue.

 

[jcvols24]

Regardless of whether they knocked or not. No-knock warrants should be limited to an immediate risk of life loss only. Anyone who is woken from their sleep by someone bashing through the door is likely going to instinctively go into survival mode. It just creates an atmosphere prone to someone being killed. Body cams need to be a fixture on every cop on duty (exceptions for desk duty maybe) and if an UC officer is worried about compromising his identity then maybe he should refrain from participating in serving warrants, etc.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

No one's a perfect angel, but you said she was guilty. The cops saying she's guilty, or that she was under investigation, does not actually make her guilty. The bulk of the "abundant evidence" seems to be once upon a time she dated a drug dealer. Seems I recall that in this country, you're supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. The fact she's dead makes it hard for her to get her day in court.

She'll meet the Judge.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nice

I'm already on record, so no backing out now. Anyone who is unwilling to condemn violent rioters is an idiot and not representative of the vast majority of the protestors. If that's Lemon, then he's an idiot on this issue.

Nice backpedal. Don't want to give Lemon away as a propaganda source.

But we knew that already.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Well what's the point of warrant if you're going to give them time to flush/destroy evidence. Usually the warrant is to obtain evidence. If you are going to allow them to destroy it may as well not even bother with trying to obtain it. There's all kinds of evidence besides drugs. There are computer hard drives that could contain child pronography, lots of things that could be destroyed if you give the criminals a chance.

Like I've said, I am against no knock warrants and I think the cops make the job a lot harder than it has to be sometimes. I can see the need for kicking in a door occasionally.

If the no knock was a surprise, then stopping them in their car outside will also be a surprise. The latter allows you to collect whatever evidence is inside the home at your leisure with no risk to anyone. If you are planning a no knock raid you should have ample and concrete proof of what you expect to find inside. In other words a reasonable court case could be made off of what you've already obtained. The big score at the residence should be the nail in the coffin, not the linch pin of the entire case. And if the point of the drug war is to eliminate drugs then isn't that accomplished if they flush them?

 

[InVOLuntary]

If the no knock was a surprise, then stopping them in their car outside will also be a surprise. The latter allows you to collect whatever evidence is inside the home at your leisure with no risk to anyone. If you are planning a no knock raid you should have ample and concrete proof of what you expect to find inside. In other words a reasonable court case could be made off of what you've already obtained. The big score at the residence should be the nail in the coffin, not the linch pin of the entire case. And if the point of the drug war is to eliminate drugs then isn't that accomplished if they flush them?

Don't disagree with much except it's not that easy all.the time. What if there are 2 or more people inside the home. You would have to wait until they all.left.

Again, I'm 100% against no knock warrants. I think they are bad for the suspects and the police. I do not see a problem when the police identify and knock and give the occupants a reasonable amount of time to open the door.

 

[ajvol01]

It is not politics as normal.
It is politics in the world of Trumpism. That is not normal and should never be viewed as such.
Get rid of Trump and we can return to politics as normal; which still sux, just not nearly as bad.

Lulz

 

[AM64]

Not anymore.
However there is evidence she knowingly stashed drugs and/or cash in her apartment for her drug dealer boyfriend/ex boyfriend. How credible that evidence is remains to be seen, but that is why they were at her apartment to begin with. There has to be ample evidence to get the warrant or they just have to wait for them to come outside with whatever the cops are looking for.
Better plan would have been to give ample time for someone to acknowledge their announcement or at least for the cops to fully know the occupants were aware of their presence outside. I have no idea how long it was between knocking and entering. Obviously long enough for the dude to locate his weapon and be ready to shoot it. He should also have waited an appropriate time before firing at the cops. I am sure having cops ransack your place is traumatizing, but far less than having cops bust down your door, having your man shoot at then and them firing back at you and then ransacking the place.

Let's just say that the FBI - FISA court warrants and the well publicized and filmed FBI (storm trooper-esque) executions of supposedly not publicly known search warrants necessary to bring down Trump's Russian operatives tend to make me just a bit leery of cops and courts and their agendas, ethics, methods, and intelligence (both kinds) these days.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Don't disagree with much except it's not that easy all.the time. What if there are 2 or more people inside the home. You would have to wait until they all.left.

Again, I'm 100% against no knock warrants. I think they are bad for the suspects and the police. I do not see a problem when the police identify and knock and give the occupants a reasonable amount of time to open the door.

Why should the police attempt to assault and capture something like a house from potentially armed individuals? This fails basic tactics. You don't attack the garrison, you wait until they're on patrol and ambush them. Outside the home it's much easier to positively ID suspects to ensure these are the people you want. They have an equal understanding of the area around them, unlike their own house you've never been in. The ability to carry arms in a car is more limited than a home. Surrounding a suspect in a car is much easier than a guy holed up in the back bedroom with good angles. And frankly an overwhelming show of force can trigger people to simply surrender as opposed to being trapped in your home and deciding to fight it out.

At the end of the day we're talking about violent, potentially fatal operations all revolving around someone selling weed, coke, pills, etc. It's simply not worth getting cops, suspects, and most importantly innocent people killed over. If someone OD's because the operation takes more time, that's at least a person that made a decision to ingest drugs as opposed to an innocent neighbor or bystander killed for simply being in the wrong place.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

The war on drugs has completely distorted what cops are supposed to be. We saw this during Prohibition, people meant to be patrolling and protecting are pressed into dangerous raids that are much more militaristic than anything prior. Enter the war on drugs and now we have entire quasi military units within police departments of medium and larger sizes. They have MRAPs, night vision, stingrays, drones, choppers. Now couple that with drawing from a talent pool that includes a lot of veterans with experience kicking down doors in some sandbox and wasting whoever is inside. In the military the right answer a lot of the time is overwhelming deadly force. The police should not operate under the same doctrine.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Why should the police attempt to assault and capture something like a house from potentially armed individuals? This fails basic tactics. You don't attack the garrison, you wait until they're on patrol and ambush them. Outside the home it's much easier to positively ID suspects to ensure these are the people you want. They have an equal understanding of the area around them, unlike their own house you've never been in. The ability to carry arms in a car is more limited than a home. Surrounding a suspect in a car is much easier than a guy holed up in the back bedroom with good angles. And frankly an overwhelming show of force can trigger people to simply surrender as opposed to being trapped in your home and deciding to fight it out.

At the end of the day we're talking about violent, potentially fatal operations all revolving around someone selling weed, coke, pills, etc. It's simply not worth getting cops, suspects, and most importantly innocent people killed over. If someone OD's because the operation takes more time, that's at least a person that made a decision to ingest drugs as opposed to an innocent neighbor or bystander killed for simply being in the wrong place.

It's not always about armed criminals. Some criminals are not armed. I've dealt with a guy that burglarized me several times. He never had a gun because he knew the penalities were stiffer.

Also, if the criminal is armed, they'll most likely be armed outside the home. It's much more dangerous to have a shooting on the street to innocent bystanders.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

It's not always about armed criminals. Some criminals are not armed. I've dealt with a guy that burglarized me several times. He never had a gun because he knew the penalities were stiffer.

Also, if the criminal is armed, they'll most likely be armed outside the home. It's much more dangerous to have a shooting on the street to innocent bystanders.

How is a shooting outside any different than living on a typical street where houses are 15 feet apart and 5.56 or 7.62 is going every direction? Or getting into a gunfight in an apartment building where you're separated by an inch of sheetrock?

 

[InVOLuntary]

Well for one thing an inch of sheetrock is better than air. In all reality it's much more than an inch of sheetrock. Walls between apartments are required to be thicker construction. Also you have a subject contained rather than running all over the place.

Lol, this is pointless. You think there are virtually no circumstances where law enforcement should forcibly enter a residence. I disagree, although it should be rare there are times I think it's appropriate. I'm not changing your mind,.your not changing mine so may as well move on.

 

[LouderVol]

Well what's the point of warrant if you're going to give them time to flush/destroy evidence. Usually the warrant is to obtain evidence. If you are going to allow them to destroy it may as well not even bother with trying to obtain it. There's all kinds of evidence besides drugs. There are computer hard drives that could contain child pronography, lots of things that could be destroyed if you give the criminals a chance.

Like I've said, I am against no knock warrants and I think the cops make the job a lot harder than it has to be sometimes. I can see the need for kicking in a door occasionally.

How are they going to know when to destroy evidence? No is saying the cops have to announce their intentions and then leave.

 

[C-south]

Come on every game loother has been to he has seen numerous fires set in the south endzone.

I’d like to see some goalposts tore down for a change.

 

[InVOLuntary]

How are they going to know when to destroy evidence? No is saying the cops have to announce their intentions and then leave.

If they knock and announce their presence and don't have the authority to forcibly enter the residence you don't think they'll want to destroy the evidence?

 

[AM64]

How are they going to know when to destroy evidence? No is saying the cops have to announce their intentions and then leave.

The thing is if she and the boyfriend were selling drugs on consignment and flushed them, they would be answering to a different "court". If they bought the drugs with the intent of making a profit and had to flush them, that's a hard lesson learned. Sometimes it's just better to play a different game, than try and play hero and look like a fool. Cops have no business playing Rambo.

 

[AM64]

If they knock and announce their presence and don't have the authority to forcibly enter the residence you don't think they'll want to destroy the evidence?

That loss would have been their profit (rental, food, etc) or their hedge against the guys they were dealing for - discretion is the better part of valor.

 

[InVOLuntary]

That loss would have been their profit (rental, food, etc) or their hedge against the guys they were dealing for - discretion is the better part of valor.

But if they allow the cops in they're going to lose it anyway and catch a charge.

 

[AM64]

Perhaps the presence of law enforcement officers influenced things.

The press probably influenced them more. What if people showed up to protest and nobody showed up to listen? Temper tantrums in a vacuum don't have a lot of effect. However, since the press have been scouring old cases of cops shooting black guys to fire up new protests, there's little likelihood of a riot going unseen. The press need to face some charges of inciting riots.

 

[Blake25p]

Was Breonna Taylor this innocent EMT sleeping peacefully in her bed and had nothing to do with the search warrant? No. Does this mean she deserved to die? No. Was the force used justified given the circumstances? Yes. Can all three be true? Yes.

 

[AM64]

But if they allow the cops in they're going to lose it anyway and catch a charge.

Was it worth $12M of taxpayer money to buy off the mom, the cost of investigating/sanctioning cops involved, the cost of policing a riot, and property damage? If that's what you call winning ....

 

[InVOLuntary]

Was it worth $12M of taxpayer money to buy off the mom, the cost of investigating/sanctioning cops involved, the cost of policing a riot, and property damage? If that's what you call winning ....

What???

This makes no sense.

But anyway, we should just stop policing period. No point in risking getting anyone hurt.

 

[AM64]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Gotta pay attention to the punctuation, Ras. That semicolon before and the comma later make it really appear that the people have the right to peaceably assemble to address the government about grievances rather than force the rest of us to listen to their drivel.

 

[AM64]

What???

This makes no sense.

But anyway, we should just stop policing period. No point in risking getting anyone hurt.

Not at all - just an awareness that there's a time and place. You can argue all you want that an attack at 2AM and that the resultant "shock and awe" are sound military tactics, and I'd agree. Cops are civil - not military. There is a distinct difference; just as there is a distinct law about the use of military intervention (Posse Comitatus).