What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
238 Comments
- georgemason01, on 11/26/2007, -10/+89Before anyone starts defending the SWAT team in that case, you do have the right to open fire on anyone who aggressively enters your home. Everyone has the right to defend their property from violent intruders.
- nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -3/+48The federal government seems to think their "war on drugs" overrides the Bill of Rights.
- nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -24/+60The DEA and anyone else that supports the "war on drugs" should be charged with war crimes asap.
- zephc, on 11/26/2007, -0/+27Drug houses exist in the first place - and are armed to the teeth - because drugs are illegal in the first place, and since they are highly profitable from artificial scarcity, those with the balls to get into the drug trade will do *ANY*thing to keep out of jail. There is zero difference between the drug laws today and Prohibition in the 1920s. Remove the ban on drugs and you completely remove the profit motive in the drug trade, as the artificial scarcity is now gone, as is the threat of being sent to prison for decades, or being killed in a DEA raid.
SWAT is only "necessary" because our laws about drugs are inherently broken. - one2gamble, on 11/26/2007, -0/+26The question here is the legality of a "no-knock" raid. The simple fact is if the police dont identify themselves as police eveyone in their home is going to assume its a would be attacker and be within their right to start shooting.
- DarkNemesis618, on 11/26/2007, -6/+30I agree that SWAT teams are not always necessary, but sometimes they are. I know near me, one drug house was cached with automatic AK-47s. Can you imagine what would've happened just sending in a few police officers pretty much unprotected with 9mm pistols? In general, I wouldn't agree with 100% SWAT, but each situation/raid should be looked at individually to determine the best course of action. Try to use SWAT only when deemed neccessary.
- RedHerringHack, on 11/26/2007, -0/+21You most certainly can, sir. Just aim for the head and pull the trigger.
- neilk85, on 11/26/2007, -1/+22hey sometimes SWAT is needed with the high level of powerful firearms available to drug rings nowadays BUT why on earth you send in a full SWAT team with a no-knock warrent to a home simply based on a tip from 1 informant. Jesus Christ you're putting soo much faith in that informant to be right when a little recon work to verify his claims could have saved so many lifes and prevented so many mistakes
- unfilterthought, on 11/26/2007, -2/+20Non-violent, low-level drug offenders should not be treated with SWAT tactics.
- theratdotus, on 11/26/2007, -3/+21Well if drugs were legal...
1) There would be no black market
2) Our government would make money
3) Our prisons wouldnt be overcrowded
4) We can do drugs in a more healthy constructive manner with limits
5) Things that are legal arent considered "cool" cutting out a lot of people who would prolly wind up doing it for being a rebel
6) We would be able to drugs in a healthier manner (vaporizers for the win).
7) We would be able to produce medicines cheaper (EVERY DRUG COMES FROM OPIATES WHICH OUR GOV SAYS SUPPORTS TERRORISM! WTF)
8) Id stop bitching. - pegisys, on 11/26/2007, -0/+16so if you lived in a bad neighborhood, haven't done anything wrong, and some one kicks open your door you are going to wait and see what they want. The cops need to at least Identify themselves
- BoneheadFarker, on 11/26/2007, -0/+16Any smart police unit would perform surveillance on the place before a raid to determine the amount of necessary force needed. But how often do you think that happens, as opposed to "There is at least an ounce of pot in that house, so that means their probably armed to the teeth. Send in the SWAT team, and make sure they have full use of the automatic weapons, choppers, and barracade-buster tank..."?
- frostbyt, on 11/26/2007, -2/+18She went down in a blaze of glory. 1 less drug dealing grandma off the streets. Mission accomplished.
- one2gamble, on 11/26/2007, -1/+17you can if they dont identify themselves, the chances of you getting out alive are basically zero but it has happened and people have gotten off.
- Professr, on 11/26/2007, -3/+18If you don't know the person breaking down your door is a law enforcement officer, then how do you know you're not legally allowed to shoot them for threatening to kill you and your family? I'd rather be stuck in jail than be a victim of a home invasion, especially if I had a vulnerable family around me. If I don't know it's the cops coming in, I'll shoot first and ask questions later. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
- psyjoniz, on 11/26/2007, -2/+16just because alcohol is legal does not mean you can drive while intoxicated. your argument is absolutely 100% baseless. buried for being a troll.
- trghpy, on 11/26/2007, -1/+14How about using simple and very much logical tactic of reconnaissance?
- Eccles, on 11/26/2007, -3/+16What you're missing, sturdius, is that this town is dangerous because of the war on drugs. Do you feel unsafe walking by a Seagram's plant or Jack Daniels distillery? Yet alcohol users kill themselves and others in disturbingly large numbers. It's the illegality that make the producers willing to use violence, since they're already breaking the law.
Legalization won't make meth use any safer, but at least you won't be at risk from the sellers. - StopTheLie, on 11/26/2007, -2/+15FTA:
A year ago this week, 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston was gunned down by Atlanta narcotics officers when she opened fire on them as they kicked down her door in a "no-knock" drug raid. The killing has had immense reverberations in the Atlanta area, especially since it opened a window on corrupt and questionable police practices in the drug squad.
-the outrageous conduct of the narcotics officers involved in the Johnston case has led to changes, at least for now. They told a judge they had an informant who had bought crack cocaine at Johnston's home. That was a lie. They shot at the elderly woman protecting her home 39 times after she managed to squeeze off one shot from an old pistol. They handcuffed her as she lay dying. They planted marijuana in her basement after the fact. They tried, also after the fact, to get one of their informants to say he had supplied the information, but that informant instead went to the FBI.
--According to Balko, at least 40 innocent people have been killed in forced entry drug raids in recent years. No one knows how many more innocents have been injured by testosterone-crazed police or had their property wantonly destroyed in such raids. And no one is even counting how many people -- innocent, guilty, family members -- have been needlessly traumatized by the jackboot kicking the door in at 4:00am and all that follows. And most of the "guilty" parties are mere low-level offenders, and by law presumed innocent until proven guilty. - mst3kcrow, on 11/26/2007, -0/+12It seems that almost every time there is an innocent death due to a police entry, they used a no knock raid. I disagree with the War On Drugs completely but both sides of the coin should agree this tactic is ***** when dealing with a low level infraction. Chiefs should have their officers due some police work ffs and stake out the damn place before authorizing this. (as trghpy mentioned) Unnecessary no knock raids danger both police lives and civilian lives.
- skuk, on 11/26/2007, -1/+12Because of the 'no knock' policy she had no way of knowing that they were the police. The policy assumes they they will catch the occupants unaware, which is probably true 99% of the time. But if someone is aware that someone is sneaking up on their house with guns drawn, all they know is that some a-hole criminal is about to come spoil their day. Police are supposed to say "Stop. Police", every law abiding citizen knows that.
In this case she was spot on. They did engage in criminal behaviour and planted drugs.
She had no way to know it, but with hindsight she was likely legally justified to keep crooks like this out of her house. - HotBaconSauce, on 11/26/2007, -3/+13You really don't know what the drug war is, do you?
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -4/+14SWAT team =/= no knock warrant.
Narcotic officers =/= SWAT team. - rkbabang, on 11/26/2007, -7/+16I agree 100% see L. Neil Smith's 0th amendment proposal to put some teeth in the Bill of Rights.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Zeroth_Amend ...
--Eric - theratdotus, on 11/26/2007, -0/+91) everyone already smokes
2) There are things called smart drugs that increase iq
3) Freedom of choice is bad?
4) We live in a democracy, we have daily calorie intake limits, we can set standards... you dont believe in humanity working properly? scared?
5) ? Violent outbreaks from drug dealers not being paid or people using too much of it. Why not make alcohol illegal
6) Thats an individuals right. if you dont make money, you cant get the drugs anyways, even if they are cheaper.
Are you scared? should all drugs be illegal? should children be allowed to use anti depressants? - unfilterthought, on 11/26/2007, -0/+9How can the Castle Doctrine exclude them if they didn't identify themselves as police? THIS is the problem.
Theres no way a person can differentiate a felon/burglar who is breaking and entering from a SWAT/Narcotic Unit/DEA who is enforcing a "No Knock" warrant. Especially in the dead of night or early morning with all your lights out. - goingtoalpha, on 11/26/2007, -0/+9Having witnessed a DEA/State-Police joint raid first hand, I can honestly say its all kinds of overkill. Imagine a group of 6-8 fully armed men kicking in a front door, guns drawn, screaming at everyone in the house to get on the floor. They went so far as to tell the owner of the house that if he did not restrain his dog they would not hesitate to shoot it (all the while the dog was locked in a kennel-cage, behind a glass dining room door). The immediately began tearing the house apart. Couches, carpeting, knocking over bookshelves, taking us all outside in handcuffs. Causing quite a ruckus and waking half the neighborhood with sirens, and helicopters overhead.
Oddly enough, when all was said and done, they found 2 reefer plants, 5 xanax pills, a bong, and a tiny digital scale that was capable of measuring up to 2 ounces. The kid who owned the house somehow ended up sitting in jail without bail for 3 weeks before even being charged. And then ended up doing 6 months in prison for "possession with intent to distribute" even though the only pot in the house hadnt even begun budding yet, and would have only produced, at most, about a 1/2 pound.
The expenditure of taxpayer dollars at it's finest. - inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8If you are a law enforcement office and you are conducting yourself in a way that gets you shot at routinely when their are established tactics and techniques that can resolve the situation without gun play, then not only should you lose your job, but you should be charged for criminal negligence as well.
- psyjoniz, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8if my door is being pounded in and nobody has identified themselves, that is a threat. i shoot.
- hydrodev, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9idiot
- mwalker05, on 11/26/2007, -0/+8you are correct, but when they dont present themselves as officers, they lose the right to be treated as such.
- bnajbert, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7I watch Detroit SWAT, Dallas SWAT and KC SWAT quite often on A&E and I find it quite funny that they go and bust down the doors of peoples houses, often times they aren't there. Who pays for the damaged property when its a 'miss', surely its not the police dept., I'd be pretty upset if they came and wrecked my house without compensation!
- unfilterthought, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7You must remember this is a "No Knock" warrant. They burst in without announcing themselves as police at 4am while youre asleep.
How would you honestly react to that?
These warrants are being served to low level offenders. PLUS you forget that this warrant was based on FALSE information.
You must also remember that even if you are arrested with a valid warrant, YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHTS. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of your peers.
These "No Knock" warrants treat people as if they were guilty, and this case shows a woman who did not commit any crime who was gunned down in her own home thanks to bad information. - ronpaulblogscom, on 11/26/2007, -4/+11I think it depends on the state. Texas I know you can use deadly force to protect your property, but in most states I don't think you can. You have to be defending someones life, preventing a serious crime like arson or rape. You cant shoot someone for stealing your car for example. Except in Texas... :(
- nicholai, on 11/26/2007, -3/+10I just took a look at the amendment and it is exactly the type of protection we need against traitors within our government.
- Synchro, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7Great. What if the person does not know it is a law enforcement officer? I will never forget a statement my mom told me when I went off to college. I recall it to this day. "I know there may be times that you are out late in the city. If so you are of course welcome to come home and stay the night, you have a key to the house. You need to call first though. Otherwise I might accidentally shoot you. I do not want to to. So go use a pay phone and call before you come over, even if it is 2am, call first to let us know."
So if the police are not going to identify themselves, they run a statistically higher risk of someone accidentally not identifying them and then shooting at them. A reasonable person, knowing the police are at the door will probably not open fire on them. So while I understand the tactical reason why the police want to do no-knock raids, they run a higher risk of shooting someone and getting shot at by someone who may not have otherwise attempted to use deadly force. - mwalker05, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7yes and no. if the cop is not there on police business or fails to identify that he is an officer, then he has no right to be treated as a cop
- Kr4t05, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7I've always been a staunch supporter of gun rights. While I've never felt the need to carry or use a gun, my father is a hunter in his spare time. I appreciate the right that people have to carry a weapon for sport and for self-protection. If someone were bursting into my privately-owned place of residence, waving around guns and flashlights like something out of 24, then I would be pretty startled.
However, killing cops isn't the defining factor, here. The fact is that, we, as citizens have a right to carry weapons for our own protection. (Or, so says the Constitution.) Be it from each other, or the government that, at one time in history, existed to protect us and our rights. The fact that this elderly woman was forced to use a weapon against officers of the law is merely a sign of how far we gone from being the Land of the Free.
As for the DEA and drug laws in general. Drugs like cannabis are just as dangerous, if not less so, than alcohol and tobacco, which are legally sanctioned, and taxed substances in the US. We, as citizens have the right to kill our livers, lungs and kidneys as we see fit, but we are denied the right to get high. Seems a bit backwards, no? - inactive, on 11/26/2007, -1/+7Putting my cop shoes on, and these police tactics SUCK ASS. Rather than take the perps down when they are in their house, how about just using surveillance until they leave the house, then arresting them at a traffic stop? Oh that would work to good I guess, and they you don' get the chance to give the perps "the treatment".
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6When you compare the harm caused by people snorting some coke or smoking some weed, to the harm caused by law enforcement, it is really really easy to see who is the good guys and who is the bad guys.
- andshewas, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6Wow. Did anyone else read the comments on that article? How depressing...dogs being shot, women being beaten and exposed nude, it's absolutely horrific. It seems to me that the largest amount of drug crime comes from the DEA and SWAT teams.
- andshewas, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6She managed to get off one shot. They shot her 39 times. The justice is where, exactly?
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6Read the article and educate yourself about the drug war farce. They ARE doing no-knock SWAT entries on college dropouts with an ounce of weed.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6When police conduct themselves as criminals, as they did in the example case, they should expect to be treated as criminals (obviously they don they feel above the law). In this case, the little old lady would have been well seved to shoot them in the face. Too bad she didn't, could have taken at least one scum bag off the streets.
- wakananda, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6Thug-wannabes like slashbot don't care about reason, decency, ethics or the law - they are always going to support the power of the state, because they desperately want personal power, and can envision no way of obtaining it other than throwing their lot in with the powerful parasitic organism our government has become. They want to be it's teeth, because they have hardness and penetration issues personally. They want to be it's "enforcers" because no matter how much they work out, they feel an inner weakness that will not go away.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6I wouldn't go that far. But the police have clearly become the prime perpetrators, particularly as it relates to vice and narcotics.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6She fired at them after they illegally entered her house. you seem to want to omit that part. She was within her right to shoot them in the face.
Also, they didn't "fire upon her" they murdered her under every felony murder statute in the united states. Why have none of the perps been given the death sentence yet? - PJ1967, on 11/26/2007, -1/+7Or worse, how about intruders masquerading as cops/DEA/SWAT? Do you have to stop and ask to see the warrant before you defend yourself?
- hydrodev, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6idiot
- mwalker05, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6clearly you are not familiar with prohibition and alcohol
-
Show 51 - 100 of 238 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is