Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Here is a SWAT team that did some good just last night. Perhaps you should talk to the survivors and ask them if they felt the SWAT team carried too much ammo. Gunman among 7 dead after Fla. apartment shootout
Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
If its my land, yes I can build a fence as high as I need to, its called a curtilidge and that is where the right to privacy begins.
No You can not. In most areas zoning laws will tell you the height and materials you can use for a fence. Won't even go into easements, setbacks and other rules and laws that apply.
An example,where I live, you cannot build a privacy fence due to Florida building code covering hurricane wind zones.
Here is a SWAT team that did some good just last night. Perhaps you should talk to the survivors and ask them if they felt the SWAT team carried too much ammo. Gunman among 7 dead after Fla. apartment shootout
There are always way to justify the way things are the problem is in vast majority of cases deployment of excessive force is not justified. You think going in guns blazing into that guys house was the right way to go or just serving him with a warrant by 1 officer and letting him comply. Because I am sure when he started defending himself he thought people going into his house were criminals and the penalty for him distributing wasn't worth shooting people... But alas the "wise" (sarcasm) decision to go all in without warning was used instead.
There are dozens of youtube videos of swat teams being used to raid regular people's homes to put the boot down. Just remember there is always blowback from excess.
I am going to repeat what I said before.
When the cops 'bend' the law in their favor and compliance shifts expect the following to happen.
1) people will know where you live, your name, etc... thanks to the internet and the destruction of privacy.
2) compliance ceases, which means people will look at you as a problem not a solution, ergo some witnesses in your favor will choose not to be, and others that aren't in your favor will present evidence against you
3) a culture of disdain slowly creeps up until no matter how good you present yourself or are ideologically painted on tv it no longer matters and all cops are branded public scumbags by the public at large...
4) Right now I'm going to give you some food for thought but this is the most major change you will encounter in the future (before energy weapons)...
Notice Detroit going bankrupt and San Bernardino etc...
Personal Liability for officers once the cities are shown to be insolvent is going to be a very real whipsaw effect. Not only will you get no money to defend yourself from an insolvent city but the public opinion (no matter how you think the newspapers paint it in your favor) on the ground will be against you. Imagine people suing a cop and winning the lawsuit while the department may indemnify you, if they are broke and cannot pay welcome to personal liability... (Ergo responsibility for transgressions)
Yes when the city goes broke and you violate someones rights by breaking the law, they sue you and your indemnity at the expense of taxpayers ceases to shield you, you loose everything... I don't think cops should have that anyway if the cops follow the law there is no need for taxpayers to eat those costs bar very rare circumstances.
what does creating taped double stacks imply about motivation and training?
That is a move for someone who is expecting to lay down covering fire..... We can see 120 rounds in the photo that are possibly headed down range in a residential area. Sorry, covering fire is not a valid police tactic for serving a warrant.
That they do not want to run out of ammo? You do realize that they probably have more clips in the armor vest too right? If they don't have double stacks, they have the extra clips on their person.
Who is to say 120 rounds if for covering fire? I trained with a SWAT team and they had tons of extra ammunition and clips for each of their guns ranging from pistols, snipers, MP5s, and ARs. Not once did they train in "covering fire". The extra rounds are for when shit hits the fan like the Hollywood shootout or other instances when there are multiple shooters or heavily armored and armed shooter(s). It doesn't mean that they instantly thinking that they will be throwing down hundreds of rounds. Should they only be restricted to one clip to their rifle? When those extreme circumstances happen (that you cannot predict when or where or if), why should an officer be restricted to a certain amount of rounds?
There are always way to justify the way things are the problem is in vast majority of cases deployment of excessive force is not justified. You think going in guns blazing into that guys house was the right way to go or just serving him with a warrant by 1 officer and letting him comply. Because I am sure when he started defending himself he thought people going into his house were criminals and the penalty for him distributing wasn't worth shooting people... But alas the "wise" (sarcasm) decision to go all in without warning was used instead.
The man already killed and wounded others and had two hostages. Negotiations had been tried but failed. Then the SWAT team went in. This case was not a simple serve a warrant, but to stop a man hell bent on murdering as many people as he could before he was stopped. This is exactly how a SWAT team is supposed to work.
Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
No You can not. In most areas zoning laws will tell you the height and materials you can use for a fence. Won't even go into easements, setbacks and other rules and laws that apply.
An example,where I live, you cannot build a privacy fence due to Florida building code covering hurricane wind zones.
Thank you. For a brief moment I thought it's only us who do that.
Now how is Z gonna protect his privacy?
No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
That is what I am talking about.... its far too common in the US. The prosecutions for it far too few and too light.... One officer had 6 fatal shootings before he popped a 7th unarmed victim... others have cost their cities millions in settlements
So we are talking serious/lethal UOF only. That a least cuts down the workload for your "committee of public safety". You will still find however that most of your citizens complaints will be about the little stuff like the use of cuffs, tazers and OC etc not the "biggies" because unless they are very unlucky that's mostly what they'll see or encounter.
perjury and falsifying evidence is a criminal act... but I concede I was over broad on that statement.
FYI here (and I'm assuming over there in the US) when a LEO is ordered to attend II (we call it Professional Standards) he can be compelled to anwser questions about his conduct in a particular incident (no right to silence). The upside to this is he has to give us a version of events. The downside is that because it is "compelled" nothing he says can be used in evidence in court against him. So I can't charge him with perjury but he can lose his job. II therefore has to think tactically and depending on the nature of the complaint there may be a conventional investigation first after which an assessment is conducted to see if there is enough evidence for criminal charges. If yes you proceed like you would for anyone else. If not you go down the internal discipline route with compulsory questioning. As for the evidence thing that was meant refer to just not handling or processing items correctly not stealing it. The former would be procedural hence the II route the latter would be a criminal offense.
No lawyers, employment termination proceedings are not courts
Employment terminating proceedings end up in court if the person involved (or rather his lawyer) can point to a mistake of process, fact or issue. Also if someone feels their reputation has been publicly impugned.....
No You can not. In most areas zoning laws will tell you the height and materials you can use for a fence. Won't even go into easements, setbacks and other rules and laws that apply.
An example,where I live, you cannot build a privacy fence due to Florida building code covering hurricane wind zones.
Then how do you establish your constitutional right to a privacy curtiledge? Or has it simply not been challenged?
Yes when the city goes broke and you violate someones rights by breaking the law, they sue you and your indemnity at the expense of taxpayers ceases to shield you, you loose everything... I don't think cops should have that anyway if the cops follow the law there is no need for taxpayers to eat those costs bar very rare circumstances.
So you think LEO should be the only profession on the planet that can't get public indemnity insurance?
If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.
Then how do you establish your constitutional right to a privacy curtiledge? Or has it simply not been challenged?
Are you saying that only those with fences around their homes have established a "right to privacy"? And those without fences do not enjoy that "Right"?
Are you saying that only those with fences around their homes have established a "right to privacy"? And those without fences do not enjoy that "Right"?
Privacy outside the home, but on your own property is only protected if it meets four requirements (U.S. V Dunn)
1. intimate use 2. proximity to the home 3. enclosure by fence and 4. obstructed view.
The Court stated that all 4 factors were not required to meet 4th Amendment protection.
See US. v. Seidel, 794 F. Supp. 1098, 1103 (S.D.FIa.., 1992) (where three of the four Dunn factors were found to militate in favor of the defendant - the disputed area was only two and one-half acres in size and was located in close proximity to the house). Furthermore, in Katz v. United States, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. The Court observed that the reach of the amendment does not turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intru¬sion into any given enclosure. The Court added that what a person seeks to preserve as private may be constitutionally protected despite the fact that it is in an area acces¬sible to the public. (Emphasis added). 389 U.S. 347 at 351-352.
The Court stated that all 4 factors were not required to meet 4th Amendment protection.
See US. v. Seidel, 794 F. Supp. 1098, 1103 (S.D.FIa.., 1992) (where three of the four Dunn factors were found to militate in favor of the defendant - the disputed area was only two and one-half acres in size and was located in close proximity to the house). Furthermore, in Katz v. United States, supra, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. The Court observed that the reach of the amendment does not turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intru¬sion into any given enclosure. The Court added that what a person seeks to preserve as private may be constitutionally protected despite the fact that it is in an area acces¬sible to the public. (Emphasis added). 389 U.S. 347 at 351-352.
Comment