This is why I believe we need a change in the attitude of our police departments

Buddahaid · 12-21-15, 03:13 AM

Capturing an armed and dangerous person that might kill innocent people in the course of evading capture.

The fact that he wasn't there is irrelevant to the argument because the police believed he was. It's easy to say they went to far since he wasn't but what if he was? Would you say they went to far still? Again, we're arguing with too little to go on.

Aktungbby · 12-21-15, 04:16 AM

Quote:

GALENA, Kan. — The FBI plans to pay for damages to a Galena home where its agents and officers from other law enforcement agencies unsuccessfully sought a man wanted on felony charges in Missouri, said Cherokee County Sheriff David Groves.
Groves said he didn't have an estimate of the damages at 1009 E. Fifth St. where multiple law enforcement agencies believed Doug Alexius, 40, who is said to be a member of the Joplin Honkies gang, had holed up. Groves said that Alexius was believed to be armed and in the attic.

Sheriff's deputies, Galena police and agents with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the FBI served a search warrant about 9 p.m. Monday at the residence.

All proper IMHO; not carried out in haste (20 hour standoff) nor with undo inconsideration for 'collateral damage' to the neighborhood-priority 1. Federal and state agencies all involved reflects a high level seriously dangerous hombre to be worth that much trouble. Kinda perplexed about the Christmas tree though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by buddahaid

Again, we're arguing with too little to go on.

Precisely

http://www.koamtv.com/story/30757423/galena-standoff-ends-alexius-not-in-home

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 12-21-15, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Capturing an armed and dangerous person that might kill innocent people in the course of evading capture. The fact that he wasn't there is irrelevant to the argument because the police believed he was. It's easy to say they went to far since he wasn't but what if he was?

Sorry, it is. The fact he wasn't there provides a valid reason to question how good the police information that said the guy was in the house was. I suppose it wasn't completely nothing, but how good was it? 5%, 95%?

Of course on the news they are going to insist they had great intel but "just didn't get him." Allow me to be more cynical. Anyway, the thing is, they are wrong.

Further, even IF they can SEE he is in the house and he is cradling his AK-47, it still seems a very extremist measure to use a tank to take out large chunks of the wall. Snipe him, or if you can't you are just going to have to use proportionate force and go in and get him. Or you can wait for him to come out. He has to come out sooner or later if he's there.

Police should not be allowed to just use infinite force at the expense of innocents just to avoid a small risk to their lives.

Right now the fact of life is that there is no reason for them to think of alternatives. Even soldiers in Iraq have to show more restraint. Why? Because they don't want the Iraqi to turn into an RPG-wielder. But no, there's not even that in the continental United States, so police do what they want. You can say they have consciences, but that's of limited purpose when they can always claim they are protecting their own arses.

I think the line should, at the very least, be this: If you want the State to cover you whether you are right or wrong, you must follow all standards. If you want to exceed standards for ... reasons, then you must actually be at risk if you are wrong. If you shoot someone by mistake, there must be a serious probability, even 10-20%, that you will go to prison (it should be broadly similar statistically to the legal risk a person conducting self or home defense should have to bear). If you break a wall and you are wrong, you pay for as much of it as your pay can handle, and the State only picks up the tab from where you can't.

Otherwise, what stops abuse? Nothing.

Betonov · 12-21-15, 07:42 AM

They could have ordered the woman to unlock and open every door in the house, take the child and any animal that might spook the police, leave the house and then send in a tactical team to clear it.

No wall crashing, no door breaking. If they find a locked door they have every right to suspect someone is behind that door and breach. If the woman forgot to unlock one, well, that's her problem.
Crashing trough the wall is playing with toys, not policing.

Buddahaid · 12-21-15, 08:59 AM

A warrant was obtained which makes this more than just the law enforcement agencies acting on their own. It's still irrelevant and you didn't answer my question.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 12-21-15, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

A warrant was obtained which makes this more than just the law enforcement agencies acting on their own. It's still irrelevant and you didn't answer my question.

Please read my third paragraph:

Quote:

even IF they can SEE he is in the house and he is cradling his AK-47, it still seems a very extremist measure to use a tank to take out large chunks of the wall. Snipe him, or if you can't you are just going to have to use proportionate force and go in and get him. Or you can wait for him to come out. He has to come out sooner or later if he's there.

As for the warrant, call me a cynic, but judges cooperate with the police more than we want to think. Talk about the separation of powers, but when he's reading a warrant request he is reading only one side of a story, and the fact of life is that he will see the cops many times in his career and the victims of the cops only extremely rarely. Who do you think he is going to favor?

Besides, when the judge signed the bleeding thing, he was probably thinking "Oh well, it can't hurt THAT much just to authorize a search." He was probably not thinking about tanks on houses.

Buddahaid · 12-21-15, 09:25 AM

Then we will never agree on anything involving armed response since you don't respect due process. I'll wait for more information than the article provided before making further comment.

Aktungbby · 12-21-15, 11:20 AM

In perfect world you're exactly right! I'm pissed about the kid's Christmas tree. Nobody's dead and the damage will be made good and I understand additionally, there's a collection taken up for the mother and the five children. A D+ grade to law enforcement here (By comparison, WACO was an F)

Stealhead · 12-21-15, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Even soldiers in Iraq have to show more restraint. Why? Because they don't want the Iraqi to turn into an RPG-wielder.

They didnt need any form of warrant at all. What was done in Iraq was they kicked your door in(if you didn't let them in) and checked your whole house if you had more than one long arm on you property you where in trouble. If you had say one extra they might cuss you out and trow in a lake. If they required a place to stay for the night they stayed as the unwelcome guests.

Your comparison is not valid.

Chance are the person may have already chosen to wield the RPG already or they are just a regular Iraqi who has never experienced due process anyway.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 12-21-15, 07:06 PM

You will notice even in your version, they did not collapse one of your walls with a tank.

Platapus · 12-21-15, 07:25 PM

There does appear to be an increase in the approval of what is commonly known as a "no-knock" warrant. Perhaps that is one of the problems. I feel that there really has to be very solid evidence -- evidence not a police officer's feelings or fears in order to justify a no-knock.

I agree there is much we still don't know about this specific case, but this is not an isolated case.

What was the actual risk if this person were actually in the house? What was he going to do? Surround the house, evacuate the surrounding houses and attempt to establish communication. Did they police even try to establish communication.. probably not as they would have found out that there was no one in the attic.

In today's environment I feel that there are citizens (civilian and police) that seem eager to use lethal force. I wonder if secretly they are looking forward to it. Lethal force should be the last resort, not the first option. That goes for armed citizens and the police.

The public is not served by the cowboy "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude that, in my opinion, is becoming more common and evidently acceptable.

To me it is better to have a live defendant than a dead suspect.

This is why, I would be more than willing to accept higher taxes in order to research non-lethal weapons for the police.

The police need to neutralize a threat. One way is to punch one or more 10mm holes in the chest/head. But is that really the only way? We are in the 21st century. There has to be a way that can be researched and technology that can be developed that will allow the police to neutralize threats but still keep the suspect alive for trial.

I don't know what that science/technology is, but I bet we have some smart people who would be able to research this. And as a tax-paying law-abiding citizen that really does not want to be killed by the police because of a "mistake", I am willing to pay for this research.

There has to be a better way to enforce the laws than killing citizens.

12-21-15, 03:13 AM	#1
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,332 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	Capturing an armed and dangerous person that might kill innocent people in the course of evading capture. The fact that he wasn't there is irrelevant to the argument because the police believed he was. It's easy to say they went to far since he wasn't but what if he was? Would you say they went to far still? Again, we're arguing with too little to go on. __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

12-21-15, 08:59 AM	#5
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,332 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	A warrant was obtained which makes this more than just the law enforcement agencies acting on their own. It's still irrelevant and you didn't answer my question. __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

12-21-15, 09:25 AM	#7
Buddahaid Shark above Space Chicken Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 9,332 Downloads: 162 Uploads: 0	Then we will never agree on anything involving armed response since you don't respect due process. I'll wait for more information than the article provided before making further comment. __________________ "However vast the darkness, we must provide our own light." Stanley Kubrick "Tomorrow belongs to those who can hear it coming." David Bowie

12-21-15, 11:20 AM	#8
Aktungbby Gefallen Engel U-666 Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: On a tilted, overheated, overpopulated spinning mudball on Collision course with Andromeda Galaxy Posts: 30,058 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	In perfect world you're exactly right! I'm pissed about the kid's Christmas tree. Nobody's dead and the damage will be made good and I understand additionally, there's a collection taken up for the mother and the five children. A D+ grade to law enforcement here (By comparison, WACO was an F) __________________ "Only two things are infinite; The Universe and human squirrelyness?!!

12-21-15, 07:25 PM	#11
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,393 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	There does appear to be an increase in the approval of what is commonly known as a "no-knock" warrant. Perhaps that is one of the problems. I feel that there really has to be very solid evidence -- evidence not a police officer's feelings or fears in order to justify a no-knock. I agree there is much we still don't know about this specific case, but this is not an isolated case. What was the actual risk if this person were actually in the house? What was he going to do? Surround the house, evacuate the surrounding houses and attempt to establish communication. Did they police even try to establish communication.. probably not as they would have found out that there was no one in the attic. In today's environment I feel that there are citizens (civilian and police) that seem eager to use lethal force. I wonder if secretly they are looking forward to it. Lethal force should be the last resort, not the first option. That goes for armed citizens and the police. The public is not served by the cowboy "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude that, in my opinion, is becoming more common and evidently acceptable. To me it is better to have a live defendant than a dead suspect. This is why, I would be more than willing to accept higher taxes in order to research non-lethal weapons for the police. The police need to neutralize a threat. One way is to punch one or more 10mm holes in the chest/head. But is that really the only way? We are in the 21st century. There has to be a way that can be researched and technology that can be developed that will allow the police to neutralize threats but still keep the suspect alive for trial. I don't know what that science/technology is, but I bet we have some smart people who would be able to research this. And as a tax-paying law-abiding citizen that really does not want to be killed by the police because of a "mistake", I am willing to pay for this research. There has to be a better way to enforce the laws than killing citizens. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-21-15, 07:42 AM	#4
Betonov Navy Seal Join Date: May 2009 Location: Slovenia Posts: 8,647 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	They could have ordered the woman to unlock and open every door in the house, take the child and any animal that might spook the police, leave the house and then send in a tactical team to clear it. No wall crashing, no door breaking. If they find a locked door they have every right to suspect someone is behind that door and breach. If the woman forgot to unlock one, well, that's her problem. Crashing trough the wall is playing with toys, not policing.

12-21-15, 07:06 PM	#10
Kazuaki Shimazaki II Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,140 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	You will notice even in your version, they did not collapse one of your walls with a tank.