...about innocent civilians in the name of the "war on drugs."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/116470.html

Not Found

That's odd, it still works for me...

So what can anyone do about it? The courts ruled in favor of the police.

People could wake up and demand a revision of police policy towards investigations and take-downs of "drug dens." It’s a foreign concept, I know, this whole idea of “power lies in the hands of the public…”

Wasn't there a big long thread about this a few months ago? When they changed the laws to allow the police to raid someones premises without warning in the case of a drug bust. The logic was that it would stop drug dealers from stalling the cops and hiding/destroying their stash before letting them in. IIRC Brian in particular was angry at the idea since it could result in situations just like this one.

Found it:http://forums.massassi.net/vb3/showthread.php?t=41944

I am almost positive that the team is required to announce itself loudly and clearly before busting the door down. I'm not saying this wasn't a bad situation, but it will happen. If I'm incorrect and since it was a tactical team, they don't have to announce themselves (which is possible), then yes, that's not really right...otherwise, don't point a gun at cops, or they'll have no choice. "okay, shoot to kill"...BS. They're trained to shoot to kill when their lives or the lives of others are in danger, so when a loaded gun is pointed at them, yes, they shoot to kill.

That said, that sucks. What a stupid reason to die...

This is another good illustration of why people shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

Yeah, because it's not like police have never shot someone armed with any other object (or completely unarmed for that matter) when entering a dark environment with unknown activity.

(edit: oh, and kudos to you for missing the point completely.)

The police are the 'public' too, you know.

The police are servants of the public.

People are more likely to have firearms if they are allowed, and thus the police are more likely to 'take no risks'.

Also, let's shoot first and ask questions later.

I wonder, how come we never have any crazy incidents like that over here? (Because we absolutely don't). It's extremely rare for the police to use their weapons. Hell, gun violence in general is extremely rare.

It shouldn't be "shoot first, questions later." That's a horribly violent view, one that I'm surprised came from you of all massassians.

Of course it shouldn't. Your sarcasm meter needs fixing. Also, notice the psyduck.

Also, notice your edit came after my post...

Also, it's "extremely rare" over there because the police aren't force by old white men who are out of touch with society to use force to hunt down people for the "war on drugs."

Oops. I forgot I had been editing.



True, that. I'm just saying having a lot of guns around only complicates matters.

If you outlaw guns for everyone including cops, then sure, things like this wouldn't happen. But then again, REAL criminals would still have guns...and cops wouldn't. Suddenly the police aren't doing so well, are they? Nope, sure aren't.

Damn you Americans are nuts.

It's tragic, but she had a shot gun pointed at them. You point a gun at a cop and they shoot you, that your bad. Is it possible that the situation could have been difused or handled differently? Absoultely. However, the officer in question doesn't have the gift of hindsight like all the critics do. He took action to protect his own life the lives of his fellow officers. The officers' safety always comes first. Now if the cops didn't annouce themselves, which there is no indication that they did or didn't, they made the problem for themselves. If they did, the woman is a moron.

While this could be true to a point, I posted this article to show how awful the police attitudes are and tactics used towards fighting our "drug problem."

The police over here do have guns. They're just not as trigger happy.

Cops in the UK don't carry guns, by the way.



Alright, I didn't mean to derail the topic. Just saying what came to my mind.

Over here a police officer is lucky to keep his job if he shoots in the leg a drugged criminal who's firing left and right with weapons in both hands...

Well, I much prefer that to the situation of death squads storming houses unannounced.

There are lots of guns in this country, but they are mostly used (if used at all) to shoot animals during hunting seasons and to shoot wives and husbands or drinking buddies, securely at home.

Not all, no, but we do have armed units for special occasions.

Okay maybe I jumped the gun but the article indicates that she believed she had intruders in her home. Regardless of how the situation played out, it never should have started in the first place. They take a vague tip-off and send SWAT in on what appears to be someone who clearly wasn't a hardened drug dealer. Something needs to be done about the policies that allow this sort of thing to take place.

As for the gun stuff, Nottingham, where I study, has a bad rep for gun crime despite it being the UK. Lots of the gangs and drug dealers are carrying guns now and the police have had a hard time being effective against it. A WPC was shot just down the road from me in February and there was nothing she or her fellow officer could do. There are regular armed patrols in the worst affected areas, but I don't think it's changing things much. Still police shootings are relatively rare. I think what helps the police in these situations is that while the rest of the penal system might be considered lax with short custodial sentences for serious crimes, if you shoot a police officer you can expect to never leave prison (or at least be stuck there for an inordinate amount of time). Doing the same to a civilian would probably see you leaving jail on parole in 4 or 5 years.

What is this logic you speak of??





And to everyone else -- Don't forget that you all are only seeing one side of the story. This 'report', if you even call it one, is quite biased. Notice the following:


Okay -- she is armed and protective. Sounds slightly suspicous to me. As far as the second quote, note it's not actually quoted -- they're guessing on that one.


This individual was NOT "clearly nonviolent, nonthreatening."


She wasn't shot over drugs. She was shot for confronting police officers with a shotgun. Again, where is she a nonviolent suspect?

How do you know that this lady did not know these were police officers?

Is this a tragic situation? Yes. Does it mean that the police department did anything wrong? Not necessarily. It's easy for you guys to play 'armchair cop' and think you're all that...it's a little different when you're the one looking at the wrong end of a shotgun.

Exactly.

Shotgun... pointed at police...?

If you live in a bad part of town, you're telling me you wouldn't be a little protective?

She would have been a nonviolent suspect if she had dropped the gun, no? And why would she do that? I think if I had a gun at home to protect my house, I'd sure as hell drop it if I heard someone shouting they're police officers.

Did they do so? Nothing in the article says so.

The link in the article Roach posted:



It should also be noted that the "she lent two pills" story is complete speculation on the part of the victim's friends and families[/b].

The second amendment is there for a reason; an unarmed populace is easy pickings for an oppressive government and criminals alike. A disarmed society is one that cannot fight back against anyone, and the bad guys are almost always packing heat over here. People should definitely be held fully responsible for what they do with their weapons; blasting away at everything that moves matrix-lobby style is not responsible behavior with a firearm. With proper training and precautions, gun ownership can be an asset, not a liability.

I agree that the woman should have used better judgement, but outlawing guns because stuff like this happens is not the answer.

I wonder why the officers didn't say they kicked the door in and roamed in yelling like barbarians...

I wonder where the evidence is that proves that they didn't follow this quite common and standard procedure.

War on drugs! :downs: :downs: :downs:

Says they annouced themselves as police officers, so the woman was an idiot.

Of course. The victors write the history, so the dead woman must have been an idiot. If it had been the worst drug cave in the history, and the swat squad had ended up dead, while the criminals had escaped the country, I guess that would have made the dead officers idiots.

Guys youre missing ORJs point!

Americans are a bunch of gunslinging barbarians and we dont do anything properly!

SHEESH

She also had apparently pulled a gun on a few other people in the past. Here's a handy tip for gun-owners: Don't pull the gun out unless you intend to shoot someone. CERTAINLY don't point it at anyone unless you intend to shoot them. Notice a few things that haven't been addressed yet:

1. The gun went off after she got shot. This means she definitely had her finger on the trigger. ON the trigger.
2. The officer shot her 4 times with his gun, and the specific points of impact are named. The leg, the chest, and the face. This tells me that he did not have the gun pointed at her. It tells me he had it pointed downward when they came in. That means they weren't going in there with intent to shoot anyone. The ONLY time that became a goal was the split second when that cop saw a gun pointed at him witha finger on the trigger and reacted. What the hell was he supposed to do? For all we know if he hadn't shot her, she was about to shoot him...and that's what it comes down to.

This is basically just a case of play with fire, get burned.

This kind of thing is essentially pandemic in the United States right now. It's gotten to the point where SWAT is even being used to serve papers in some cases.

They do not identify themselves. This has been documented in literally dozens of independent cases. There is video footage of this happening. They do not alert the homeowner, they do not present a warrant. All they do is storm into a person's home in the middle of the night brandishing firearms. They do not turn on lights - the homeowner basically has no way of seeing that they aren't thugs and criminals (instead of just seeing that their bosses are).

The real reason this is happening is because the police need to be able to justify the bloated SWAT budget. And every time these idiots mess up it costs the taxpayers even more money in litigation and settlements. This has nothing to do with drugs. Even without innocent people being shot and killed by incompetent police officers, this whole scam is bad for everybody.

Except the drug dealers. They just get caught on tax evasion.

Edit: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ <- Map of botched SWAT raids

No, the cops did act in self defense. The fact of the matter is that they were ordered to break into a woman's home in the middle of the night, terrorize her with assault weapons and ransack her home.

Even her brother isn't blaming the cop who shot her. He was just doing his job. Sheriff Seagreaves is the only murderer here.

Um. Actually this is the case of a gang of masked guys with guns breaking into a person's home in the middle of the night. How the hell was she supposed to know better? Tell me that.

Americans do still have the right to defend their lives and their property, don't they? What the hell would you do if some guy ran up to you with a gun? Let him kill you because he might be a cop?