Homeowners Kicked Out Of House For Child's Drugs

Some people have ethics and don't like screwing people over.

unjust laws shouldn't be enforced, hence the "faithfully executed" clauses.

But you know, you're a statist so I don't expect you to understand such a thing.

As to this one:

[/quote]

A functioning drug house, as they don't go knocking down my door, shooting people and stealing my ***without accountability.

3-4 times per day, SWAT teams are rolled out to serve search warrants for non-violent minor drug offenses. They break down people's doors, kill their pets, rip sleeping children from their beds and hogtie them... Often they don't even have a break order when they serve those warrants which makes their use of SWAT tactics blatantly illegal. Often they find out after those invasions that THEY'RE AT THE WRONG ADDRESS.

Cops overreact and break the law constantly. Do a little youtube search, it's appalling. If a police officer breaks the law, they should be held to the same standards as any private citizen if not a higher one. They almost never are. A police officer that beat the ***out of a 10 year old kid for refusing to leave a public park where he was LAWFULLY skateboarding lost his job, but was then hired by the city next door. That's after being caught falsifying a report, lying to his supervisors, and lying to a judge. Should a cop that assaults a minor, destroys property, abuses their power, uses their standing to intimidate, falsifies legal documents, and commits perjury not be AT LEAST tried for those crimes?

The police aren't military, they don't possess the right training and should not possess the tools. If you give a kid a toy, they're going to play with it.

And the idea that we NEED as many cops as we have is ridiculous, if we weed out the bad ones via accountability and make the profession honorable again, we'd be in a lot better shape.

Often is a good word for "not sure how many times this happens"

Tell us this, does this happen all of the time, some of the time, usually, or very rarely? My money is on "very rarely" because the police force is not the "Keystone Cops" and run around the place

I'm sure you think that the police force is like the video in the spoiler. I can assure you that they are not like that, and I suggest that you don't confuse reality with Hollywood.


You are correct. Police officers that do that should not be allowed back in the police force. Why don't you protest to the police chief and get the guy fired then.

I agree. However, respect for the police needs to be given because a lot of good officers are being demeaned by the very public they are out to serve.

So, tell us this, what is the ratio of good cops vs. bad cops in your mind.

No, respect for the police needs to be earned. One of the ways to earn that respect is to be less tolerant of the bad cops than the general public is.
This appears to be the exception, rather than the rule. Behavior and actions which absolutely should not be tolerated are being tolerated.

A bad cop is worse than a criminal performing the same act; not only have they violated the law, but the public trust.

If it happens once, it's too much, period. You can assure me of all the things you want, your assurances are worthless as you have no expertise or experience.



Locally we just ousted a bad chief of police and have started a citizen's initiative. We also now have a private citizen on both the judicial review and police review boards. I've been involved since day 1. Not everyone who criticizes them just sits and waits.


Good v Bad is your Hollywood analogy. People are not purely good or bad and neither are police. My experiences are localized, but at least half of the police officers I've dealt with in my life were pushing the line of professionalism from the second they made contact with me. Several were stepping into criminal territory.

I fully agree with you that a cop should be held at higher standards and receive higher punishment for breaking the law.

I don't think that most police departments are less tolerant towards officers who break the law. But I don't think we should automatically hang an officer for making a mistake. Like Jassik wants to do.

Somehow, I get the feeling that the police officers who you have dealt with in your lifetime were the ones pulling you over because you were speeding and/or driving unsafely.

I guess you don't see your own biases in this case then.

LOL... talk about assumptions and biases... I drive an econobox and never speed. I'm sure these 2 guys were doing SOMETHING wrong, why would a cop ever treat an innocent person like that?



Just FYI, neither of those officers were fired.

Those closed captions are awful.

I tried to find a clean version of the clip, but that's as close as I got.

It depends on the size and magnitude of the mistake. Yes, people make mistakes; I would argue that I've made my fair share. That doesn't necessarily mean that I get a waiver on the consequences.

With today's ability to record and share, there is ample evidence of police misconduct. However, information regarding prosecution or investigation of police misconduct is not nearly as common, or available. That can be for multiple reasons, but it does not change the fact that there is a disparity between the two, and one that reflects poorly on the police force.

Hopefully the concept that an officer who is misbehaving/breaking the law is putting every other officer's life in greater danger will finally sink in.

I think part of the problem is not so much public video capture or even if police were to mandate cameras in use for officers on duty, but rather the fact that internal affairs is a laughable conflict of interest. The police police the police. There's no moderation, no oversight or accountability; only self-interest.

i think all anybody is suggesting is that the ability of police departments to police (nyuk nyuk) themselves routinely leads to disappointing results, and while it's all well and good to say they ought to be held to a higher standard that will never, ever happen without severely limiting departments' discretion to discipline officers internally

I came across these stories last week.
Authorities claim handcuffed man shot himself in the chest, ruled ‘suicide’

Man charged with street robbery that happened while he was in jail

If you would like more individual stories, statistics, or other data:
CATO Institute for Police Misconduct has been around for several years and tries to keep track of police misconduct throughout the US.
EFF (mainly dealing with electronic surveillance) and ACLU also try to keep track of policing issues

If that's true then the authorities should be able to earn a proper conviction and THEN confiscate the property. As it stands now no one has been convicted of anything except for the son's no contest to $40 of heroin.

It's not hard to get a warrant. It's not hard to get a conviction with the proper evidence. The authorities just want free stuff without having to work for it. They're no different than the looters in Ferguson, MO.

Exactly. If they keep going the way they're going, with companies like Desert Snow helping to push their methods of theft, they're going to end up with a self fulfilling prophecy on their hands. After all, their current methods worked out so very well for the British over 200 years ago.

Citizens will assume the police are there to rob them, and they will defend themselves and their property, most likely making use of their 2nd amendment rights. Maybe Indiana has the right idea with their new law permitting their citizens to defend themselves.

IDK. A friend of mine in the Army has actually said he wouldn't be surprised if the military has to put down the police at some point in this country.

source

source

Source

source

I could go on....

Sounds like the cities need to get their ***together.

What justification is there to send a swat team to serve a warrant? I mean I could understand for a child abduction or suspected murderer, but that's about it.

Then again what's the justification for most of these swat teams even existing?

Existence is necessary, proximity is not. Just because there is a police department in a given city doesn't mean every city needs a swat team. 2-3 per state depending on the physical size of the state is probably more than enough for them to be active enough to be experienced and not overworked. Swat should be deployed only for full on riots or hostage situations. Police also need to get it out of their heads that catching the crim is the only thing that matters. Remember when police would back off and just monitor a situation instead of making it worse by charging in with guns out? We're giving military equipment to non-military personnel who aren't trained in actual combat technique. The military is trained specifically not to escalate situations, unlike the police who have been recorded aiming assault rifles at crowds of protesters.

Is this the Ferguson thread ?

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!

YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR!

BOB, TELL THE MAN WHAT HE'S WON!

*ahem*

Sorry, that's my first contribution to this one. But that is absolutely true. Our state legislature is *** six ways from Sunday on a Philly street corner.

I said most, not all. But I could argue for all: isn't that what the national guard is supposed to be for?

hostage situations: fbi?

I can understand big cities but damn.

But I think we agree on this, just wanted to clarify.

Y'arr. Makes me happy I'm a township resident serviced by the state police...

Video semi related:

Hostage situations should be under the FBI's jurisdiction, unless it spans across state lines.

SWAT teams are generally local in nature, while FBI is supposed to be national only.

Also, I would understand 2-3 SWAT forces per state, and only limited to the major cities of that state (obviously each capital should have 1 SWAT team).

National Guard is supposed to be for defense/assistance against natural threats. Flood happens, the National Guard comes in to rescue us. Mexico drug lords wage war in US border towns, National Guard shouldn't really be involved (should be the military in that case).

Serendipitously, when it comes to Pennsylvania, the same thing that keeps cell coverage from being high quality in the middle and NE/NW corners of the state (the "T", so to speak) is the same thing that makes politics, policies, legislature and legislation in this state a hot mess.

You have Pittsburgh area on the Central/Southwest, the Philly area in the southeast, and then a sparse population throughout. So you get some really conflicting ideas about how to spend money, and basically no one wants to raise taxes, but everyone really needs money. So governors have to try to cut because raising taxes is the kiss of death...and any time you cut anything, you're going to piss off a serious portion of the population...OR your financial supporters (say hi, Corbett and Fracking Industry bed buddies!)

It's an absolute mess and our state politicians don't help things. One of the only full-time state legislative bodies in the country, and every last one of them has discretionary funding and employees that they 100% do not need.

Many of these people have people at all of their local offices (of which they all have several), and that person is there to JUST help people in their district deal with the DOT. I realize handling your own driver's license or registration renewal isn't the most fun thing in the world, but if you can't handle it yourself, you probably shouldn't be allowed to drive a two-ton death machine on wheels.

Just one example.

If we are the police who will police the police? I don't know Coast Guard ? Homer Simpson.

Matter of disagreement but aside from the point: police forces are over militarized.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, should be Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Erie*. The state police's groups should be handling the rest.

*Maybe Erie, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because some crazy ***happens up there.