Would you let police raid your house without a warrant?
Yes
8.9% (36)
8.9% (36)
No
55.4% (225)
55.4% (225)
Depends on circumstances
35.5% (144)
35.5% (144)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Police State USA: Boston Area Raids

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Adam Jensen:
No I would not. And the fact that this thing is totally OK now in America makes me so glad that I left that shithole. Land of opportunity my ass. More like an Orwellian nightmare. Closing down the entire city to search for one unarmed, sleep deprived and exhausted teenager. Scaremongering is also a form of terrorism if you ask me. And that's what the American government with it's mass media did to it's own people after the Boston incident. It's despicable.

Calling the US an "Orwellian Nightmare" is an insult to the people who are actually living under totalitarian. I mean if you think the US is as bad as North Korea, or sometimes China, or some of the Middle Eastern/sub-Saharan African countries....well I don't know what else to say besides just laughing hysterically.

Second, about the unarmed, sleep deprived, exhausted teenager bit. Can you say "hindsight vision is 20/20?" At the time, nobody knew he was a teenager, and unarmed. All they knew was that earlier that night, he had tried to rob a 7/11, shot a police officer, engaged in a shootout with other officers, and used more bombs. They were right to take a lot of precautions. Shutting down the city was probably a little overboard, I'm sure a lot of Iraqi's and Israeli's were laughing at us, but that was also citizens shutting down their business' etc.

Third, I don't know if you know this or not, since you apparently don't live here anymore, but the American Government does not control the media. All private baby! So there's another thing you're completely wrong about.

I'm not saying the police were in the right here, I understand why they did what they did, but it's not right.

Finally, what the "Land of opportunity" have to do with anything? What does someone's economic hopes have to do with the 4th Amendment and Police Activity. Nothing. Just more hyperbole in an already hyperbolic post

Adam Jensen:

Lucky Godzilla:
"An Orwellian nightmare"
Huh, I wasn't aware we were discussing North Korea.

North Korea is obviously the most extreme example, but the way things are going in the US these days, it's far from being a land of the free. It's been that way for the past decade or so.

And in the decades of the Cold War you could have your livelihood ruined by someone accusing you of being a communist, it was illegal for mixed race marriage, and minorities were not afforded any significant legal protection. National Guard used live ammunition to fire on protesters, there was a draft, and more propaganda than you can shake a fist at.

And people called that the golden years.

Lucky Godzilla:
Besides if you think scaremongering is exclusive to the U.S government, you must really not be that well traveled.

I don't.

Lucky Godzilla:
I mean look at the islamaphobia that's gripping most of Europe, especially France.

There is no such think as islamophobia. People aren't afraid of Muslims. They are criticizing Muslim extremism. And every time someone says something critical of their religion, they emerge to spout their lies about islamophobia. They are hypersensitive about anything that has to do with their religion. Just think about their reaction to "draw Mohammad day". Would normal, civilized people give a crap about that? Would normal people demand the beheading of those who insult Islam? I guess that strategy "say it enough times and people will start believing it" worked It obviously worked on you.[/quote]
Uh what?

No seriously Islamaphobia is defined as a prejudice, irrational fear of, and hatred against Muslims. I mean hell, do us both a favor and research the rising trend of "vigilantes" violently targeting Muslims in Britain. Or the multiple laws repressing the right of Muslim women who willingly abide by tradition? Do you really think all Muslims act these way? Is it fair to glomp those who do not call for beheading in the same boat as those who do? It's like calling all christians racist lynchers because of the KKK.

Fappy:

Aramis Night:

Fappy:
After watching the video I just realized something. What about the people who had indoor cats? I would be terrified one of those assholes would leave a door open or something and let them out :/

We'll considering how often police seem to like killing family pets during raids, i'd consider myself fortunate if my cat was simply let out. Many police seem to consider it within their rights to kill any dogs that might be on the premises during a raid, even if the owners have them on a leash or are holding onto them. They get away with this all the time.

I know if that happened to me, i would be dead shortly after. So for me, raid=death. You may claim that my priorities are a bit off, but i put a lot of personal value in my pets. I would feel obligated to do as much harm to my pets killer as i can manage regardless of consequence. If my death made the next cop think twice about needlessly killing some kids pet as a sadistic power play, i would consider it worth the sacrifice.

How often does that really happen though? I know it's a TV trope, but I can't say I have ever seen a news report where this has actually happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdip3ypW6Kk
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26079096/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-raid-md-mayors-home-kill-his-dogs/#.UXrN-7WG0rY
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jun/21/police_kill_grandmothers_dog_bot
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/police_raid_wrong_house_kill_couples_dog/
http://www.naturalnews.com/036698_police_raid_family_dog_victims.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/police-kill-chicago-mans-_n_931279.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/cop-shoots-dog-puppycide_n_1446841.html

An excerpt from the last link in case you don't get that far:
" But Paxton isn't the first dog owner whose pet has been shot to death by police. A search of news articles from the past year shows more than 100 separate incidents."

You should definitely check out the last link. It frames the issue rather well. The first link will probably offend you to your core assuming you have a soul.

Maybe some better evidence than a youtube video is needed?

Anyways yes I would let the police raid my house without a warrant, what the hell is in my house that needs to be raided?

Maybe it could have been handled better but this is really an exception. Two bombs had blown up and for all anybody knew there could have been a dozen more. This was seen as possibly the next 9/11 at the time.

It's better to go a little overboard than just do nothing in the face of a very genuine threat, which this was.

If someone WAS hiding him willingly and they could just say no to a search, then it kind of makes the whole thing a little pointless. Peoples lives got disrupted temporarily in the hope that the lives of others could be saved.

Doesn't mean I'm all for warrantless wiretapping/raids for anything but this was what I'd call an exception to that standard.

I'd let the police in if I was the one that called them for some reason, but otherwise they'd better have a warrant, and I'm not saying a word to them without the presence of a lawyer either.

As for the Boston fiasco, I don't understand what the point of any of those raids were. Just searching door by door for the suspect? That's looking for a needle in a haystack, there's a reason things like that aren't done when searching for other criminals. And then there's the fact that such things really aren't done for other criminals, just for this one guy because he committed a "terrorist" act. Are terrorist acts somehow intrinsically worse than other things, just by virtue of having that label? They had his photo, they had circulated it, everyone was on high alert, they could have easily found him (as indeed they did), there was no need to pull this nonsense.

The reason I'm so adamantly furious about this is because it legitimizes such behavior. Even if they ask for permission of the residents first, it still serves to legitimize such behavior, and then the next time someone sets off a bomb or does something similar, they'll be able to do this sort of thing more easily, and then the next thing you know the Patriot Act 2.0 comes out specifying that this sort of behavior is acceptable and legal. Snip it in the bud, I say. This shouldn't be acceptable under any circumstances, not even if it was Osama Bin Laden hiding out in someone's basement. Sacrificing freedom is no way to catch criminals or terrorists, because it hands them the victory.

Aramis Night:

Fappy:

Aramis Night:

We'll considering how often police seem to like killing family pets during raids, i'd consider myself fortunate if my cat was simply let out. Many police seem to consider it within their rights to kill any dogs that might be on the premises during a raid, even if the owners have them on a leash or are holding onto them. They get away with this all the time.

I know if that happened to me, i would be dead shortly after. So for me, raid=death. You may claim that my priorities are a bit off, but i put a lot of personal value in my pets. I would feel obligated to do as much harm to my pets killer as i can manage regardless of consequence. If my death made the next cop think twice about needlessly killing some kids pet as a sadistic power play, i would consider it worth the sacrifice.

How often does that really happen though? I know it's a TV trope, but I can't say I have ever seen a news report where this has actually happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdip3ypW6Kk
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26079096/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-raid-md-mayors-home-kill-his-dogs/#.UXrN-7WG0rY
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jun/21/police_kill_grandmothers_dog_bot
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/police_raid_wrong_house_kill_couples_dog/
http://www.naturalnews.com/036698_police_raid_family_dog_victims.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/police-kill-chicago-mans-_n_931279.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/cop-shoots-dog-puppycide_n_1446841.html

An excerpt from the last link in case you don't get that far:
" But Paxton isn't the first dog owner whose pet has been shot to death by police. A search of news articles from the past year shows more than 100 separate incidents."

You should definitely check out the last link. It frames the issue rather well. The first link will probably offend you to your core assuming you have a soul.

Jeez, that's some heavy stuff. I'm really glad the first video didn't actually show the dog... that would not have been a nice thing to see :(

thaluikhain:

Adam Jensen:
No I would not. And the fact that this thing is totally OK now in America makes me so glad that I left that shithole. Land of opportunity my ass. More like an Orwellian nightmare. Closing down the entire city to search for one unarmed, sleep deprived and exhausted teenager. Scaremongering is also a form of terrorism if you ask me. And that's what the American government with it's mass media did to it's own people after the Boston incident. It's despicable.

Not saying you're wrong, but the mass media's scaremongering is at least partially independent of government scaremongering.

Take a look at campaign funds and tell me that. I know there are some clean news sources, but the Media is a big portion of what is wrong in this country.

OT: I think its crazy, but if the citizens don't care enough to know their rights, then it is their fault for letting their rights be trampled.

This is a 4th amendment violation without a public declaration of martial law, in which the military would be knocking down your door, not knocking.
No warrant, no search. Barge in, you violate my civil rights and leave me a lawsuit. And the "in good faith" doesn't apply there.

Risingblade:
Maybe some better evidence than a youtube video is needed?

Anyways yes I would let the police raid my house without a warrant, what the hell is in my house that needs to be raided?

You know that when the police conduct a search they throw crap about and turn over furniture, it is not the police's responsibility to replace the items the way they were found. I used to submit to searches too, then I had an officer unload my entire moving van because he thought I might have drugs. I did not have drugs so I allowed it. He then proceeded to completely unload the van (a 2 hour process) and said "You are free to go". Leaving me alone to pack my van back up, a 4 hour process. So because I didn't know my rights (or practise them) I was subjected to a 6 hour delay. This is why you don't let police raid your house without a warrant.

barbzilla:

Risingblade:
Maybe some better evidence than a youtube video is needed?

Anyways yes I would let the police raid my house without a warrant, what the hell is in my house that needs to be raided?

You know that when the police conduct a search they throw crap about and turn over furniture, it is not the police's responsibility to replace the items the way they were found. I used to submit to searches too, then I had an officer unload my entire moving van because he thought I might have drugs. I did not have drugs so I allowed it. He then proceeded to completely unload the van (a 2 hour process) and said "You are free to go". Leaving me alone to pack my van back up, a 4 hour process. So because I didn't know my rights (or practise them) I was subjected to a 6 hour delay. This is why you don't let police raid your house without a warrant.

Yes I know that, I also know that i live with children and if there was a reason to believe that there was any danger in the house you'd bet your ass I'd let them check. I see your point for a vehicle but this is your house we're talking about I think a little messiness and time delay is worth it.

The fear of those americans is just great - they don't just fear the terrorism... they fear their own police.

Why would you say "I have nothing to hide - so they can search my home"? because you fear the cops.
Otherwise you would think "I have nothing to hide - so they don't need to search my home"

You know the terrorist is not in your house. So why let them search your house? They are waisting their and your time if they look in your house.

Atmos Duality:
And that's how terrorism wins.
It's not the overt violence, death and destruction caused by crazies.
It's the response that it provokes, like an extreme form of trolling.

This person is right. We've been up giving everything that made us independent and protected because bad people are doing scary things. Everyone was raided because two people did a crazy thing. And it's not just starting, it's already happened. It was actually very strange to me that this was even a viable reaction to one attack (as opposed to a string of attacks). I mean... we went straight to the authoritarian processes of "lock-down the city and search every house" after one event. There was no real investigation, they just hunted for people seen on a camera as having a backpack.

Events that prove we are far from the libertarian country that we used to be...

Gilhelmi:
I have always been opposed too warrant-less raids (as they are unconstitutional), but what is worse is the "No-Knock" raids. I honestly believe that someone (civilian or police or both) will get shot someday because a false tip was called in, police charge gun-hoe bustin' down doors, and get shot/shoot an innocent resident who does not know these people but just had his front door knocked down.

That scenario you mentioned? Totally a thing.

Fappy:
The only time I'd ever deem this as even remotely acceptable is if the city was actually under some kind of attack that threatened the safety of the entire populace. They had already cornered the guy and it was clear he wasn't going to do anything else short of run away. They could have given the citizens the benefit of the doubt and simply questioned everyone in the neighborhood. Considering how pissed off everyone in the city was at the bombers, I don't see how any of the civilians would decline assisting their investigation.

In that kind of situation, I'd imagine that martial law would be declared and police forces would be put under the command and authority of the military, which would largely remove the issue at hand.

This mess is terrible, and what's worse is that I imagine the majority of people will come down on the side of the police. Abuses of power like this, bullying people and not informing them of their rights, should be resisted and punished, otherwise it just encourages it to become common practice and acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

Warrantless searches and seizures are permitted in circumstances of probable cause, extreme urgency, and/or danger to the public. Just like any case of alleged police misconduct, the wronged party can take the police to court if they feel exigent circumstance did not exist in their case.

It's hardly a police state when you can take the police to court.

If a policeman came to my door and asked if he could have a quick lookaround to look for a murderer who was hiding in the area, I wouldn't have any problem with that, but I would have a problem if my neighbors objected but got searched anyway.

Fappy:

Aramis Night:

Fappy:

How often does that really happen though? I know it's a TV trope, but I can't say I have ever seen a news report where this has actually happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdip3ypW6Kk
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26079096/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-raid-md-mayors-home-kill-his-dogs/#.UXrN-7WG0rY
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jun/21/police_kill_grandmothers_dog_bot
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/police_raid_wrong_house_kill_couples_dog/
http://www.naturalnews.com/036698_police_raid_family_dog_victims.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/police-kill-chicago-mans-_n_931279.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/cop-shoots-dog-puppycide_n_1446841.html

An excerpt from the last link in case you don't get that far:
" But Paxton isn't the first dog owner whose pet has been shot to death by police. A search of news articles from the past year shows more than 100 separate incidents."

You should definitely check out the last link. It frames the issue rather well. The first link will probably offend you to your core assuming you have a soul.

Jeez, that's some heavy stuff. I'm really glad the first video didn't actually show the dog... that would not have been a nice thing to see :(

I have a feeling that the whole "kill the dog" policy is due with the stories ive been hearing a lot lately of drug dealers training dogs to attack police so that when they raid his home he can use his dog as a distraction while he runs away.

Which is a really scummy thing to do, but hey, drug dealers.

MetroidNut:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

Warrantless searches and seizures are permitted in circumstances of probable cause, extreme urgency, and/or danger to the public. Just like any case of alleged police misconduct, the wronged party can take the police to court if they feel exigent circumstance did not exist in their case.

It's hardly a police state when you can take the police to court.

The sad thing is, even though this is probably the most intelligent and fact driven post in the entire thread, my own posts included, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

A valiant attempt, though, my friend.

ZeroMachine:
The sad thing is, even though this is probably the most intelligent and fact driven post in the entire thread, my own posts included, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

A valiant attempt, though, my friend.

The people posting do seem to have little scope of the actual situation. I'm surprised at the preference to ignore all the points you've brought up as one who was closer to the event than anyone else here.

I think what grates me the most is the egregious use of the term "police state". Seriously what the hell?

BeerTent:
This is why I'd never go to the US.

Suit yourself. I've lived most of my life in United States, but my wife and I have lived in England, Denmark, and Argentina. All told, you need to go to a place and live there to be even a small judge of that nation.

BeerTent:
No warrant, no entry. I'm all for cooperating, but there's such a thing as violating my rights.

Incorrect. Law enforcement needs a warrant in most circumstances. I'll give you an example:

-You are pulled over. As the officer walks towards your car, he hears a banging and what appears to be muffled yelling. The officer sees that you are the only visible occupant of the vehicle. At that point, the officer has permission, due to the possibility of someone being in danger - aka the possible kidnapped person.

You know, a lot of people from Boston are praising the way in which the police acted.

And as someone who lives in America, no it is not an Orwellian state, thank you very much.

erttheking:
You know, a lot of people from Boston are praising the way in which the police acted.

And as someone who lives in America, no it is not an Orwellian state, thank you very much.

Fleischer:

BeerTent:
This is why I'd never go to the US.

Suit yourself. I've lived most of my life in United States, but my wife and I have lived in England, Denmark, and Argentina. All told, you need to go to a place and live there to be even a small judge of that nation.

BeerTent:
No warrant, no entry. I'm all for cooperating, but there's such a thing as violating my rights.

Incorrect. Law enforcement needs a warrant in most circumstances. I'll give you an example:

-You are pulled over. As the officer walks towards your car, he hears a banging and what appears to be muffled yelling. The officer sees that you are the only visible occupant of the vehicle. At that point, the officer has permission, due to the possibility of someone being in danger - aka the possible kidnapped person.

MetroidNut:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

Warrantless searches and seizures are permitted in circumstances of probable cause, extreme urgency, and/or danger to the public. Just like any case of alleged police misconduct, the wronged party can take the police to court if they feel exigent circumstance did not exist in their case.

It's hardly a police state when you can take the police to court.

ZeroMachine:

MetroidNut:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

Warrantless searches and seizures are permitted in circumstances of probable cause, extreme urgency, and/or danger to the public. Just like any case of alleged police misconduct, the wronged party can take the police to court if they feel exigent circumstance did not exist in their case.

It's hardly a police state when you can take the police to court.

The sad thing is, even though this is probably the most intelligent and fact driven post in the entire thread, my own posts included, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

A valiant attempt, though, my friend.

TheDrunkNinja:

ZeroMachine:
The sad thing is, even though this is probably the most intelligent and fact driven post in the entire thread, my own posts included, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

A valiant attempt, though, my friend.

The people posting do seem to have little scope of the actual situation. I'm surprised at the preference to ignore all the points you've brought up as one who was closer to the event than anyone else here.

I think what grates me the most is the egregious use of the term "police state". Seriously what the hell?

Ssshhhh.....don't you guys realize this is supposed to be an overreaction thread? We don't need no facts, or logic up in here, just make wildly inaccurate claims about the US and how it's probably the worse place to live in the world because we have secret police knocking on our doors at night and shooting people without fear of punishment

Ryotknife:

Fappy:

Aramis Night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdip3ypW6Kk
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26079096/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-raid-md-mayors-home-kill-his-dogs/#.UXrN-7WG0rY
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/jun/21/police_kill_grandmothers_dog_bot
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/police_raid_wrong_house_kill_couples_dog/
http://www.naturalnews.com/036698_police_raid_family_dog_victims.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/police-kill-chicago-mans-_n_931279.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/cop-shoots-dog-puppycide_n_1446841.html

An excerpt from the last link in case you don't get that far:
" But Paxton isn't the first dog owner whose pet has been shot to death by police. A search of news articles from the past year shows more than 100 separate incidents."

You should definitely check out the last link. It frames the issue rather well. The first link will probably offend you to your core assuming you have a soul.

Jeez, that's some heavy stuff. I'm really glad the first video didn't actually show the dog... that would not have been a nice thing to see :(

I have a feeling that the whole "kill the dog" policy is due with the stories ive been hearing a lot lately of drug dealers training dogs to attack police so that when they raid his home he can use his dog as a distraction while he runs away.

Which is a really scummy thing to do, but hey, drug dealers.

It is not an appropriate justification for killing a dog. Subduing a dog isn't difficult for a single grown man with no weapons. We have tranquilizers. In light of that i'm having a hard time seeing how we justify cops having non-tranquilizer guns at all.

If you never exercise your rights you're likely to lose them. No warrant, no entry.

Risingblade:

barbzilla:

Risingblade:
Maybe some better evidence than a youtube video is needed?

Anyways yes I would let the police raid my house without a warrant, what the hell is in my house that needs to be raided?

You know that when the police conduct a search they throw crap about and turn over furniture, it is not the police's responsibility to replace the items the way they were found. I used to submit to searches too, then I had an officer unload my entire moving van because he thought I might have drugs. I did not have drugs so I allowed it. He then proceeded to completely unload the van (a 2 hour process) and said "You are free to go". Leaving me alone to pack my van back up, a 4 hour process. So because I didn't know my rights (or practise them) I was subjected to a 6 hour delay. This is why you don't let police raid your house without a warrant.

Yes I know that, I also know that i live with children and if there was a reason to believe that there was any danger in the house you'd bet your ass I'd let them check. I see your point for a vehicle but this is your house we're talking about I think a little messiness and time delay is worth it.

If you actually think someone may be in the house, I can see why you would let them in. Odds are though you know who is in your house. If you live in a city, you probably keep your doors locked and/or have an alarm system. The police aren't searching people's houses to see if he broke in, they are searching to see if you are harboring him.

Lionsfan:
Ssshhhh.....don't you guys realize this is supposed to be an overreaction thread? We don't need no facts, or logic up in here, just make wildly inaccurate claims about the US and how it's probably the worse place to live in the world because we have secret police knocking on our doors at night and shooting people without fear of punishment

Hmm, you may have a point there, old chap. Let me try that again:

A POLICE STATE! Game over man! Game over!

image

No warrant no entry, simple as that. I'm happy to cooperate but not when it would violate my rights.

Gilhelmi:
I have always been opposed too warrant-less raids (as they are unconstitutional), but what is worse is the "No-Knock" raids. I honestly believe that someone (civilian or police or both) will get shot someday because a false tip was called in, police charge gun-hoe bustin' down doors, and get shot/shoot an innocent resident who does not know these people but just had his front door knocked down.

You do know that a "no knock" warrant is only issued when the subject is considered to be potentially dangerous and once entry is made all you hear is, "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT! SHOW ME YOUR HANDS!" right?

Anyway, on the topic of the Boston incident... House to house searches are common in high profile manhunts but the police must obtain a legal search warrant or the property owners' permission before the search is conducted. If the property owners were too ignorant to know their own rights and gave permission to BPD then that was their own fault. However, if there was no search warrant and no permission for the search, and possibly seizure of goods, then it was an illegal search and civil charges need to be brought against the city of Boston. And... that about sums it up actually.

Aramis Night:

Ryotknife:

Fappy:

Jeez, that's some heavy stuff. I'm really glad the first video didn't actually show the dog... that would not have been a nice thing to see :(

I have a feeling that the whole "kill the dog" policy is due with the stories ive been hearing a lot lately of drug dealers training dogs to attack police so that when they raid his home he can use his dog as a distraction while he runs away.

Which is a really scummy thing to do, but hey, drug dealers.

It is not an appropriate justification for killing a dog. Subduing a dog isn't difficult for a single grown man with no weapons. We have tranquilizers. In light of that i'm having a hard time seeing how we justify cops having non-tranquilizer guns at all.

1. Against humans, tranquilizers require an estimation of weight. It would be impractical to carry, as you would usually not have time to accurately estimate weight, and you would have to carry several different dosages to adjust for different weights. Too little a dosage would have little to no effect, too high a dosage could cause respiratory collapse and kill people, and in some cases the tranquilizing agent can induce rage and make apprehension all the more difficult.

2. Nobody is going to be intimidated into surrendering by tranquilizer guns.

3. Tranquilizer darts lack stopping power and require time to take effect. They're also either bolt or break action, making them even more impractical in a firefight.

4. Tranquilizer guns (pistols and rifles) have lower effective ranges compared to their more lethal counterparts, not to mention that tranquilizer darts aren't very aerodynamic to begin with.

Aramis Night:
Subduing a dog isn't difficult for a single grown man with no weapons.

Going to need a citation on that. I've seen plenty of photos of people with their faces mauled off by pit bull terriers, but not many of people effortlessly subduing one empty handed, especially one bearing down on them rapidly. Unless of course you're suggesting that every officer be issued a standard-issue pets-only tranquilizer gun on the off-chance that any building they storm happens to include domesticated animals, in which case I'll just reaffirm the impracticality of it. A paintball gun loaded with CS pellets would probably be more effective and flexible, something that's already in their arsenal.

Call me speciesist, but I'd rather read in the morning paper that a drug dealer's attack dog was killed during an arrest than an officer or civilian was horribly maimed/killed because the officers on the scene were terrified of animal abuse allegations being leveled against them.

erttheking:
You know, a lot of people from Boston are praising the way in which the police acted.

And as someone who lives in America, no it is not an Orwellian state, thank you very much.

GWAH PFFFFFFFFFFFFF
PSHAW
That's just the Orwellian nightmare convincing you otherwise you rabid American scum! WAKE UP SHEEPLE, WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

image
OH SHIT THE SHEEPLE

Product Placement:
Finally, the idea of charging the guy with using weapons of mass destruction (which I've always associated with Nuclear weaponry or of similar scale) is also a bit odd in my books.

The legal definition of a WMD is not the same as the popular definition created by the media. I know I was pretty confused at that charge as well; then I ran across this Wired article, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/tsarnaev-charged/ .

OT: A smidge heavy handed? Yeah, but not exactly what I would call an "Orwellian nightmare". No what I think was far more terrifying was the veritable angry mob that rose from the darkened depths of the internet to harass anyone that was unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire of misinformation. If anything it looked like a brief recreation of a Salem witch hunt. I am less afraid of an overzealous police force than I am of a frenzied mob of misinformed citizens condemning people as guilty until proven innocent.

I pity the poor bastard if his case goes to a jury trial. We the people have already judged him guilty, all that's left is crucifying him in the media for public entertainment.

ZeroMachine:

McMullen:

Milanezi:
it's a public threat, all privacy goes to ground, that's what I believe in, even when the law says otherwise...

I think that sentiment right there is more corrosive to freedom than any act of terrorism can ever be. Terrorists can't destroy our freedom unless we help them, and that attitude is what's going to make it happen.

I remember why I stopped coming to these forums now.

Strange that you would pick my post in particular to say that about. I'm not even calling Police State or brutality. I'm merely noting that our country is at its worst when we decide that safety is more important than freedom and fairness. The Alien and Sedition act, the internment of Japanese Americans, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the McCarthy Trials are all examples of this.

I think that we can be truer to our ideals by not abandoning freedom at the first sign of trouble. There are far greater threats to life in this country than terrorism, and I don't think it says anything good about us if we say our values are expendable when we're afraid, especially if what we fear is things like this. Terrorists will have to work a lot harder just to catch up with the murder rate in this country, let alone all the other things we shouldn't be dying from.

I don't care if there was a platoon fully armed men wanting to search my house, if they don't have a warrant, they do not see set foot inside.

If there was a cop-killer (possibly armed and in possession of BOMBS) running around my city, yea I'd let the police do their work.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked