Police dont need to knock, justices say...

Page 3 of 3 First 123
  1. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    You're assuming I have not been in this situation because you believe that anyone that had been would not hold my view. You could also assume the same for the father of a killed son over in Iraq, about their view on the war and you would be mistaken in that assumption as well.
    I may be mistaken about their views, but in the end whether or not the Iraq war or the drug war is a success is something that can be objectively evaluated. If either fails, then whether it hurts the father or not, his son died for nothing.

    Two days ago a guy shot and attempted to kill a Pharmacy employee at a drive trhough because he refused to give his drugs to the guy at gunpoint. So to avoid this we should make all rx drugs OTC? I'm sure some of it was made by Bayer.
    Yes, I want all drugs legal and available to whoever wants them. If they rob someone or commit crimes against people, lock them up. Leave everyone else alone. Leave peaceful citizens alone regardless of their personal habits. In a free society you don't pre empt people because of what they might do. That's the trade off for freedom. The other set up is called a police state. You can pick which one you lie, I prefer the former.

    All legalizing this stuff is turn the pimp into a stock market contributor. You think that large corporations have the consumer's health in their interest? You think that regulating and making certain things illegal for joe citizen is bad but you think that this should be the case for big business? Or do you think that everyone including big business should be law free to do as they wish?
    Back at you: "Don't let your personal view put a twist on my argument." Both you and I know there is a big difference between not locking people up when they haven't aggressed against others and simply leaving everyone to do as they wish without consequence. The two positions are not the same and you know that.

    Again, you're twisting the argument to fit your agenda vs. just accepting the actual facts. Had the law been followed by good cops then the lady would not of been shot because the cops would not of beat down her door.
    According to your own claim that is not the case. You admit such incidents are not only possible, but that you find them an acceptable trade off.

    Why would they?
    Bad information. Remember the Paz case mentioned in a similar thread? No dirty cops there, just bad information and the wrong house, and a dead grandfather as the result.

  2. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    This is your position on drugs because you enjoy using them and i'll go so far as to say use them safely or responsibly. I base this off of our previous conversations. What you and a select group of your friends do can not be the basis of your standpoint if the majority of the populace does different...Well, I'll say you can't have that as your standpoint and hope it will ever be that way.

    Usually, a lot of law goes into effect afterwards and not prior to. Of course there are exceptions but steroids had been around how long before getting turned illegal? This is where my personal view mixes with reality. I personally would like steroids legal BUT too many people do stupid **** and ruin it for the rest of us. You argue that we should make all the drugs legal and criminalize illegal acts. On paper it seems ideal enough but in reality the number of police we'd need to respond to this type of setup would be too much to handle.

    Maybe if we started with this way of doing things from the beginning we may be able to handle something like you describe but there's no way we could handle that now. If Marijuana became legal tomorrow it would be a nightmare.

    Anyways, I respect your opinion even though I don't agree with it.
  3. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    This is your position on drugs because you enjoy using them and i'll go so far as to say use them safely or responsibly.
    Haven't used anything besides wine for a while now. Weed puts me to sleep, coke makes me nauseous, beer makes me fart. Also happens if I don't degas my wine properly which is an amusing side effect.

    I base this off of our previous conversations. What you and a select group of your friends do can not be the basis of your standpoint if the majority of the populace does different...Well, I'll say you can't have that as your standpoint and hope it will ever be that way.
    But somehow your standpoint that the majority of the population does different, even if completely incorrect, is perfectly valid. Nice double standard. Of course what you're missing here is that it's your experience that is limited because as a cop by default you are dealing with problem users. You have people telling you left and right on here that your experience is not the majority case and yet you ignore it.

    Christ, even William F. Buckley eventually changed his view on this, especially on weed. Get over it. The majority of users are not behaving the way you think they are. Some 80-90 million people have used pot is the estimate I believe. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me all or even a significant portion of them are abusing it and robbing liquor stores and driving stoned all over the place? That's BS, it just doesn't make sense or agree with reality. We'd be wading in blood if that were the case. It's nonsense.

    Usually, a lot of law goes into effect afterwards and not prior to. Of course there are exceptions but steroids had been around how long before getting turned illegal?
    And before they were illegal the AMA and DEA didn't want them added to the list of scheduled substances. Once they were added all of sudden, and despite the lack of supporting research, they became the scourge of all mankind and especially 'the children'. Your view of how laws are made and why is naive to say the least, especially in this instance because there has been a temperance movement in this country for a long time trying to get all drugs, including alcohol, banned. The problems with alcohol prohibition came after it was enacted and evaporated shortly after its repeal.

    Yes there are still people who abuse it, throw their lives away, and hurt others. To say the answer is to ban it and throw all users in prison is nonsense. It's been tried, it failed, and it made the existing problems worse by introducing a criminal element into the manufacture and distribution of the substance.

    This is where my personal view mixes with reality. I personally would like steroids legal BUT too many people do stupid **** and ruin it for the rest of us. You argue that we should make all the drugs legal and criminalize illegal acts. On paper it seems ideal enough but in reality the number of police we'd need to respond to this type of setup would be too much to handle.
    Based on the presumption that prohibition has had any real effect on supply and availability. It hasn't. You have to assume your policies are effective before this argument makes sense so you're merely begging the question. First you need to prove the policy is effective, at least at stemming supply in any significant way, which it isn't. You just push the supply to the black market, and any time any short term restriction of supply is accomplished you just up the profits and incentives for remaining and new manufacturers/dealers to move into the affected market. If demand remains so does supply, plain and simple. The prices may go up, in a market with the inelasticity of the drug market that price rise is negligible, and can't be accomplished with an estimated 10% interdiction rate, which is likely inflated.

    Maybe if we started with this way of doing things from the beginning we may be able to handle something like you describe but there's no way we could handle that now. If Marijuana became legal tomorrow it would be a nightmare.
    Nonsense, pure and simple. What, all of a sudden if it's legal people who never smoked before are going to start using it by the ton and throwing themselves off bridges? Get real. The same exact thing that happened when alcohol prohibition ended will happen; the black market will largely disappear along with its attendant problems and that's it. Users will still exist, they will buy from stores instead of through the illegal network. Abusers will still exist, and whatever problems they caused will still exist and need to be dealt with. Only with less effort and resources being expended trying to throw all users in prison we can spend more time dealing with the problem population.

    Demand for drugs is largely inelastic, Jay. That means few people will stop using despite cost increases and few people will start using despite cost decreases. You can either take the resources you have, X, and spend them trying to throw all users in prison or target your efforts on the problem population as they arise. One guess as to which will be more effective.

    While I can understand how being a cop slants your view, it's no different than the COs I know at local jails becoming more and more racist because they're dealing with the scum of the various minority populations. It's fallacious logic and it needs to be avoided. And if we are to live in a free society even if there were a causative relationship between drugs and crime and 90% of all users were committing violent crimes, that still doesn't justify policies that throw the innocent 10% into prison for the sake of expediency.
    •   
       

  4. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I'm not basing my opinion of mass crime sprees but moreso the total effect on people. I'd rather not live in a society where drug use is allowed and in some cases pushed as the normalcy(sp)? The cheesy poof epidemic alone would be enough to vote no

    But somehow your standpoint that the majority of the population does different, even if completely incorrect, is perfectly valid.
    When dealing with legislation for a total effect you have to base it off of the majority. This is no different than anything else we make law. Enough people died and caused increased medical expenses not wearing seatbelts that it became illegal to not wear them.
  5. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    I'm not basing my opinion of mass crime sprees but moreso the total effect on people. I'd rather not live in a society where drug use is allowed and in some cases pushed as the normalcy(sp)? The cheesy poof epidemic alone would be enough to vote no
    But in the end then, what you are saying is it is appropriate to use the law to make society more aesthetically pleasing for the majority. That's called tyranny of the majority or mob rule. Once more, not the intended nature of this nation.

    When dealing with legislation for a total effect you have to base it off of the majority. This is no different than anything else we make law. Enough people died and caused increased medical expenses not wearing seatbelts that it became illegal to not wear them.
    Which once more reverses the cause and effect. Force people to cover the medical expenses of others, then use the price increase as the excuse for more control over people's decisions. The 'problem' was created by a previous intervention and then another intervention is proposed to solve it.
  6. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    the only way your method would work would be to totally change the system freom ground up. Now i'm not saying that this would be a bad idea more than something that just wouldn't happen. Without serious reform in a lot of areas then just making drugs legal would open all kinds of worms. I think it would anyways.
  7. Advanced Member
    Dr Liftalot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    588
    Rep Power
    10912
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    31.76%

    I really hope they change it, suppose they mess up and serve a warrent on the wrong house or some mistake was made along the way to getting a warrent. I know alot of people who own guns infact I'll be getting a gun soon. And I know if I heard someone bash down my door, I'm shooting first asking questions later. Which would surely result in my own demise. But point being if I knew they were cops, more then likely I'm gonna give up and try and figure out whats going on.

    Just my 2 cents
  8. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    I need to look up the stats to find out if there are more cops killed in legit raids or more innocent people killed on FUBAR raids(wrong house bad cops etc)
  9. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    what about legit raids jay?

    its ok to kill someone for firing at the cops who dont announce themselves as long as its a legit warrant???
  10. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Is it okay? No, I don't think it is ever to kill someone when they didn't deserve to be killed. If it's a legit raid and the cops are fired on then I think it is legal to fire back. We're using the word legit to mean that there are bad guys behind the door. Bad guys firing guns at the good guys will usually result in people dying.

    keep this in mind please...When police enter the residence they will yell POLICE (insert added crap yelled) If it's a legit raid with a wrong house using the no knock policy then my guess would be that by the time you were able to grab your gun you would know the cops were cops. So if it was a wrong house then they could avoid shooting at the cops and could just sue but they would be alive hopefully.

    I suppose we could go at this with a million different scenerios and outcomes but in the end it boils down to the law was put into effect to minimize the risk of police being gunned down by the bad guys before they entered a house.
  11. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    If it's a legit raid and the cops are fired on then I think it is legal to fire back. We're using the word legit to mean that there are bad guys behind the door. Bad guys firing guns at the good guys will usually result in people dying.

    thats exactly what im getting at here. people are going to fire on cops that dont announce themselves. It is in the cops best interest to announce themselves BEFORE they break down the door. if cops come crashing through the door and wake someone up yelling a half hearted "cops" probably wouldnt get the job done either.

    again, do you think this 92 year old woman would have tried to blow these guys away if they had yelled and announced themselves as police? keep in mind a lot of undercover and narcotics officers arent necessarily wearing street cop uniforms. they are just asking for it.

    this BS is going to result in a lot of innocent people and cops getting killed.


    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?
  12. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Jesus people, are you reading the actual law and looking at what the law was prior to the change or are you going with a gut reaction? This law was put into place to minimize risk to law enforcement prior going into a place by announcing who they were which was leading to people being able to get a chance to prepare themselves to attack the police.

    No cop in their right mind wants to die. They don't run in yelling cops in a whisper. Adrenaline is pumping and the pucker factor is +10. Anything yelled is yelled loudly.

    again, do you think this 92 year old woman would have tried to blow these guys away if they had yelled and announced themselves as police? keep in mind a lot of undercover and narcotics officers arent necessarily wearing street cop uniforms. they are just asking for it.
    This was a mistake! There were crooked cops...How many no knock warrants were served and how many situations like this? This is one story reported and it would not have been reported had the cops not been planting evidence and faking ifo to obtain warrants. Do you think a 92 year old woman would of had time to make sense of the situation to put her gun down if POLICE would of been yelled seconds before hand?

    Except for few instances like this lady who was killed, the only people this no knock policy effects are the bad guys who use the announcement to get ready. This wouldn't effect 99% of the rest of the population.
    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?
    Good guy/bad guy was a easy way to describe the scenarios...But what the hell does that statement have anything to do with anything? Innocent until proven guilty? The hell does serving a high risk/felony warrant have anything to do with innocent/guilt? Those are based off evidence of a crime to be or has been committed.

    From my living room to my front door if someone knocks on it, it takes about ~10 seconds to answer from a sitting position. If I heard COPS OPEN UP. It would probably take 15-20 because it would take a few seconds to wrap my head around the situation. My door would be off the hinges by the time I could respond. After I'm in bed it would be off the hinges before I made it down stairs. There would be no difference in my case between a no knock or knock policy.

    If anything this saves lives on both sides. If cops are at the wrong house and announce themselves I would be willing to bet that most people would get up and grab something to protect themselves with until they verified what was going on. I would rather be surprised with no time to grab a knife, gun, or object prior to them entering with guns pulled than give them a reason to fire. With multiple police, once one fire is shot then you can be sure many more shots will be fired.

    If I had illegal activities at my place with guns all over etc. then that 10 seconds could/would be spent preparing to kill the police about to come through the door they just announced at.

    Except for rare situations like the 92 YR lady who was shot to death, this is a needed protection for the police. Hell, you should want laws that help the police so they can feel a bit safer. If you have concerns maybe it should be in the process up to that point. Maybe make it mandatory to have a on duty/present Judge to sign off on the warrants versus being on call. Maybe force all these things to be video taped with no ability to edit them...Who knows but i would put more energy into making sure the cops are doing the right thing instead of taking away a technicality that did nothing but alert people they are about to arrest which door they are coming through.
  13. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    the only way your method would work would be to totally change the system freom ground up. Now i'm not saying that this would be a bad idea more than something that just wouldn't happen. Without serious reform in a lot of areas then just making drugs legal would open all kinds of worms. I think it would anyways.
    Perhaps, but to blame those worms on drugs when it's the system, and to use those worms as an excuse to keep destroying people's lives unnecessarily is something I can't abide.
  14. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    good guys vs bad guys? cmon jay ive been around law enforcement long enough to know that there are no black and white scenarios. and what ever happend to innocent until proven guilty?
    It went out the door with a lot of other protections in the drug war.
  15. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Let's not mix up the flaws in the system with it just being about drugs. It just so happens that everything is mixed together in some form or another. You change one thing and it's possible to have a domino effect. There are things that need to be changed all the way through. Changing just one area you disagree with without examining the whole effect from top to bottom first would be the wrong way to go about it.
  16. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Let's not mix up the flaws in the system with it just being about drugs. It just so happens that everything is mixed together in some form or another. You change one thing and it's possible to have a domino effect. There are things that need to be changed all the way through. Changing just one area you disagree with without examining the whole effect from top to bottom first would be the wrong way to go about it.
    So we should keep locking up people regardless of the merit of doing so because it's just too hard to change. Good call, Jay.

    I have to make this my last post on this. I find the policy of prohibition ridiculously disgusting and consider it one of the most prominent and unbelievably stupid things in history. I can't countenance this ****, I can't believe people of any intelligence believe it's a good thing, and I can't believe you would say better to lock people up and kill a few innocents to preserve the status quo because that's what the majority wants. I find that position sickening, plain and simple.

    Prohibition is the most aggregious violation of freedom we're currently dealing with domestically. It has served as the excuse for the erosion of what are supposed to be inalienable rights. It has destroyed the lives of millions of people without cause. It is based on flawed logic, mistaken premises, and does nothing positive in the end and only leads to an unwinnable war that makes continuous work for government drones and gives the government an excuse to grab more and more power over the population as time goes on.

    It should end now. I never should have started to begin with.
  17. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Except for rare situations like the 92 YR lady who was shot to death, this is a needed protection for the police. Hell, you should want laws that help the police so they can feel a bit safer.
    from what i have seen just about anything can be legalized or justified when it comes to making the police feel safe.

    it is the reason i do not feel safe around cops, and i spent a couple hours of every day inside police stations and a prosecutors office.

    And yes i agree with the idea of videotaping, but i dont feel it changes this situation.

    btw i have seen more than one video and sat in on more than one case where a seriously injured person has been handcuffed by the cops, including mentally retarded individuals, individuals cops have just run over with a car, and a man with a broken arm in a cast.

    and now they hand cuff a 92 YEAR OLD WOMAN who has just been shot multiple times. what the eff is up with that.

    officer safety...right?
  18. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    heres a prime example
    http://thatvideosite.com/video/1303

    you can see at least one of the guys arms visibly snap after being run over. he cannot even move. still the cop runs over like rambo and cuffs him.

    is this right? no, it is repulsive and disgusting.

    but it is justified because of "officer safety".

    im all for officer safety, but not at the expense of my own.
  19. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Because police are trained to do this and it is signed off on by officials etc. You don't handcuff the guy and miss a gun and you can still be shot. injured criminals are still criminals. In the event they aren't a crminal then there are other issues to address. That's what I mean when you point out a case where something looks bad. Are you pointing out the right thing?

    For those of you arguing against this policy of no knock then what is your supposed position on minimizing the risk to officers who are entering houses and being killed/injured? How many cops have to die before change is justified? because they are cops and not a 92 year old lady do they deserve any less protection and safety?
  20. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Quote Originally Posted by jomi822 View Post
    heres a prime example
    http://thatvideosite.com/video/1303

    you can see at least one of the guys arms visibly snap after being run over. he cannot even move. still the cop runs over like rambo and cuffs him.

    is this right? no, it is repulsive and disgusting.

    but it is justified because of "officer safety".

    im all for officer safety, but not at the expense of my own.

    So a traffic stop is made and the guy has his arm broke or is obviously injured in some way how do you suggest the cops handle them? Seriously, if you have an issue with the way things are done then what is your solution? What if there is a gun on this guy and in the event of pulling it out while screaming and crying he misses the cop and shoot a innocent person across the street? How does the cop search this person for weapons that could injure him/her or incoming medical personnel? What is your solution?

    Edit: okay I watched the video...Did you listen to it? It follows what I said exactly. He was charged with robbery and could of easily still had a weapon on him. He was rightfully handcuffed. First of all if he is to be flown to shock trauma, for example, he won't be allowed to fly without being searched and cuffed. Just because he was hit doesn't make him a nice guy all of a sudden and erase the fact he just committed several crimes including running from the police.
  21. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    jay the man just got run over by a truck are you ****ing kidding me? his arm must have been shatterred in 3 or 4 places, not to mention one of his legs looks like its made of rubber its so wobbly. he couldnt even get up or move he just got run over by a vehicle weighing several tons.

    would you like to have your shattered arm shoved behind your back and cuffed?

    A relative of mine was involved in prosecuting an individual who was in a car accident. this person had some type of warrant out for his arrest and when the police arrived they turned him over on his stretcher and cuffed him.

    the EMTs informed the police that unless they removed the handcuffs they could not treat him. he ended up losing one of his arms.

    justified? for officer safety?

    jay believe it or not, people that arent police officers are people too. our safety matters just as much as yours does.
  22. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    jay the man just got run over by a truck are you ****ing kidding me? his arm must have been shatterred in 3 or 4 places, not to mention one of his legs looks like its made of rubber its so wobbly. he couldnt even get up or move he just got run over by a vehicle weighing several tons.
    And is still considered a possible threat. there's a reason why everyone is treated as a threat and why everyone is handcuffed. Too many deaths and injuries have resulted because of feeling the small girl or injured person was no longer a threat. Notice that in that video the only thing being looked into is the vehicle hitting the suspect and not the handcuffing afterwards. it's because this is SOP for depts.


    would you like to have your shattered arm shoved behind your back and cuffed?
    No, no I wouldn't. I also wouldn't rob someone and flee from the police who were chasing me whith a vehicle while I was on foot. I would not of put myself into that position to be handcuffed with a broken arm. Had he not handcuffed the guy and the cop was shot and killed or the EMT arriving was shot and killed what would be your answer, outrage or solution?

    the EMTs informed the police that unless they removed the handcuffs they could not treat him. he ended up losing one of his arms.

    justified? for officer safety?

    jay believe it or not, people that arent police officers are people too. our safety matters just as much as yours does.
    In some cases that is very true but upon arrival the EMT's will want to know if they have been searched and will still usually require them handcuffed to something. When looking at the big picture and everyone involved the one's who do this every day and you may one day need, you have to consider their safety too.

    It almost seems as if you're arguing for the guy who just robbed someone and fled from the scene and police. Out of all this the only outrage is after the guy was injured AND still moving should not of been cuffed but I have yet to hear of a solution.
  23. New Member
    the Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    226
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    37.43%

    Except for a very early post, I've remained silent because I don't expect anyone to change his or her mind based on anything I say here. BUT - I've got to call you out Jay, on a point that you keep reiterating with regard to Ms. Johnston - the 92 year old woman that was murderd by a couple or three thugs parading as legitimate law enforcement.

    You question whether she should have been allowed to have a gun "because of her age" - whoa dude, talkin' about a frickin' bias! Regardless of whether a person has the reflexes and/or physical capacity to drive a car has zero correlation with an individual's mental capacity to preceive a threat to their existence. More importantly, your statement is irresponsible since there is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Ms. Johnson's mental falculties were any worse than yours or mine. Equally importantly, even folks with diminished mental and/or physical capacity deserve protecetion, and the ability to protect themselves, and if it requires a legal firearm to do so, then so be it.

    Since I reside in a metro Atlanta 'burb that's smack dab in da hood, I feel compelled to reiterate my earlier point: At night, knock or no-knock, announcing you're the police or the tooth fairy while kicking in my door will only ensure that the situation is going to end badly for everyone involved (operative words here: "kicking in my door").

    The news is chock full of stories about violent home invaders identifying themselves as the police, then raping and/or shooting everyone in the dang place.

    As long as the State of Georgia allows me to keep firearms legally in my home, I will do so because quite frankly, the risk of being a victim of violent crime in my own home is probably as great as the risk Ms. Johnston faced daily. It is quite real for me and mine, and I sure as hell know from experience that I should not rely on local law enforcement to protect me. The reality is that law enforcement is at it's best responding to crime - not preventing it, and anyone who believes otherwise is a datgum fool.
  24. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    For those of you arguing against this policy of no knock then what is your supposed position on minimizing the risk to officers who are entering houses and being killed/injured? How many cops have to die before change is justified? because they are cops and not a 92 year old lady do they deserve any less protection and safety?
    Simple: get rid of the laws that 'require' such ridiculous paramilitary actions on the part of the police.
  25. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Regardless of whether a person has the reflexes and/or physical capacity to drive a car has zero correlation with an individual's mental capacity to preceive a threat to their existence. More importantly, your statement is irresponsible since there is NO EVIDENCE to indicate that Ms. Johnson's mental falculties were any worse than yours or mine. Equally importantly, even folks with diminished mental and/or physical capacity deserve protecetion, and the ability to protect themselves, and if it requires a legal firearm to do so, then so be it.
    I have personal experience in dealing with people and their perception of what they can do with a firearm vs. what they are actually capable of doing. The woman did fire first right? So she was unable in a fraction of a moment, able to not fire her weapon. She was committed to firing on whoever came through that door, imho.

    Make no mistake that this woman was a victim regardless of whether or not I believe she should have a gun because as of now it is legal for her to do what she did. It was the police that broke the law.

    The fact that both are potential deadly weapons yet one requires much higher regulations to hold a license for. I would feel safe in assuming a person unable to operate a vehicle because of age would be any more capable to operate a handgun in self defense scenarios.

    So you believe that someone with a dimished mental capacity should be able to defend themselves with a firearm? Interesting.
  26. New Member
    the Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    226
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    37.43%

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post

    So you believe that someone with a dimished mental capacity should be able to defend themselves with a firearm? Interesting.
    To the extent of being allowed to keep a legally acquired weapon in the home - yes. License to carry concealed? No IF you've got legal evidence of diminished mental capacity that has been determined by the courts - otherwise, the answer is still "yes." Elderly would-be gunslingers are generally less prone to unprovoked violence than the young ones who have permits for all the wrong reasons, IMHO - so equal protection under the law and all that jazz!

    People have been keeping guns in the home for ages, including some of my older, allegedly "nutso" relatives and probably some of yours as well, and most without incident because the firearm generally stays in the bedroom drawer. If you're gonna take away the firearms, then what about the baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc...

    The difference between driving versus keeping weapons in the home hinges on the the public aspect of the former (ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY(s)), as opposed to the private aspect of the latter (i.e., IN THE HOME). Also, as I've previously stated, there is no evidence I'm aware of that shows Ms. Johnston had any legally-determined diminished mental capacity, so in this specific case, it's a moot point.

    Just so we're clear - under the circumstances that have been reported with regard to Ms. Johnston's death, I would have died the same way. I would have fired at the first sign of intrusion - period - and kept on firing regardless of what the intruders were saying or wearing. Ya know why? Because except for occasional speeding, I am a straight arrow, law-abiding person - period. In my mind, there would be no legitimate reason for law enforcement to come crashing through my door (especially in the middle of the night), so my assumption would be it's the bad guys attempting to do a job on my black ass.
  27. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    Under the same situation I probably would of died as well except for the fact I don't keep my firearms close enough to me that I could of got to it in this particular case. I teach my guys to keep their firearms far enough away to wake from a sleep and let their thought process kick in.

    I'm glad you explained your position a bit better. I can agree with some of it...Most of it.

    If you're gonna take away the firearms, then what about the baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc...
    My stance on firearms for self defense is that there should be a better system to keep people licensed. Too many people who carry that think situations through their head without knowing anything about how it usually happens. Hollywood and all.
    Elderly would-be gunslingers are generally less prone to unprovoked violence than the young ones who have permits for all the wrong reasons, IMHO - so equal protection under the law and all that jazz!
    I do agree with this 100%
  28. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    Under the same situation I probably would of died as well except for the fact I don't keep my firearms close enough to me that I could of got to it in this particular case. I teach my guys to keep their firearms far enough away to wake from a sleep and let their thought process kick in.
    That's a good idea. I've moved my thermonuclear weapons to the far side of the room.
  29. Diamond Member
    Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11682
    Level
    67
    Lv. Percent
    47.84%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting AuthorityPosting Veteran

    My pool filled with sharks with freakin' laser beams attached to their foreheads is all the protection I need
  30. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    My pool filled with sharks with freakin' laser beams attached to their foreheads is all the protection I need
    Must be a ***** to reload.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 12:18 PM
  2. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 04-05-2009, 01:37 PM
  3. All You Need To Know About Fina!
    By Blindfaith in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 05-03-2006, 08:30 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2003, 05:38 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-07-2002, 05:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in