the real attitude of all cops

[Frequency]

I always tell people to call the their local PD and schedule a ride along so they can see what life as a cop is really like. Its quite the experience and I would bet most people would see things differently after viewing things from the other side.

Down here in the Acworth/Kennesaw area of Georgia in both cities they hold citizens police academies. I have yet to do it but i plan on it. http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/index.asp?NID=188

 

[DefTek]

Mad props to Jayhawkk - very calm and insightful responses - you represent your brothers well. :box:


And really how hard is it to push someone's buttons... if you condone this kids level of respect to an authority figure (regardless of the end result) then how could you even object to the officer's responses. This kid went out and purposely tried to get stopped and then tried to anger the officer (any officer) into a confrontation so he could video tape the stop and put it on his website. It proves nothing about law enforecement or the kid other than people regardless of profession can get upset and say/do things they soon regret.

The end result - the kid goes on his way and the officer will likely lose his job - wow tough police state we all live in huh. :blink:

 

[CDB]

If you're asking for zero tolerance for mistakes that'll never happen. If you're asking for continued observation and changes in policy to keep those mistakes to a minimum, that is always done. If you're asking to somehow have one area in all of society filled with nothing but polished apples, I think you're going to continue to be upset.

All of which is obfuscation for the fact that certain laws make such incidents much more likely. I already know your opinion on this, and you know I strongly disagree. Laws whose enforcement requires police to act as a paramilitary force within the population are not consistent with a free society and should be scrapped, period. No 'mistake' is tolerable when the damn law whose enforcement the cop was pursuing should never have been on the books to begin with. By your logic the legislature could outlaw blonde hair and then when I get gunned down on the way to barber to get dyed because of some misunderstanding with the cops, it's acceptable so long as it's in pursuance of the enforcement of the law.

It's not a perfect system and will never be without flaws or even better ways of doing things but it is a good system when compared to the others throughout the world.

Based on what metric? We have the highest per capita prison population, many in for nonviolent offences. Our cime rates aren't particularly stellar, they're better than some countries and worse than others. The much vaunted freedom we once enjoyed is largely in the toilet, there isn't a single aspect of a person's life that the government hasn't extended its tentacles into, and non compliance with its wishes will land you a fine or a jail term. Half the people posting on these boards belong in prison because their steroid use, and would justly be killed (according to your logic) if they resisted the enforcement of such laws. So by what measure do you determine the US to be the best?

 

[CDB]

The cops in my area I recently found are starting well over 60000 a year, closer to 70000. And they're some of the biggest pricks around. It's a rarity to see someone pulled over without seeing a line of cop cars form, apparently to give a speeding ticket. And, when going down to the station, trying to get them to file a report or do something about an assault is like pulling teeth, as one of my friends found not too long ago. An assault, with witnesses, and first they were made to wait for well over an hour and then several cops told them there was nothing that could be done and tried to dismess them. They ended up going to the county sherif's office to talk to someone they knew, and then finally the cops got off their asses and did something.

If you want cops to be properly compensated, tie their pay to the crime rates. If they can't/won't keep them down, their pay drops. And make sure the weighting is mostly on violent crime followed by property crimes.

On a different note, some things that the cops or I guess it would be the city that pays the police that decides these things is overspending. Maybe they would be able to pay the police more and their would be a higher moral because of it if they didn't overspend. For instance, on a drug raid when they are taking down say maybe one or two guys and they have around 15 cops armed to the teeth....I just fail to see the reasoning here. After so many raids though you would think they would learn and adjust their tactics. Spreading out the police force to where it is needed instead of concentrating too heavily in one place makes more sense. Also less officers where they are not needed saves money and posibly would lead to a raise. Cops just don't get paid enough for what they do. Redirect resources and raise their salary.

 

[CDB]

You know jayhawk, i would feel a lot more comfortable if police officers actually questioned the laws they were enforcing, which really doesnt appear to be the case with you.

Exactly. The idea that the law is the law is the law, and any action in pursuance of its enforcement is justified, is ridiculous. Why not chase down and shoot a jaywalker if he resists at that point? But it's the attitude fostered in cops by the government. Ever notice how they refer to people as 'civilians'? Well, so are cops. They are a civilian law enforcement force. It's the passing and enforcement of certain laws, basically those that go beyond the basics of assault, murder, robbery etc. and start punishing nonviolent people engaged in activities that aren't considered crimes by any traditional or classical definition of the term, that require the militarization of the police. And thus require subduing their natural human ability and tendency to pass moral judgement on the laws they are being asked to enforce. It's much easier to keep the population in line if the enforcement arm of the law is agreeable to 'just following orders' and never questioning them.

 

[T-Bone]

The cops in my area I recently found are starting well over 60000 a year, closer to 70000. And they're some of the biggest pricks around. It's a rarity to see someone pulled over without seeing a line of cop cars form, apparently to give a speeding ticket. And, when going down to the station, trying to get them to file a report or do something about an assault is like pulling teeth, as one of my friends found not too long ago. An assault, with witnesses, and first they were made to wait for well over an hour and then several cops told them there was nothing that could be done and tried to dismess them. They ended up going to the county sherif's office to talk to someone they knew, and then finally the cops got off their asses and did something.

If you want cops to be properly compensated, tie their pay to the crime rates. If they can't/won't keep them down, their pay drops. And make sure the weighting is mostly on violent crime followed by property crimes.

Well I never heard of Cops making that much money. I would guess though it all depends on the cost of living in the area or department where they work. So if the cost of living is a lot higher in that area then the pay would be somewhat higher, but what is high pay in one area of the country is not high pay in another area.

 

[CDB]

And really how hard is it to push someone's buttons... if you condone this kids level of respect to an authority figure (regardless of the end result) then how could you even object to the officer's responses.

Because his response was, in light of what know of the situation, dispicable? Threatening to trump up charges and haul the kid in for no reason? Oh yeah, there's an authority figure worth respect...

How about the respect cops should pay to citizens who are not breaking the law and who pay their damn salary? Gee, you think they might deserve a little respect, to the level of at least not having their civil rights threatened by an out of control cop on a blue boy ego trip because he can't handle the barest bit of attitude from a teenager? A teenager who, incidentally had the incredible attitude to ask why he was being stopped. Gee, what a horror for a cop to have to deal with that kind of guff...

This kid went out and purposely tried to get stopped and then tried to anger the officer (any officer) into a confrontation so he could video tape the stop and put it on his website. It proves nothing about law enforecement or the kid other than people regardless of profession can get upset and say/do things they soon regret.

Maybe the people we trust with guns and the ability to use them in the enforcement of law should be held to a higher standard? It's just a thought.

The end result - the kid goes on his way and the officer will likely lose his job - wow tough police state we all live in huh. :blink:

Funny, several of my old employers sent people out to test us and our responses to customers all the time, and it was considered a good thing to keep our performance up. I guess cops should be immune from such observation. That way we can ensure cops like that stay on the force where they belong, so they can eventually fly off the handle and shoot someone.

The degree of subserviance and sheepishness among people here is disturbing.

 

[CDB]

Well I never heard of Cops making that much money. I would guess though it all depends on the cost of living in the area or department where they work. So if the cost of living is a lot higher in that area then the pay would be somewhat higher, but what is high pay in one area of the country is not high pay in another area.

Be that as it may, higher salaries are not the answer. In fact it's quite the opposite. In the private sector when someone messes up consistently they get fired or demoted. It's only in the government where more money is always considered the cure for lack of performance.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Not devil's advocate as much as knowing that there is usually more to a story than what we see. I don't make solid decisions without knowing as much as I can, so I show how situations can be much different depending on other variables.

Cops do questions certain laws and if given discretion, they will likely be less strict with those laws. The problem is that people are never happy. They want certain laws to be looked over but those laws are always different depending on that person. one person wants drugs to be looked over, while another want traffic laws to be looked over. If the cops took each person's dislikes there would be no laws to enforce.

Our job is to enforce and the Judges are the ones who are paid to interpret and apply.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Be that as it may, higher salaries are not the answer. In fact it's quite the opposite. In the private sector when someone messes up consistently they get fired or demoted.

In the private sector, the turn over rate is huge and the training is little in comparison. The money spent on training these officers is not small. You're right though; the fix isn't in more money to the officers. It is in the people supporting the politicians to get changes into the system to better train these police officers. People want better trained police but they refuse to put up the money for proper training facilities, proper training and consistant training. Agencies scramble to get enough ammo to train their people twice a year yet people expect a police officer to be expert shots that never miss their intended target.


Like I have said 100 times...People only want police to be lenient in those laws that effect them while being hard on the ones they couldn't give a **** about. I smoke weed: they should legalize weed and leave those alone who smoke it. I speed: They should go find people drinking and driving. I drink and drive: they should go and arrest violent criminals. It never stops.

 

[RisingAgainst]

Not devil's advocate as much as knowing that there is usually more to a story than what we see. I don't make solid decisions without knowing as much as I can, so I show how situations can be much different depending on other variables.

Cops do questions certain laws and if given discretion, they will likely be less strict with those laws. The problem is that people are never happy. They want certain laws to be looked over but those laws are always different depending on that person. one person wants drugs to be looked over, while another want traffic laws to be looked over. If the cops took each person's dislikes there would be no laws to enforce.

Our job is to enforce and the Judges are the ones who are paid to interpret and apply.

Very well put, it's rare to see that kind of wisdom in someone under 50 as well, so ya, impressed.

 

[rugger48]

Im sorry cdb , but you look like your *****ing more than anything. Complaining about police and whatnot, you gonna judge every cop by the actions of some. Scale back laws, what laws you want to scale back? Ask cops to question the laws they ebforce? Im sure most of society could do that about their jobs.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Let's not turn this into a mud slinging contest. People have legitimate questions and perceptions based off their experience or lack of. As long as we can question and debate in a positive way, there's nothing wrong with CDB's stance.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Oh, civilians is a term used by those talking about others not in their industry/line of work. I was reading about a model today that used that term. It's not a holier than thou attitude as much as it is a descriptor of those people not in the field, so to speak.

 

[rugger48]

Let's not turn this into a mud slinging contest. People have legitimate questions and perceptions based off their experience or lack of. As long as we can question and debate in a positive way, there's nothing wrong with CDB's stance.

Im sorry I disagree, no mudslinging , he has not said one positive thing about how the legal system works, and sounds like he doesnt like living in this country. If he doesnt like then leave the country and see how its done in others.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I've debated with him on several occasions and I just believe he's had more than his fair share of situations where he felt him or his friends were unjustly treated. He's a smart guy who has dabbled in areas that could of ended his career and believes (if i'm wrong let me know) that other than those laws broken, has contributed to society in a positive way and it outweighs whatever infractions he may have been part of.

 

[T-Bone]

One question I have always had is why are the State Police always so much more on top of their game?. City cops are usually out of shape or even obese. State cops are professional, in shape, and polite. I think there are a lot more problems with the city police departments than State Police. State cops are more strict though when you get pulled over for speeding by a State Cop I would say your 80 percent more likely to get ticketed than if pulled over by a city cop.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Most state police are traffic only with few exceptions to full service barracks. Dealing with traffic most of the day different than dealing with other types of crimes/people on a daily basis...

The biggest difference is that most state police structure themselves in a military type fashion and they usually have higher standards for their hiring process. They usually pay better and have take home cars.

 

[jomi822]

jayhawk i find it interesting that you listed drug abuse, and traffic violations as the two examples of laws people would prefer be overlooked.

It really seems that the majority of people i talk to both wish those laws werent enforced to the degree that they are. I do not have a problem with a responsible drug user, and i do not have a problem with someone that wants to go 80mph in a 65.

police do, and you have to question WHY they do (you would think).

1. the war of drugs is way too complex for me to go into in this post, but ill just say it is in law enforcement's best interest to continue enforcing the law for monetary and self-justification purposes.
2. speeding tickets are jokes 90% of the time. ticket revenue is factored into state budgets, a concrete number that seems to climb higher and higher. quota? that pretty much the friggin definition no? also, i know for a fact that an officer's pay rate/rate of pay increase is directly affected by how many tickets he/she gives out.

people arent going to take that lightly jay

 

[machine528]

One question I have always had is why are the State Police always so much more on top of their game?. City cops are usually out of shape or even obese. State cops are professional, in shape, and polite. I think there are a lot more problems with the city police departments than State Police. State cops are more strict though when you get pulled over for speeding by a State Cop I would say your 80 percent more likely to get ticketed than if pulled over by a city cop.

I am a state trooper, the reason you see so many in shape state police officers is because most of them are young and fresh out of the academy. Its rare to find a state cop putting in 20- 30 years working patrol. Usually after 5-10 years in my department your either working in the crime unit, promoted or working in a specialty position. Alot of city cops will work their entire careers on patrol. I also believe that city cops deal with alot more constant stress than state police.

 

[Jayhawkk]

It really seems that the majority of people i talk to both wish those laws werent enforced to the degree that they are. I do not have a problem with a responsible drug user, and i do not have a problem with someone that wants to go 80mph in a 65.

police do, and you have to question WHY they do (you would think).

1. the war of drugs is way too complex for me to go into in this post, but ill just say it is in law enforcement's best interest to continue enforcing the law for monetary and self-justification purposes.
2. speeding tickets are jokes 90% of the time. ticket revenue is factored into state budgets, a concrete number that seems to climb higher and higher. quota? that pretty much the friggin definition no? also, i know for a fact that an officer's pay rate/rate of pay increase is directly affected by how many tickets he/she gives out.

Like I said, you don't have an issue but there are many who do. You can't please everyone but you can do your job of enforcing what's on the books. Some people think cops should at times just turn their head and just let people go while taking the drugs and then when that happens they get accused of taking them for their own personal use. Catch22.

You may not have an issue with an 80 in a 65 but many do for a 40 in a 25 etc. Some places it is enforced more than others.

Your fact of ratings,pay etc is definitely false. I really don't know how to explain that to you but it isn't a true statement.

You know you're right. There's no need to enforce any drug laws because no one ever commits any crimes while high or drunk. There are zero victims out there.


I really can't have a logical debate with someone who refuses to use logic or factual 'facts' in their reasoning.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Why is it the people who want cops to use discretion and selectively enforce 'real' law are the same ones who accuse those same officers for being above the law and picking and chosing what laws they want to enforce because it doesn't agree with their idea of which laws should be enforced?

 

[B5150]

So what you are saying is that those same officers who are accused of abusing their authority in zealous enforcement would then be abusing their authority in discrete enforcement.

Serious statement.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Pretty much a lose/lose scenario for the officer. Some people will never change their mind on law enforcement, unfortunately.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Pretty much a lose/lose scenario for the officer. Some people will never change their mind on law enforcement, unfortunately.

Shutup, pig! Eat me! :donut:

 

[Jayhawkk]

Mmm, are you glazed or just happy to see me ? :0

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Mmm, are you glazed or just happy to see me ? :0

LOOOOOOOOOOOL. Witty, witty, witty....aincha funny?

 

[Jayhawkk]

I try, I try

 

[CDB]

In the private sector, the turn over rate is huge and the training is little in comparison.

For lower level positions, yes. Not so higher level, like senior engineers. Personally I'd put the requirements for cops at the higher level given the choice.

Like I have said 100 times...People only want police to be lenient in those laws that effect them while being hard on the ones they couldn't give a **** about. I smoke weed: they should legalize weed and leave those alone who smoke it. I speed: They should go find people drinking and driving. I drink and drive: they should go and arrest violent criminals. It never stops.

Generalization that is not true. Drug laws do not affect me at this point, I don't use drugs anymore. Some people, like me, want all laws that are not prohibitions on aggression and harm caused to person or property scaled back or outright stricken from the books. We're not talking what one person might want at their particular traffic stop, but what causes these problems and incidents on a larger scale. The problem with "It never stops" is that some of those people are right. Your time as a LEO is wasted on them.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

No, I think Jay's generalization is entirely accurate and people like you and me are the exception to the rule, CDB. "We" want all laws that are not prohibitions on aggression and harm caused to person or property scaled back or stricken from the books but most people are perfectly happy justifying their actions and demonizing others for actions they're not familiar with, all logic and reason aside.

 

[CDB]

Im sorry cdb , but you look like your *****ing more than anything. Complaining about police and whatnot, you gonna judge every cop by the actions of some. Scale back laws, what laws you want to scale back? Ask cops to question the laws they ebforce? Im sure most of society could do that about their jobs.

Tell me I'm *****ing after a mistaken drug raid ends up kicking down your door and gunning down a member of your family. And then fight the cops for the 'right' to a hearing to get your seized property back even after it becomes clear you had nothing to do with drugs. I've been quite clear about what laws I want scaled back. And all of society is not trusted with the ability and authority to enforce laws. Eliminating the moral and ethical questioning of law on the part of the enforcer is what gives you robots that have no trouble herding their neighbors onto box cars.

 

[CDB]

Oh, civilians is a term used by those talking about others not in their industry/line of work. I was reading about a model today that used that term. It's not a holier than thou attitude as much as it is a descriptor of those people not in the field, so to speak.

I disagree, especially in light of the militaristic style of training and equipment given to many SWAT teams and sometimes even regular LEOs. When you're dealing with laws where the 'bad guys' can so easily blend in with the rest of the population, paramilitary and secret police tactics start to become more common. Hence sting operations where cops create the circumstances for a crime, usually soliciting or drug buying of some kind, and then as long as they adhere to certain rules even though the crime would not have happened without them, they get a 'bust'. Same for drug raids using flash grenades and officers armed with automatic weapons slamming down doors in residential neighborhoods.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Or playing footsy in a public restroom :lol:

 

[CDB]

I've debated with him on several occasions and I just believe he's had more than his fair share of situations where he felt him or his friends were unjustly treated. He's a smart guy who has dabbled in areas that could of ended his career and believes (if i'm wrong let me know) that other than those laws broken, has contributed to society in a positive way and it outweighs whatever infractions he may have been part of.

Not quite. I don't think laws that aren't a prohibition on aggression against person or property have any place in a free society. I don't care if a weed user is otherwise the pillar of the community or if he lives in a cave having fantasies about the local farm animals. As long as he doesn't hurt anyone or their property, the law should have nothing to do with him.

The point is legal inflation is similar to monetary inflation. As the amount of laws on the books and their encroachment into the lives of regular citizens increases people will have less respect for the law, value it less, and rightly so. When laws get so ridiculously restrictive and over reaching to the point where you can't live a normal life without breaking many of them during he course of a normal day, then the law doesn't deserve respect. It's become a tool of busy bodies who think they can perfect the world, to their standards of perfection of course, by outlawing any part of the human condition they find objectionable.

 

[CDB]

You know you're right. There's no need to enforce any drug laws because no one ever commits any crimes while high or drunk. There are zero victims out there.

So we should bring back alcohol prohibition then? People commit crimes while drunk of course. That's not the point. People commit crimes while sober too, or while on speed. Many more do not. The drug taking is not per se harmful to others, nor does it inevitably lead to criminal behavior in other areas, and has in fact been a normal part of human life for our entire history. That's why those laws are ridiculous. They do way more harm than any good accomplished and serve to aggrevate any problems that some drug users do have.

 

[CDB]

No, I think Jay's generalization is entirely accurate and people like you and me are the exception to the rule, CDB. "We" want all laws that are not prohibitions on aggression and harm caused to person or property scaled back or stricken from the books but most people are perfectly happy justifying their actions and demonizing others for actions they're not familiar with, all logic and reason aside.

Grant that, it doesn't get rid of the problems caused by such an ideology. Nor does it take away from LEOs what I think is a need for them to be more judgemental about the laws they enforce. If more cops spoke up about BS laws my guess is we'd have less of them to deal with, and the ones left would be dealt with more practically.

 

[CDB]

Or playing footsy in a public restroom :lol:

That was you?

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Legalize drugs, make intoxication related crimes much more harshly punishable

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Grant that, it doesn't get rid of the problems caused by such an ideology. Nor does it take away from LEOs what I think is a need for them to be more judgemental about the laws they enforce. If more cops spoke up about BS laws my guess is we'd have less of them to deal with, and the ones left would be dealt with more practically.

I don't think LEOs have much to do with our criminal legislation. That has to do with grubby little politicians (including those in the police force) finding the easiest way to scare stupid voters into voting for them, intellectually challenged ideologues who resonate very well with the average idiot voter, and the idiot voter are to blame.

 

[CDB]

Legalize drugs, make intoxication related crimes much more harshly punishable

No problem with that. It targets the problem population and leaves peaceful users and sellers alone. But it's also really not the issue. On the subject of 'cop's attitude' a lot of it comes from dealing with a public that does fit Jay's description, but they're right in many cases. By law and just based on drug statistics of one time to habitual users, a massive portion of our population belongs in prison. When the law is in conflict with basic human behavior on such a large scale, conflicts are inevitable because the police become less and less a civilian law enforcement operation and more and more resemble an occupying military force, forever amonst enemies and potential attackers.

 

[CDB]

I don't think LEOs have much to do with our criminal legislation. That has to do with grubby little politicians (including those in the police force) finding the easiest way to scare stupid voters into voting for them, intellectually challenged ideologues who resonate very well with the average idiot voter, and the idiot voter are to blame.

Then where was the idiot voter before such laws existed to the extent they do now?

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Then where was the idiot voter before such laws existed to the extent they do now?

Politicians have to offer something "new" fairly often. This is why the amount of legislation we have seems to constantly increase. So, politicians offer up something that they believe will get a majority vote, almost totally regardless of the impact it has on other people, and the idiots vote for the politician with the ****ty idea....voila. magic.

 

[jomi822]

Your fact of ratings,pay etc is definitely false. I really don't know how to explain that to you but it isn't a true statement.

You know you're right. There's no need to enforce any drug laws because no one ever commits any crimes while high or drunk. There are zero victims out there.


I really can't have a logical debate with someone who refuses to use logic or factual 'facts' in their reasoning.

Jay are you really telling me pay rates and raises have nothing to do with how many tickets an officer gives out? I have heard this directly from prosecutors (family members) and from 3 officers i have managed to develop acquaintances with. why are police chiefs all over officers' asses to give out tickets at all times (especially state troopers)? you dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out, even without hearing it from the horses mouth.

at least be honest about it.

of course crimes are committed while intoxicated. i am not saying they arent. but there is a big difference between someone who wants to have a few beers at home and relax and a guy who gets smashed, goes out for a drive, and ends up fighting at a bar. also, i highly doubt anyone high on marijuana is going to go out and look for trouble. have you smoked mary jane?

 

[CDB]

Politicians have to offer something "new" fairly often. This is why the amount of legislation we have seems to constantly increase. So, politicians offer up something that they believe will get a majority vote, almost totally regardless of the impact it has on other people, and the idiots vote for the politician with the ****ty idea....voila. magic.

I've been told there was a time when people weren't so apt to fall for that trick however, and when 'minding your own business' was a guiding force for people and their laws. Getting back to that is what I'd like to see.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I'd like to see that, too. But, I don't think its human nature to mind ones own business. If it were, we wouldn't be where we are now because, as you highlighted earlier, a lot of the socially regulatory legislation introduced regulates things that primarily have no effect on other peoples lives, yet, the sheeple of the world are always happy to support someone who "makes them safer" by taking someone else's freedom's away.

 

[CDB]

I'd like to see that, too. But, I don't think its human nature to mind ones own business. If it were, we wouldn't be where we are now because, as you highlighted earlier, a lot of the socially regulatory legislation introduced regulates things that primarily have no effect on other peoples lives, yet, the sheeple of the world are always happy to support someone who "makes them safer" by taking someone else's freedom's away.

Until the people they're being kept safe from become a genuine threat. :twisted:

 

[Jayhawkk]

have you smoked mary jane?

No I haven't because it was illegal and too many people I hung around with that did it ended up doing something stupid.

You're confusing getting paid to write tickets versus proving that you were doing something besides sleeping for an entire shift. Of course you have to show that you're earning your pay. I give written warnings 80% of the time but they show I am doing my job. I have been promoted within my dept rather quickly and i'm also the swat training officer and the dept firearms instructor...I give plenty of warnings but when the times is needed, I also write tickets but I enjoy other aspects of the job over traffic offences.


Those flash grenades are diversions that saves lives and those who use them are also subjected to them, just like a taser or mace. They are not deadly by any means and I don't personally know of any depts that carry fully auto weapons. Semi-auto rifles/carbines is what is employed. Automatic weapons aren't even used in military anymore besides special ops. You can't aim them and they are a waste of ammo.

 

[CDB]

Those flash grenades are diversions that saves lives and those who use them are also subjected to them, just like a taser or mace. They are not deadly by any means and I don't personally know of any depts that carry fully auto weapons. Semi-auto rifles/carbines is what is employed. Automatic weapons aren't even used in military anymore besides special ops. You can't aim them and they are a waste of ammo.

Doesn't change the fact that one has to wonder why a supposedly free society finds it necessary to raid people's homes so often with such tactics, and what kinds of laws would necessitate such action and if they're even worth the paper they're written on. Check out the case of Virginia Herrick recently. Luckily she survived, but not before a load of jackbooted thugs tore into her home and forced a woman in her seventies and dragging an oxygen tank around to the floor while they tossed her house looking for a meth lab. They hit the wrong house. If she had been a little more spry and armed, or the cops more trigger happy, she or one or more cops might not have been lucky enough to make it out of that 'mistake'. All worth it of course in the never ending effort to stamp out evil drugs.

Or Tim Brockman's case.

Two 'wrong house' raids this month already, one in PA the other in CA.

This man, dead.

Here's some more, including the Paz case I mentioned in other threads.

A 92 year old woman dead in a drug raid.

Here's another wonder that recently occurred. At least all they did was burn the house down and kill the family dog.

And another.

And another.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I believe SWAT type teams are needed but i'll agree that wrong house "hits" as you call them, should never be made.

 

[CDB]

I believe SWAT type teams are needed but i'll agree that wrong house "hits" as you call them, should never be made.

Then see my editted post above. That's what I found on the first page of an off the cuff Google search. You have said such mistakes are inevitable and unavoidable, here and before. I pose the same question as before: how many such mistakes and dead citizens are too much before we rethink the laws? Or at least before cops start to speak out a bit on the idiocy of laws that lead to constantly raiding the houses of geriatric patients and occasionally shooting them?