|
When I've come in to contact with heroin users (usually after they have been arrested) there tend to be a few similarities. They are usually white, are either British or Irish and are very rarely frequenting the areas in which they were raised. Their economic background and upbringing tends to be varied. Obviously they are likely to be destitute when you arrest them it's usually for theft, burglary, robbery if it involves a similarly desperate person and regardless of how they grew up they are always disheveled desperate and broken. Lots of them came from middle class families, some have a degree, who made some poor choices in life and ended up living to feed a habit. Yes, plenty of them had deprived upbringings but unlike crack cocaine (which receives a lot less in the way charity attention and specialist treatment) I honestly don't see any strong correlation between the household they grew up in before they started abusing heroin. When you've got them on a constant watch in a hospital or in a cell you have plenty of time to talk to them and usually they seem very honest and candid.
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
My opinion, and this is just my opinion. Illegal drugs bring two problems (among others. this is a focused post): 1) causes crime to be based around them. it is the main method of money making for gangs, biker gangs, street gangs, etc. 2) The stigma of "its illegal and you are horrible" prevents (from what i have seen) those people from getting the help they need if they don't have money. The court system does not have the money to treat them to the needed extent and they end up in jail or back on the street. Neither help the system. Making them legal/regulated: 1) i don't know what unrest would be among biker gangs (who are more dangerous then street gangs and as organized as the mob), or among street gangs. They make a lot of money on illegal drug trade and I don't know how much violence would result as they adjust the structures. I doubt they will go away. 2) people will actually be able to get the help they need for addiction problems without being labeled by the system. Granted, DUI and stuff done under the influence of drugs will still be the same, but it will be a lot easier for police to handle, in my opinion. It will also clear up a lot of jail/prison space, court docket time, court time, court costs etc. 3) the most abused drugs are alcohol and nicotine. Alcohol was the factor in over 50% (probably over 70%) of the calls we deal with including accidents, domestic violence, disorderly conduct stuff. So don't think that making stuff legal will actually help the situation at all, but it is a start. However, prescription drug abuse is the number one problem in this country (USA) and the companies make so much money that they don't care how if effects people. That will only get worse if they can suddenly take control of the used-to-be illegal market because they have the funds, setup, labs, etc, to easily make that transition. Not to mention the cartels will now have a problem because if stuff were legal, America will start producing it openly and become directly competitive with the cartel prices. This could also effect world-wide things and cause huge adjustments in the underworld drug trade (which will still be there btw because addicts who are poor will still be addicts who are poor and i doubt they will be able to afford the legal costs so they will still get the drugs illegally, and still commit crimes to get the drugs legally or illegally). There are a lot of factors involved and it is not just as simple as legal or not legal. Overall, i think about how many lives, civs and cops, that have been lost over the years trying to regulate drugs and i think it is senseless. I am not going to touch the SWAT no-knock because i cannot get into police procedure on those issues and unless you have served warrants before, especially the kind SWAT are used on, then i just don't want to debate that. All i will say on the child incident is while it is a horrible tragedy and i am glad he did not die, there are factors that cannot be released publicly yet for some time, and i cannot tell you. Even if the media knew these things, they still have a spin they want to push the story toward so they do leave out details. It is still a horribly sad incident, and that is all i will say.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:
What I take from this is two possibilities: 1) You are a member of the department involved 2) Officers from the department involved are inappropriately divulging information about this case, but only on police forums Which is it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What I take from this is two possibilities: Or neither? Law Enforcement agencies (and officers) routinely share information with one another directly. Just because you've been told by another officer or through other official means doesn't make it "inappropriate" for you to be aware of certain information about a case. That also doesn't include agencies and officers who know of or who have dealt with certain suspects from other jurisdictions and have knowledge of their history, etc. Officers regularly interact with neighboring jurisdictions with information sharing, and sometimes it's not a surprise when they hear about someone being arrested in the next jurisdiction over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Yeah, but I'm afraid that's the pattern with police incidents like this. Police spokespeople will say "there's more to this case, but we can't talk about it right now." It's a way of managing public image by implying that the suspect/victim/whoever is somehow at fault, but offering no specifics. What else is there to know that wasn't already released by the department? We already know that they raided a house looking for a relative that they believed to be a drug dealer. So they've already intimated that a citizen is a drug dealer without having charged them, do they mean to suggest that propriety is keeping them from saying more? Bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Bernard McFacknutah posted:When I've come in to contact with heroin users (usually after they have been arrested) there tend to be a few similarities. They are usually white, are either British or Irish and are very rarely frequenting the areas in which they were raised. Their economic background and upbringing tends to be varied. Obviously they are likely to be destitute when you arrest them it's usually for theft, burglary, robbery if it involves a similarly desperate person and regardless of how they grew up they are always disheveled desperate and broken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Untagged posted:Or neither? Law Enforcement agencies (and officers) routinely share information with one another directly. Just because you've been told by another officer or through other official means doesn't make it "inappropriate" for you to be aware of certain information about a case. That also doesn't include agencies and officers who know of or who have dealt with certain suspects from other jurisdictions and have knowledge of their history, etc. Officers regularly interact with neighboring jurisdictions with information sharing, and sometimes it's not a surprise when they hear about someone being arrested in the next jurisdiction over. I can't wait to hear how it's justified to throw a flashbang in a crib.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What I take from this is two possibilities: You forgot 3) Is making poo poo up
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
This thread seems to be taking cops as prima facie good. While I am sure that is "very serious" I still don't think that case has been made. For those talking about how dangerous it is to be a cop or how violence against police is forgiven, this is a rather critical question. Why should I want cops in my neighborhood?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Better to have a gang with guns that answer to appointed judges and elected officials than gang with guns that don't?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I can't wait to hear how it's justified to throw a flashbang in a crib. And that is exactly why I don't really want to talk about it, nor why police will release all the information. You are acting like they knew the crib was there and threw the flash bang in it. Because most people don't care what really happen nor will they care if any new information comes out because a flash bang went off in a crib and a child was hurt, and almost died. However, based on public information available they had already bought drugs from the house, i also read somewhere that the guy whose house it was had some type of assault rife, and he was the one who they had bought drugs from. Second, the family was visiting, knew what went on in the house because the mom even said she tried to hide the kids from what went on there. As they did not live there, police had no way to know if there was a crib by the door or kids there. As far as they knew, there was no one there but a drug dealer who had assault rife. So they were following normal procedure for that type of situation. Also, unless the confidential informant neglected to mention "there is a family with kids living there" then even at the time of getting the warrant they would not have known. If he did, and the police did know, then I think they are responsible for it. The only way this incident is anything other then a horrible tragedy is if the police knew the family and child were there, but the news shows tragic pictures in everyone's face of the injuries the child had and therefore get the predicable response that has happened--despite me not being aware of any wrong procedure or negligence on the part of law enforcement. SedanChair posted:Yeah, but I'm afraid that's the pattern with police incidents like this. Police spokespeople will say "there's more to this case, but we can't talk about it right now." It's a way of managing public image by implying that the suspect/victim/whoever is somehow at fault, but offering no specifics. What else is there to know that wasn't already released by the department? We already know that they raided a house looking for a relative that they believed to be a drug dealer. So they've already intimated that a citizen is a drug dealer without having charged them, do they mean to suggest that propriety is keeping them from saying more? Bullshit. I don't think they are implying anything. They are stating there is more going on they can't talk about. Investigations cannot be discussed outside of law enforcement until either the investigation is done and no charges are filed, or charges are filed and the circumstances come out in court as part of the introduction of evidence. SedanChair posted:What I take from this is two possibilities: it is not in my department but in my state and i know lots of officers and have heard things. As i am not the investigator, nor was i involved i cannot legally discuss anything i know that is not public knowledge. What i know could just be rumors, or hearsay, or just plain wrong, it could also be correct information. Either way, i can't spread rumors, or hearsay, or discuss non-released information. We are liable for stuff we say if it turns out to be sensitive information, and the court takes the integrity of cases seriously. ----------------- Regardless, I think it was a terrible accident that clearly shows reform is needed but based solely on what has been released publicly they were justified under current procedures and not liable. Could they still win a law suit, i think so because the bottom line, regardless of justified or not, someone got hurt who was not supposed to and i think they should get some compensation. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
TThe presence of a weapon, without any threatening use of it, is not carte blanc justification of violence against anyone in a given building, no matter how hard the thought of storming it all CoD style makes you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:it is not in my department but in my state and i know lots of officers and have heard things. As i am not the investigator, nor was i involved i cannot legally discuss anything i know that is not public knowledge. What i know could just be rumors, or hearsay, or just plain wrong, it could also be correct information. Either way, i can't spread rumors, or hearsay, or discuss non-released information. We are liable for stuff we say if it turns out to be sensitive information, and the court takes the integrity of cases seriously. Either you're bullshitting or you're flirting with releasing "sensitive information" in order to win an internet argument. Which is it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:TThe presence of a weapon, without any threatening use of it, is not carte blanc justification of violence against anyone in a given building, no matter how hard the thought of storming it all CoD style makes you. Well, i was not on SWAT, but based on what i know of general SWAT procedures that is pretty much the case. I don't think the team where i worked was allowed to use FB for much of anything, but i could be wrong. However, that was our policy and each agency can write their own as far as i know. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Gum posted:Either you're bullshitting or you're flirting with releasing "sensitive information" in order to win an internet argument. Which is it? Neither, I am simply explaining things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Well, i was not on SWAT, but based on what i know of general SWAT procedures that is pretty much the case. I don't think the team where i worked was allowed to use FB for much of anything, but i could be wrong. However, that was our policy and each agency can write their own as far as i know. And yet people wonder why police get hostile response from their communities. Here's a hint. Any time a cop gets shot, the shooter should have a free and clear self defense dismissal of charges given that proven violent nature of law enforcement officers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
I don't see how we need more information because we know they did and we know what the problem areas are: 1. No-knock raid. I think these should be illegal. 2. Flash bangs, cops should not be allowed to have these. 3. SWAT Teams, they shouldn't be allowed to have these either, only cities with more 1 million should have one. then if some small podunk poo poo town needs a swat team they can call for help or just leave the criminals be. Leaving the criminals to go on about their business would probably reduce violence and loss of life compared to the current procedure. I have three incontestable facts here that we all know happened and which are the crux of the problem. Also gently caress using informants say so as a basis for anything like this. quote:The only way this incident is anything other then a horrible tragedy is if the police knew the family and child were there, but the news shows tragic pictures in everyone's face of the injuries the child had and therefore get the predicable response that has happened--despite me not being aware of any wrong procedure or negligence on the part of law enforcement. A no knock raid is wrong, period. The procedures are wrong. Police shouldn't be militarized, they shouldn't have flash bangs, they shouldn't have SWAT teams, if a situation arises they can goddamn well call in help from a big city department or something where they can afford to keep better trained individuals. They did everything wrong by even being at that house in the first place, they should have gone home and jacked off to internet porn or something more useful to society. If they followed procedure their procedures are wrong and they are wrong for following them, just procedure maam said the nazi as he ushered the jewish woman into eh incinerator eh. Godwin'ing hard here but given how similar police procedure is to the holocaust, how can I be blamed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I don't see how we need more information because we know they did and we know what the problem areas are: The fact that they threw a flashbang into a room occupied by a child in the first place is a total intelligence failure on the part of the SWAT team. They were storming a house with no actual idea what was inside other than 'a guy who some druggie said maybe had a gun once'. This is basic information that could have been easily gathered by observing the house for any amount of time during the day. Or say picking up their target when he was away from home, and hence unlikely to be toting around an "assault rifle" which the heavily armed tactical team was terrified enough of that it merited throwing an explosive blindly into an occupied home with innocent bystanders inside. Of course, I'm sure we'll be getting a rebuttal here in a moment that those kids should have known better than to have parents who were into drugs, and it's their fault for not leaving the home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Or say picking up their target when he was away from home, and hence unlikely to be toting around an "assault rifle" which the heavily armed tactical team was terrified enough of that it merited throwing an explosive blindly into an occupied home with innocent bystanders inside. This is what I really don't get. Why the gently caress wouldn't you just pull him over when he was driving home from the loving store or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:This is what I really don't get. Yeah this is the dumbest loving thing about house raids. Unless there's a violent situation going on in the building the police should drat well be able to wait until the perp decides to leave their home to grab them. Especially when they think the perp has a loving assault rifle at home.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
Kitfox88 posted:This is what I really don't get. Because he had a dead man's switch protocol in place. If he was arrested and didn't text his regular hourly coded message, his
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because he had a dead man's switch protocol in place. If he was arrested and didn't text his regular hourly coded message, his That's one of the craziest things about the busts. Lifes are carelessly risked simply because some of the evidence might get flushed otherwise. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:That's one of the craziest things about the busts. Lifes are carelessly risked simply because some of the evidence might get flushed otherwise. Yep. I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Use the APCs tracks to crimp their water pipes and preserve the evidence. Oh yeah, also probably save lives too or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Better to have a gang with guns that answer to appointed judges and elected officials than gang with guns that don't? Not in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Good for you I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:That's one of the craziest things about the busts. Lifes are carelessly risked simply because some of the evidence might get flushed otherwise. That's the worst part. If we were talking kidnapped kids that needed rescuing, or something along those lines, then I could see a reason to storm the place. I cannot imagine a reason why a non-violent crime would justify violence to prevent the possible destruction of evidence. What public good does it serve to put others in danger? Beyond looking good on the quarterly metrics for amount of contraband seized, I suppose, but those metrics aren't worth the injury or death of others who just happened to be in the area and had nothing to do with the crime in question.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
But then how would those awesome SWAT cops put their military "training" and gear into use?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Use flashbangs and battering rams to serve warrants on subprime lenders before they shred the evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:This is unironically a good idea. If the laws enforced as written cause the legal system to implode, then they desperately need reform, not spotty and half-assed enforcement based on how badly a particular cop's marriage is falling apart, or how much of a hard-on for loving over dumb stoner kids he has. I'm sympathetic to this. There's a road nearby where the nominal speed limit is 55 and everyone drives 70. That's not 'discretion' in an extraordinary circumstance. That's a parallel set of laws. Most of the time, people get the lax rules. But the system can still come down on anyone it decides it dislikes. At the same time, this seems more like a legislative problem than anything fixable by individual police departments. At best, a town could get a reputation as a speed trap. What I'd really want would be something like a legal defence like, "repeal by abandonment of enforcement" to protect people who've been singled out for breaking laws that are generally ignored. That would be a thing for legislatures to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:What I'd really want would be something like a legal defence like, "repeal by abandonment of enforcement" to protect people who've been singled out for breaking laws that are generally ignored. That would be a thing for legislatures to deal with. edit: actually, more in general, how do the courts deal with laws that have clear ulterior motives? Like, for example, here in Honolulu it's illegal to drink in the park/on the beach, but everyone does it. What the law is REALLY for is for giving the police a tool to get rid of people who are being obnoxious, but not yet doing something that breaks another law. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:edit: actually, more in general, how do the courts deal with laws that have clear ulterior motives? Like, for example, here in Honolulu it's illegal to drink in the park/on the beach, but everyone does it. What the law is REALLY for is for giving the police a tool to get rid of people who are being obnoxious, but not yet doing something that breaks another law. I'm not really optimistic that anyone can write a set of laws that makes most of the people happy with 100% enforcement everywhere, but with discretion in enforcement, prosecution, and punishment a community can dictate how they're regulated by the laws on the books. IF they have real oversight, which obviously they do not right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I'm sympathetic to this. There's a road nearby where the nominal speed limit is 55 and everyone drives 70. That's not 'discretion' in an extraordinary circumstance. That's a parallel set of laws. Most of the time, people get the lax rules. But the system can still come down on anyone it decides it dislikes. Yeah, at the end of the day it is a problem for the legislature and judicial system, not the cops. Part of why it's frustrating to see cops taking it upon themselves, even if they do have the best of intentions. A certain amount of flexibility is required to keep the cops from being outright murdered by the populace, but at the same time, it is creating a slow buildup that is going to be a much worse problem. Violent crime rates, especially homicide, are down by nearly 50% from the 1990's, and over 12% from 2008. So we have a more militarized police force to deal with less violent crime. Oh, and reading a bit more about that kid who got burned with the flashbang from the OP? Not only did the department in question have a complete failure of intelligence concerning who was in the house at the time, the person they were after wasn't even in the house. According to the County Sheriff, their justification for the raid was that he had a previous conviction on firearm charges, not any evidence of a weapon in the home. So they stormed a house at 3am with no idea who was inside, or even if the suspect they were looking for was inside, and injured small children over a minor methamphetamine sale. No drugs were found in the house beyond residue. What sort of mental gymnastics does it take to justify this as Good Policing, because from the outside, this is a failure at every level from whoever planned the op, to the judge who signed the warrant, on down to the idiots who rammed a door at 3am and tossed a flashbang in when they hosed it up and couldn't manage to open it. It's a complete shitshow, and that some of the police members in this thread are bending over backwards to defend it shows just how bad the 'us vs them' mentality of policing in the US has gotten.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
One of the worst parts to that story are all the fuckheads who blame the parents. No gently caress you guys, so what if they knew or didn't knew they where dealing drugs, their loving house burned down and they needed a place to stay, not everyone are rich enough to just live in a hotel or even a motel (like you wouldn't get drug dealers there too, or worse). Just another version of the gently caress the poors, boot strap yourselves etc etc. And I bet if it happened to them it's not like they'd say no to a relatives help either and wouldn't give two shits about his criminal record. I guess everyone in the US should have to start factoring in the chances of police raids and flash grenades in their daily lives now, will help to boost sales of cribs with roofs that are made of kevlar I guess. This is a lovely department all around btw, not the first time an innocent person has gotten in their way: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pastor-in-2009/
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
It wasn't even 'their druggy relative offered to help them out'. It's 'their relative who has a druggy live-at-home 30 year old son offered to help them out'. Kid got maimed because somebody who'd fit right in at TCC was living there and the cops don't know the meaning of restraint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:And that is exactly why I don't really want to talk about it, nor why police will release all the information. You are acting like they knew the crib was there and threw the flash bang in it. No, I'm acting like one of the most fundamental rules when it comes to things like firearms and munitions is being sure of your target and what is behind it. Seven year olds understand this poo poo, why don't a bunch of cops with specialized training? I don't even own guns and I know what the four fundamental rules are. And by the way, the most important part of this story is the part where a grenade was thrown into a crib and the kid barely surviving. How can you possibly say otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:
Because we have to look at the facts unbiased and unemotionally attached. That is how investigations are conducted, we have to be able to do conduct them without becoming emotionally involved in the circumstances because that leads to biased investigations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
What are these facts you keep alluding to? If you can't share them because they're super-secret Cop Facts, then keep the allusions to yourself as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Yes, please tell us the circumstances that would make nearly killing a child with a flashbang justifiable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yes, please tell us the circumstances that would make nearly killing a child with a flashbang justifiable. Legally, lots of stuff. They are justified if they followed all applicable laws and policies. Civilly, not much. Whether those laws and policies need reform is a totally different matter. I think they do need reform, as i have said. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jul 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2014 23:28
|
|