|
Two black people got shot by police for stealing a case of beer. http://www.theolympian.com/2015/05/21/3737619_two-suspected-shoplifters-shot.html?rh=1
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Luckily they weren't killed. It also sounds like they may have just "met the physical description of the robbers" which means they were unlucky enough to be black in the general area of a crime.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I mean, they don't exactly do normal police activity like patrolling and investigating, do they? Actually, as far as I know, they do. Even the largest departments don't have the resources to keep a few dozen officers on payroll who only get called out a few times a week even in the busiest cities. SWAT is usually an additional qualification, and officers perform typical patrol duties unless they've been called out. Like how most police departments don't have a dedicated riot control unit. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:33 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
im gay posted:Two black people got shot by police for stealing a case of beer. Police are starting to take a hardline at people who do beer runs, because it's a sign of a lack of impunity among the public.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I heard that segment too. There were quite a few supposed bikers calling in and pointing the finger at law enforcement-affiliated biker gangs for sparking the Waco shoot out. The detective on the panel specializing in outlaw bikers was of course having none of it.  Does someone have a link or something to read up on this?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, SWAT is for enforcing laws against people who actively and violently resist. Their origin is in apprehending armed bank robbers and penetrating a barricaded residence to effect an arrest. If this is ever needed (it's not) the situation would already be of federal interest. Thus SWAT should be FBI/Federal.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
So what kind of response time do you want for these regional agents?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Phone posting, but the Baltimore paper released video of the Freddie Gray arrest that seems to contradict the police narrative that Gray was fine and resisting when they put him in the van.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
indictments handed down by Baltimore grand jury, also
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Caeser is hosed. Also strange that you can get 'Second Degree Intentional Assault' but not 'Involuntary Manslaughter' if you assaulted him. While one of the others has 'Second Degree Negligent Assault' and got Involuntary. Anyone care to explain?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Caeser is hosed. Could be as a result of the poo poo that happened before Gray was loaded into the wagon, so it's unrelated to the actual death but still illegal.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So what kind of response time do you want for these regional agents? Why is response time even a concern?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Why is response time even a concern? Because there's this fantasy that SWAT mainly gets used for responding to shooters, terrorists and evil villains instead of serving no-knock or knock-via-battering ram warrants. Besides, just because something is federal doesn't mean everyone has to be stationed in DC. Edit: lets have some numbers: quote:62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were to conduct searches for drugs. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:28 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because there's this fantasy that SWAT mainly gets used for responding to shooters, terrorists and evil villains instead of serving no-knock or knock-via-battering ram warrants. quote:Besides, just because something is federal doesn't mean everyone has to be stationed in DC. Most large cities have regional FBI offices anyway and when there is something of interest to the FBI, it's usually not "spontaneous jihad syndrome" or whatever wierd poo poo people think SWAT handles.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because there's this fantasy that SWAT mainly gets used for responding to shooters, terrorists and evil villains instead of serving no-knock or knock-via-battering ram warrants. Yeah, you say that now, but the second you need a guy with a grenade launcher to save your kid from the joker you'll be singing a different tune!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
I'm having trouble following. Everyone in this thread probably agrees the no knock military style raids are ridiculous and should be eliminated. That leaves SWAT to handle pretty much just active shooters, major hostage situations and the like which sounds good. But, time matters in these things. There already exists a federal SWAT team that deploys the way you want called the FBI HRT. They arrived in Boston while Jahar was bleeding out in some random guy's boat. Of course after that you could argue that SWAT teams are unnecessary in the first place; the patrolmen will be the only ones that actually engage and everything will end before any reinforcements can arrive.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yeah, you say that now, but the second you need a guy with a grenade launcher to save your kid from the jahar you'll be singing a different tune!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
^ Don't mind him, he's from bizzaro-America where the Boston PD is good and their SWAT team stopped the Boston bombings. hobbesmaster posted:I'm having trouble following. Everyone in this thread probably agrees the no knock military style raids are ridiculous and should be eliminated. That leaves SWAT to handle pretty much just active shooters, major hostage situations and the like which sounds good. You're right, once we reduce SWAT use by 90% it won't matter as much who the SWAT team works for. But until then, removing the paramilitary from the police could be a very good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:If this is ever needed (it's not) . A forums poster who has never, ever heard of a violent person or persons barricading themselves somewhere. Hahaha. But don't worry if that ever happens, the Feds can handle it!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But, time matters in these things. "If only we had gotten there sooner" -movies SWAT was created because police wanted a way to keep civil unrest in check with superior fire power and tactics. The whole thing was about fears around the civil rights movement, black panthers and the war on drugs. SWAT teams were created because police/politicians/people are scared of black people, these teams should have never been created. There are very few scenarios where we need heavy firepower available within minutes, certainly not often enough to justify their existence.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:A forums poster who has never, ever heard of a violent person or persons barricading themselves somewhere. No it absolutely happens. And what is the appropriate response to situations like that? If you said forcible entry with shock-and-awe tactics that were used 'like in that one movie', you'd be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:^ You see "Jahar" is pronounced like "joker"  ___________/
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:No it absolutely happens. And what is the appropriate response to situations like that? If you said forcible entry with shock-and-awe tactics that were used 'like in that one movie', you'd be wrong. FBI HRT does that stuff with reasonable success. They need to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to keep busy though.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
The Boston Bombing is actually a pretty good example at how much SWAT teams suck at the one thing they're supposedly meant to do:quote:In the end, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wasn’t found by Guardsmen, a commando team or a police officer in an armored vehicle. After the shelter in place had been lifted, he was spotted by a resident of Watertown who saw something unusual in his back yard and called the police. Only then did SWAT teams respond to apprehend the suspected bomber. (More on that later.) For such a massive show of force, the fugitive was captured in a pretty conventional manner. SWAT didn't really help stop the bombing, they didn't help prevent the killing of the MIT police officer, they didn't help find the last suspect, and while they did "help" in his capture, they did so while injuring each other against an unarmed opponent. hobbesmaster posted:You see "Jahar" is pronounced like "joker" Well, that makes more sense. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
At this point people are just putting their heads in the sand and ignoring recorded history, it's kinda sad.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:No it absolutely happens. And what is the appropriate response to situations like that? If you said forcible entry with shock-and-awe tactics that were used 'like in that one movie', you'd be wrong. If just one person barricading themselves in? Wait it out. If a repeat of the LA bank robbery? Waiting it out isn't an option. Luckily those sorts of situations are rarer now because of the existence of SWAT teams (bank robbers are not morons and there's lots of evidence to suggest they take into account the probability of success).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
tsa posted:If just one person barricading themselves in? Wait it out. If a repeat of the LA bank robbery? Waiting it out isn't an option. Luckily those sorts of situations are rarer now because of the existence of SWAT teams (bank robbers are not morons and there's lots of evidence to suggest they take into account the probability of success). You're saying the only reason there aren't more bank robberies is because of the existence of SWAT teams? Care to provide proof that their existence is what's preventing bank robberies?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:FBI HRT does that stuff with reasonable success. They need to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to keep busy though. There is absolutely a correct way to do that sort of thing. However it always involves a protracted stand-off and negotiation first, so response time isn't the primary concern. And honestly in almost all cases the primary concern should be the collateral damage of both the criminal action and the police response for the community in the form of lives, risks, and dollars, not "I need to make sure the bad guy doesn't get away at any cost."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That reminded me, lets check in on those cops that ran a guy off the road as part of a motorcycle gang.... From a little ways back, but this is spectacularly hosed up. Here's an article with some video of the assault. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/wife-banker-beaten-bikers-recalls-attack-article-1.2228107
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Two black guys got shot last night in my town after shoplifting from the local safeway: http://www.theolympian.com/2015/05/21/3737619_two-suspected-shoplifters-shot.html?rh=1 Reports say they assaulted store personnel before running, but unfortunately I was actually right there when they left the store and they didn't touch anybody. They just skated off with their beer, but they never assaulted any store employees. I can't speak to the police confrontation itself, but I have been in contact with both Olympia PD and the local news and have told them both what I saw. OPD didn't seem to care, the news was very interested.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:Two black guys got shot last night in my town after shoplifting from the local safeway: Do you use a real-world definition of assault or the DND definition, though?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:
i'm SHOCKED
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Do you use a real-world definition of assault or the DND definition, though? There was no physical contact whatsoever if that answers your question. Dusty Baker 2 fucked around with this message at 04:26 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Do you use a real-world definition of assault or the DND definition, though? He just said they didn't touch anyone.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:He just said they didn't touch anyone. I thought it was battery once you touch them.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Do you use a real-world definition of assault or the DND definition, though? What's the DND definition?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Booourns posted:What's the DND definition? Hitting someone with a greataxe for 1d12+6 damage.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I thought it was battery once you touch them. In a lot of places a credible threat of violence is assault.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I thought it was battery once you touch them. Laws vary state to state. I don't think Washington even has "battery" in their code. Just various degrees of assault.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Serves me right for not making the disgustingly minor effort to Google "washington battery"... first f'in link. http://www.assaultandbattery.org/washington
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:15
|
|