161–170 of 316 posts
What happened to "THIS IS THE POLICE, OPEN UP" along with banging the door? The only situation where I understand a no-knock warrant is like when the police is actually targeting someone's computer and don't want to go through all the hustle of cracking the password.
USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them? How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman in a situation they directly and deliberately created? Is that not the problem? I don't think anyone is demanding a first degree murder conviction here. They didn't walk in with the intent to kill her. But they sure as shit did kill her, and it's all their fau…
I believe it's classical case where there is enough evidence for a wrongful death civil lawsuit (which will typically end with a 5-10 million dollars settlement), but there is not enough evidence to convict the officers (or the boyfriend) of a crime in a criminal case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon Well, I do. We had a case in Germany a few years back where the police served some kind of no-knock warrant, the guy (a Hells Angel) thought they were from a rival gang, shouted at them and then shot at them. A Policeman died, the guy dropped his gun immediately after police identified themselves. The Case made the news later because the guy got…
> A Policeman died, the guy dropped his gun immediately after police identified themselves. Can you actually believe them though? What if the intruder does what the shooter in Canada did and impersonates the police?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers" Killing is what the military does. Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa". The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters. I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mea…
You're trying to imply something that's contrary to his statement, literally right there in the bit you quoted: > disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers
Suppose I tell you that my motivation for recompiling the new version of the software only as a 64-bit binary was to improve compatibility with 32-bit systems. Do you feel like that's compelling? Is the effect that now it doesn't work on 32-bit systems at all an unexpected consequence I just could not have foreseen?
Or was my supposed "motivation" the thinnest possible excuse by someone who expects that their supporters don't care about the facts and are just looking for any excuse?
The effect of Cotton's proposal would be to get people killed. Either you believe Tom Cotton is an idiot who didn't understand that, or you agree with him that getting people killed is a perfectly fine outcome so long as a "motivation" can be dreamed up to explain it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon. I do. They should temporarily cover to safety, understand the situation, announce themselves and attempt to de-escalate. Only if gunfire persist after that, it's reasonable to use deadly force. That's the LAST thing they should do (because in fact, mistakes at that point will be final, with mortal consequences)
Does identifying work though? What's stopping an intruder from doing that? I just don't see how no-knock warrants like this are supposed to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May I ask why? I assume this is because many people think it is better that a left-leaning newspaper doesn't publish right-wing opinion pieces, but I would think that this creates a "bubble" and prevents readers from challenging their own opinions. A reduced version of this question would be: if Hitler/Xi/Kim were to publish an opinion piece in NYT, should they reject it or should they publish it?
For me it was not that it was a right/left opinion piece. It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Nor was any context or commentary provided indicating such. (edit) You can also see, now, after the backlash, NYT agrees that it probably shouldn't have been published. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our…
USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…
When police creates situation in which the other person has no reason to think they are police, where that person can reasonably think it would be legal to shoot, yes I do. That whole situation was created by police and they had time to prepare. So yes, I expect them not to shoot randomly.
It is not reasonable to expect less from police then we expect from civilians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're trying to imply something that's contrary to his statement, literally right there in the bit you quoted: > disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers
What, specifically, do you think an “overwhelming show of force” by the military implies?
So any troublemakers would think twice about trying to hit an area to sew chaos (looting, rioting, setting property on fire, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh wow. That may be taking it too far, but is there a reason to believe that might be a possible scenario here?
>is there a reason to believe that might be a possible scenario here? It is not unheard of for drug task forces to augment their official income by robbing drug dealers. I wanna say one of the major cities in CA had a task force that got into trouble for this as did IIRC Newark and Baltimore (pretty sure it was them but not 100%). It's definitely A Thing(TM). There was at least one story of a particularity systemic c…