This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Slamdunc on 30 June 2011 - 02:06
Exactly, MJ it is a moot point. Preston, it is not worth my time to try to explain or argue anything with you. I have seen you address me several times and I have chosen to avoid responding to any of your questions.
by Preston on 30 June 2011 - 03:06
Slamdunc, understood and accepted, and that is the way I view you too. Best regards, anyhow.
by Preston on 30 June 2011 - 03:06
Police officers need community support at all levels. Bad relations between police and communities are well documented to create serious problems for the police and the citizens too. Police work under serious and real threats to their safety. In my city, traffic accidents are the biggest threat by far, but armed and drugged up gangbangers are always an unexpected threat. And the what seems to be a low key domestic can be extremely dicey in some cases and escalate in a fraction of a second.
Of course many police face serious legal problems if they get involved in problem situations even if they did what was right and followed regulations and the law. If they had a bad attitude, a rep for being a thumper, numerous citations in their file for problems, then any one of the following lawsuits can be directed against them in many cities: 42 USC 1983; 42 USC 14141 (2000); Title 18 USCA 241 (2000) etc. And of course TSA and other feds can be hit with 42 USC 1983 too and Bivens actions also. If their supervisors want to dump the case in order to protect their job they might say that the officer or agent operated outside color of law (thus personally responsible). But in some cases this can backfire too, and the supervisor and city or entity can then be successfully sued in some cases for failure to hire properly, failure to train properly, or failure to supervise properly.
In most cases if an officer has a good attitude toward the public and is recognized for that, he/she will come out ok and is much less at risk for getting into and/or losing these troublesome anxiety producing lawsuits. However, if a police officer tests for chemical residue or alcohol in his/her blood and has a record of complaints form the community it is much harder to provide a winning defense.
By the way Slamdunc, unless I am mistaken I think I only addressed you in response to comments you directed to me. At least that's the way I remember it.
Of course many police face serious legal problems if they get involved in problem situations even if they did what was right and followed regulations and the law. If they had a bad attitude, a rep for being a thumper, numerous citations in their file for problems, then any one of the following lawsuits can be directed against them in many cities: 42 USC 1983; 42 USC 14141 (2000); Title 18 USCA 241 (2000) etc. And of course TSA and other feds can be hit with 42 USC 1983 too and Bivens actions also. If their supervisors want to dump the case in order to protect their job they might say that the officer or agent operated outside color of law (thus personally responsible). But in some cases this can backfire too, and the supervisor and city or entity can then be successfully sued in some cases for failure to hire properly, failure to train properly, or failure to supervise properly.
In most cases if an officer has a good attitude toward the public and is recognized for that, he/she will come out ok and is much less at risk for getting into and/or losing these troublesome anxiety producing lawsuits. However, if a police officer tests for chemical residue or alcohol in his/her blood and has a record of complaints form the community it is much harder to provide a winning defense.
By the way Slamdunc, unless I am mistaken I think I only addressed you in response to comments you directed to me. At least that's the way I remember it.
by mobjack on 30 June 2011 - 04:06
Preston,
I read the affidavit and the warrant. I will not debate semantics over grouped or individual paperwork. Personally, I believe that's up to the department and the individuals writing up the papers and signing off on it. They are the ones who must ultimately answer for it. Also, if a grouped affidavit/warrant is insufficient, I'm quite sure there are plenty of defense attorneys that have already argued that in court with and without success.
As to probable cause in this particular case, there was sufficient probable cause under the law for a DA and a judge to sign off on the search warrant. Again, a moot point. Enough probable cause to send in a SWAT team? In this case, obviously the people calling the shots felt there was. Our agreement or disagreement with that decision can not change it.
But, looking only at facts and variables surrounding that decision: Drug dealers are often users as well and can have wildly unstable behavior. One of the individuals in the home was combat trained, known to be armed, and a known associate/relative of drug dealers and violent criminals. That same individual had a prior arrest record for drugs and weapons charges and is currently under investigation for dealing drugs. A definate possible threat. A female and small child live in the home. The female may or may not be involved or have any knowledge of anything, that's an unknown point at this time. She may or may not be a threat. She and the child are also possible hostages. Unknown number and type of other individuals may be at the residence when the warrant is executed.
Two points:
you are known by the company you keep
those who forget history are doomed to repeat it
Personally speaking, given the facts in this case, if *I* was in charge and had to decide on sending a SWAT team to kick the door, or a couple guys in uniform to knock nicely and ask to be let in and search the house, I'd be sending the SWAT team. Thug dealers and violent gang members will start shooting at anything that comes through the door as soon as they can. Man, woman or child. They simply do not care about civilians, collateral damage or even their own kin. Proof enough of that is in the newspapers every day. Cops knocking nicely on a door would have no chance if it went down that way. Protecting my own, possibly. But I would not want to have to tell that cop's family that he was dead because I had a tool at my disposal and chose not to use it.
Fact: Guerena was armed when the door was kicked in broad daylight. He made a decision and an unfortunate mistake and it cost him his life. If he knew it was the police, thought it might be a home invasion, drug dealers coming in, or even PTSD, exactly WHY he armed himself is something no one will ever know. So again, moot point.
I read the affidavit and the warrant. I will not debate semantics over grouped or individual paperwork. Personally, I believe that's up to the department and the individuals writing up the papers and signing off on it. They are the ones who must ultimately answer for it. Also, if a grouped affidavit/warrant is insufficient, I'm quite sure there are plenty of defense attorneys that have already argued that in court with and without success.
As to probable cause in this particular case, there was sufficient probable cause under the law for a DA and a judge to sign off on the search warrant. Again, a moot point. Enough probable cause to send in a SWAT team? In this case, obviously the people calling the shots felt there was. Our agreement or disagreement with that decision can not change it.
But, looking only at facts and variables surrounding that decision: Drug dealers are often users as well and can have wildly unstable behavior. One of the individuals in the home was combat trained, known to be armed, and a known associate/relative of drug dealers and violent criminals. That same individual had a prior arrest record for drugs and weapons charges and is currently under investigation for dealing drugs. A definate possible threat. A female and small child live in the home. The female may or may not be involved or have any knowledge of anything, that's an unknown point at this time. She may or may not be a threat. She and the child are also possible hostages. Unknown number and type of other individuals may be at the residence when the warrant is executed.
Two points:
you are known by the company you keep
those who forget history are doomed to repeat it
Personally speaking, given the facts in this case, if *I* was in charge and had to decide on sending a SWAT team to kick the door, or a couple guys in uniform to knock nicely and ask to be let in and search the house, I'd be sending the SWAT team. Thug dealers and violent gang members will start shooting at anything that comes through the door as soon as they can. Man, woman or child. They simply do not care about civilians, collateral damage or even their own kin. Proof enough of that is in the newspapers every day. Cops knocking nicely on a door would have no chance if it went down that way. Protecting my own, possibly. But I would not want to have to tell that cop's family that he was dead because I had a tool at my disposal and chose not to use it.
Fact: Guerena was armed when the door was kicked in broad daylight. He made a decision and an unfortunate mistake and it cost him his life. If he knew it was the police, thought it might be a home invasion, drug dealers coming in, or even PTSD, exactly WHY he armed himself is something no one will ever know. So again, moot point.
by mobjack on 30 June 2011 - 04:06
In my city some of the biggest drug dealers were protected gang members (federal informants). These guys were armed to the teeth but it was hands off for the local police. This oozed probable cause because they were repeatedly seen openly selling drugs out in the open. These guys were all well known to the police and easily identifiable. There was no crackdown until a police officer was needlessly killed, then the company couldn't run anymore interference. Last time I checked this kind of hands-off for dealer informants went on 10 years ago, but I doubt it has changed. I think it is wrong overall and is used to keep the cartel monster fed.
If the feds are involved, they have jurisdiction. If there's a hands off policy, there's usually a reason for it. Like an investigation ruined by a street level dealer getting busted on a minor charge. Scale of the investigation being another. Multiple jurisdictions involved, county, state, etc can all mean state and federal take jurisdiction. That leads to your RICO argument. RICO can be used and IMO can be an effective tool. Prosecuting under RICO requires a lot of time, resources and evidence. Any of which can disappear at any given time. Proving a conspiracy theory is a whole lot harder than just talking about one. Perhaps a subject for a new thread?
I agree the drug problem is not being handled well or very effectively. I doubt there's a LEO that could disagree too much with that either. But, they are out in the trenches every day so to speak and doing the best they can with what they have to work with. How the problem can be fixed or improved, I don't know and I doubt it can be unless human nature can be changed. Again, maybe you should start a new thread?
by yellowrose of Texas on 30 June 2011 - 04:06
LMAO! He has as much experience with SWAT teams and police tactics as he does with working dogs. But, YR said he has a PHD that makes him a genius and an expert on everything.
Slamdunc:
YES YR says he has a PHD !
THE problem you have is , and others, is that you have no idea how many other degrees PRESTON holds, nor do you have knowledge of his VAST holdings on boards, COMMITTEES< and > nor do you have knowledge of WHAT RESEARCH and INTErNSHIP , or DOCTRATE he held to treat, witness, counsel and TREAT , \the likes of all the kinds of people he just posted about.
I DO
OBVIOUSLY I am not DUMB enough or NIEVE enough to come on a place where I know several well know HATE MONGERS are gonna mention YR , YELLOWROSE SAID THIS OR CLAIMS THIS>>>> and make a statement I did not know to be an ABSOLUTE>
SEE I run my life on positives and I run from negatives..SO
I am honoured that a LAW enforcement man, who of course. will next say I have no knowledge about...NOT>>> claims to try to deface my one and only fact I contributed to the thread.
GOT news for you..or anyone else. WE have a person on this board who continues to be as anynomous as he can be so why would PRESTON fall at your knees and disclose what he is or where he put his many years of experience in , to know all this..NOT ON MY LIFE>>>HE WILL NOT>>> never.......at least he is legit..
HAVE A WONDERFUL NIGHT AND HOPE YOU JUST DO NOT WORRY THAT PRESTON IS NOT FIT FOR YOU TO READ THIS THREAD...THEN WHY ARE YOU READING AND POSTING AND THEN MENTIONING EVERYONE YOU CAN TO DEFACE THEM OR PRESTON...LET HIM POST...NO SKIN OFF YOU TINY HINEY!!
by Preston on 30 June 2011 - 05:06
Mobjack, very good points. The most experienced retired and most highly decorated law enforcement officer I know who worked his way up to detective in the NYPD told me he thinks that good surveillance and arrests away from the home are the way to go. But this means more money spent on police, more police and more community support. That was his informed opinion. He made many arrest like this. There is a time and place for use of S squads and one way mirrors when armed robberies get out of hand.
Of course for regular police to go to the Marines' front door with a warrant and knocking to inspect the premises is not plausible. Maybe better to get a warrant for electronic measures and then exercise the warrant when no one is home. The technology exists and can be used but it does cost money. If the feds are called in jurisdictionally it gets easier since they have access to much more sophisticated electronic surveillance measures. It all comes down to money and time. Nobody wants to believe what I have asserted about Govt and intel corruption is true. I wish it wasn't, but it is the root cause of a great deal of the urban warzone situation regarding illegal drug gangs.
I think there are far to many serious and lethal mistakes with the use of swat. There is a better way but it takes more money and a commitment by management and govt to change things. I have been told by experineced law enforcement that as long as the SE borders are open, the US Govt and intel supports, trains and arms the cartels, and as long as certain wall stree banks launder huge amounts of drug money, the drug problem with be out of control.
In many depts police are victims themselves of this urban warzone and the lack of proper police resources and staffing, accompanied by poor upper management and lack of community support. There is a feedback loop at play, where mistrust by the community breeds anger and frustration by police and increased abuse, which then breeds more public distrust of the police and abusive attitudes towards the police. This eventually leads to negative attitudes by the police for the public and vice-versa and in the past makes violence towards police more likely from marginal folks. Poverty, lack of jobs, low educational levels and lots of illegal drugs is a formula for lots of urban problems and the police get caught right in the middle of it. In my city there are usually at least a couple hundred armed and violent felons out each night in bars, anyone of which can be a serious threat to the police or the public in the right circumstance. Not an easy situation for police and one that can ceate bitterness and anger towards the public in general or anyone on the other side of the thin blue line.
Of course for regular police to go to the Marines' front door with a warrant and knocking to inspect the premises is not plausible. Maybe better to get a warrant for electronic measures and then exercise the warrant when no one is home. The technology exists and can be used but it does cost money. If the feds are called in jurisdictionally it gets easier since they have access to much more sophisticated electronic surveillance measures. It all comes down to money and time. Nobody wants to believe what I have asserted about Govt and intel corruption is true. I wish it wasn't, but it is the root cause of a great deal of the urban warzone situation regarding illegal drug gangs.
I think there are far to many serious and lethal mistakes with the use of swat. There is a better way but it takes more money and a commitment by management and govt to change things. I have been told by experineced law enforcement that as long as the SE borders are open, the US Govt and intel supports, trains and arms the cartels, and as long as certain wall stree banks launder huge amounts of drug money, the drug problem with be out of control.
In many depts police are victims themselves of this urban warzone and the lack of proper police resources and staffing, accompanied by poor upper management and lack of community support. There is a feedback loop at play, where mistrust by the community breeds anger and frustration by police and increased abuse, which then breeds more public distrust of the police and abusive attitudes towards the police. This eventually leads to negative attitudes by the police for the public and vice-versa and in the past makes violence towards police more likely from marginal folks. Poverty, lack of jobs, low educational levels and lots of illegal drugs is a formula for lots of urban problems and the police get caught right in the middle of it. In my city there are usually at least a couple hundred armed and violent felons out each night in bars, anyone of which can be a serious threat to the police or the public in the right circumstance. Not an easy situation for police and one that can ceate bitterness and anger towards the public in general or anyone on the other side of the thin blue line.
by bazza on 30 June 2011 - 09:06
I'll bet any money good old Yellow Rose (not) drilled holes in her Dyson too!!! lmao.
by ggturner on 30 June 2011 - 13:06
Irregardless of someone's experience or education, an international dog forum is not the place to promote conspiracy theories about law enforcement, the military, and the government.
by Ninja181 on 30 June 2011 - 14:06
Actually this is the "off topics side".
Talking Dogs is against the TOS here.
Just my $.02.
Talking Dogs is against the TOS here.
Just my $.02.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top