More SWAT stupidity - General

I think the dog was behind a gate, and all it did was bark.

[QUOTE=SmashJonXD;27131751]I think the dog was behind a gate, and all it did was bark.[/QUOTE] Only one dog was free, the little white one. Was a poodle i think or something ive seen i just cant remember the name.

[QUOTE=Episode;27131724]Theres a difference. Big dogs trained to attack. (VIDEO: small dogs confused and barking at police men HOYL FUCK A DOG BARK- *BOOM BOOM BOOM* IM SAFE NOW *whimpers to self*[/QUOTE] Why did you change your avatar? and you can't see the dog in the video so for the officer to shoot it you must assume it's acting aggresive.

[QUOTE=Fuhrer;27131787]Why did you chnage your avatar? and you can't see the dog in the video so for the officer to shoot it you must assume it's acting aggresive.[/QUOTE] I could see what the dogs were doing and i changed my avatar cuz xmas is over. So again what you were saying. If i invited you to my house and my dog started to bark at you, you would shoot it?

SWAT are heavily-armed and well-armored officers you'd send or see if there's confirmed knowledge of armed assailants, known criminals or so forth. They are specially trained for a multitude of circumstances. They should know proper restraint and that taking a possible suspect alive is more important than shooting their face. According to recent incidents, however, they'll shoot you in the face three times for bringing a golf club to the door, shoot a dog on sight if it happens to be coming near them, and are sent to bust a single guy who isn't armed for possessing a small amount of marijuana. People can argue what they want, and I won't call the government out on it, but it's a problem of the officer's survival mentality being mixed with the fact that he has a gun in his hands, is expected to point it with the safety off at least, and can take down any 'threats' with twitch of the finger. And due to their power, the SWAT can barely, if at all, be tried for any mistakes or careless actions. :sigh:

[QUOTE=Episode;27131834]I could see what the dogs were doing and i changed my avatar cuz xmas is over. So again what you were saying. If i invited you to my house and my dog started to bark at you, you would shoot it?[/QUOTE] The context would be different, I wouldn't be in a defensive mood and I wouldn't expect a dog to attack me or to have a random drug dealer pop out from another room and shoot at me. Because they do go through that. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RikohZX;27131858]SWAT are heavily-armed and well-armored officers you'd send or see if there's confirmed knowledge of armed assailants, known criminals or so forth. They are specially trained for a multitude of circumstances. They should know proper restraint and that taking a possible suspect alive is more important than shooting their face. According to recent incidents, however, they'll shoot you in the face three times for bringing a golf club to the door, shoot a dog on sight if it happens to be coming near them, and are sent to bust a single guy who isn't armed for possessing a small amount of marijuana. People can argue what they want, and I won't call the government out on it, but it's a problem of the officer's survival mentality being mixed with the fact that he has a gun in his hands, is expected to point it with the safety off at least, and can take down any 'threats' with twitch of the finger. And due to their power, the SWAT can barely, if at all, be tried for any mistakes or careless actions. :sigh:[/QUOTE] Well when you're policing 310 million people I would say SWAT teams are doing pretty good for only having 2 minor incidents these past few months.

Again, the conversation devolves into jabs over the details of the matter instead of the major theme. [u]The police should not have been there.[/u] A loose examination of the cause and effect leading to these home invasions: [list]A threat to the status quo causes insecurity within elements of the ruling class.[/list] [list]Moralistic imperative influences lawmakers into drafting legislation which outlaws recreational drug usage, protecting the people from themselves.[/list] [list]With said laws enacted, law enforcement is charged with enforcing them.[/list] [list]Black market distribution ensues with a concurrent rise in what is now a criminal element.[/list] [list]Law enforcement is expanded and specialized to combat said criminal element.[/list] [list]Demand for drugs expands to a saturation point, after which there is decreasing incentive for that criminal element to increase operations on a risk/reward basis.[/list] [list]Specialized branch of law enforcement continues to expand and now has to justify its own existence in the face of continually escalating costs and no significant progress.[/list] [list]Reduction in size of law enforcement is unpalatable politically, and the force with the guns losing jobs is a scare tactic in itself.[/list] [list]More aggressive measures are taken to publicly prove the necessity for an extensive domestic police system, resulting in more operations executed.[/list] [list]Citizens become fearful as they become arbitrarily targeted and are left with little recourse.[/list] [list]A blitzing barrage of propaganda states the case for the police force, contrary to what popular opinion is likely to have become.[/list] [list]The state devolves into totalitarianism and destroys its own constituents to stay in power.[/list] The progression is very insidious and slow at first. Toward the end, the changes occur very rapidly as government (whether it be a king, emperor, dictatorship, congress, etc) struggles to ensure there are no threats within its borders. Collapses have occurred this way many times throughout history and there is nothing to suggest that this time will be any different. The only thing that changes is the size of the governing body and the population. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RikohZX;27131858]SWAT are heavily-armed and well-armored officers you'd send or see if there's confirmed knowledge of armed assailants, known criminals or so forth. They are specially trained for a multitude of circumstances. They should know proper restraint and that taking a possible suspect alive is more important than shooting their face. According to recent incidents, however, they'll shoot you in the face three times for bringing a golf club to the door, shoot a dog on sight if it happens to be coming near them, and are sent to bust a single guy who isn't armed for possessing a small amount of marijuana. People can argue what they want, and I won't call the government out on it, but it's a problem of the officer's survival mentality being mixed with the fact that he has a gun in his hands, is expected to point it with the safety off at least, and can take down any 'threats' with twitch of the finger. And due to their power, the SWAT can barely, if at all, be tried for any mistakes or careless actions. :sigh:[/QUOTE] I couldn't agree with you more. I'd go the extra step to hold government accountable, though. The problem stems from archaic legality set forth by the ruling body.

read the description before u post fuher or whatever your name is. the dog who got shot was a corgi, and they are not dangerous at all.

[QUOTE=bazyboy;27132700]read the description before u post fuher or whatever your name is. the dog who got shot was a corgi, and they are not dangerous at all.[/QUOTE] Well it wouldn't shut up so it deserved to get shot.

[QUOTE=Mr.Cookie;27131707]They didn't have to kill it. Aren't police officers supposed to try and aim at less vital parts to take down their targets?[/QUOTE] police officers are trained to aim for centre of mass (i.e. the torso) as it's easy to hit and very likely to bring down the target. They are not to fire unless the situation warrants having to possibly kill someone to stop them. also, these violent raids aren't generally the fault of "trigger happy policemen" but rather the fault of whoever decided that the guy deserved a high-risk warrant. Someone has to decide whether to send a pair of officers and tell them "check up on these guys, will ya?" or to send a heavily armed team of 8 SWAT to break down the door and invade the house and tell them "they may be dangerous, open fire if necessary", and they seem to enjoy choosing the latter.

[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;27128578]It's a reflex. It may have been one of those guard dogs that chew the shut outa you.[/QUOTE] Yeah, i would shoot a family's dog to death even though i'm at no real risk from it hurting me:downs:

Who gives a shit about 2 dogs?

[QUOTE=Mr.Cookie;27131707]They didn't have to kill it. Aren't police officers supposed to try and aim at less vital parts to take down their targets?[/QUOTE] NO! Shoot not to kill, and they've still got a gun? You're probably going to get killed.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;27134642]NO! Shoot not to kill, and they've still got a gun? You're probably going to get killed.[/QUOTE] With a name like yours I can see why you think killing somebody's dog is righteous.

Why the fuck was the SWAT team even going to the house? Marijuana possession? That guy probably would've just let the police arrest him without trouble if all they sent was a single squad car. Fucking ridiculous, absolutely fucking ridiculous. They just elevated a nearly harmless situation. I mean look at that house, he has a wife a kid and a dog, this guy isn't some gangster fuck who's gunna run away at the first sight of a police car. Fucking Christ, shit like this just pisses me off. [editline]1st January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=The Combine;27134256]Who gives a shit about 2 dogs?[/QUOTE] You've obviously never owned a dog.

snip

[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;27128578]It's a reflex. It may have been one of those guard dogs that chew the shut outa you.[/QUOTE] They have body armor for a reason you know.

SWAT is trained to kill, not to shoot into legs or anything.

[QUOTE=Mr.Cookie;27135595]With a name like yours I can see why you think killing somebody's dog is righteous.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you smoking? I never said anything about the shooting of the dog.

[QUOTE=johan_sm;27136714]SWAT is trained to kill, not to shoot into legs or anything.[/QUOTE] Yes, to kill armed psychos or terrorists who won't hesitate to open fire, not dogs because some dude had a bit of weed. [QUOTE=DogGunn;27136839]What the fuck are you smoking? I never said anything about the shooting of the dog.[/QUOTE] Sorry, misunderstood what you were trying to say. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Shut the damn dog up! *bang bang* Don't worry about it...

The video is old, but it still gets me furious. Because a dog in a cage is definitely a threat to SWAT members wearing body armor. I'm surprised the team wasn't reading for noise to happen when you know, 8 people break into a house all yelling. On top of shooting the dog, the fact that they shot in a house where a bullet could've easily went through a wall and injured/killed one of the children.

[QUOTE=The Combine;27134256]Who gives a shit about 2 dogs?[/QUOTE] I seriously don't understand why people feel the need to post comments like this. You've clearly never owned any animal of any kind if you don't understand why someone would react like that if someone killed their dog. There's a reason why they're called "man's best friend." Not only that but they felt the need to kill a small dog when they have armored suits on with thick clothing that wouldn't be damaged by a dog of that size. You'd be surprised how much clothes would help you from a dog bite. I have the greatest shame unto any scum bag who kills any pet regardless of its species without a good reason.

[QUOTE=Amaurus;27136338]They have body armor for a reason you know.[/QUOTE] Ballistic armor. Not this: [img]http://www.bite-sleeve-schutzhund-arm-store.com/images/bite-suit-action-main-schutzhund-suite.jpg[/img] [editline]2nd January 2011[/editline] BTW Batman hates dogs.

ballistic armour is quite capable of protecting against a dog bite. although perhaps not to the same degree, since it has gaps in places where joints need to flex and stuff.

The guy who about to hit them with a golf club makes sense, but a dog? A fucking dog? Just no. I can't defend them. There is nothing anyone can say in their defense. And before the internet tough guys march in and say "it's a dog, no big deal," let me just say, humans are completely incapable of showing the amount of loyalty a dog shows. A dog will judge you on nothing and probably won't attack your or growl at you unless you are invading their territory. There's no reason to kill them. Seriously, do you think dogs like that are such a threat. You could easily carry some kind of tranquilizer if you think they're such a danger.

Holy shit a small house dog the size of a cat it's coming right for me! *Bang bang*. Phew I am safe now. That is pretty fucked up in my opinion.. If it was a larger dog like a German shepherd or something I'd understand, but not a small house dog...

Wow this really pisses me off. Even more so considering prop 19 failed to pass. We're heading in the wrong direction.

[QUOTE=Fuhrer;27140185] Batman hates dogs.[/QUOTE] Batman has a dog.

You'd think the cops with all that stuff on wouldn't really be hurt by a dog, and if theres like 2 of them they can easily restrain a dog just by holding it down