[QUOTE=ossumsauce;48550021]holy
fucking
shit
for starters police officers are NOT FUCKING SOLDIERS
the second we consider the police on par with the military, is when we have a fantastic reason to start being afraid of the police. The fact that a SWAT team was used to conduct a raid on an apartment building searching for drugs or something with no intel if there was any kind of weapon on the premises at all is absurd and a gross misuse of resources. But above all, SWAT members are police officers FIRST, SWAT members second. They're not soldiers. They're cops. Nor is this a video game where some commander, callsign Overlord, is harping in your ear the entire operation telling you what to do from the central command center. These are supposed to be trained professionals with the ability of critical thinking, not lackeys with the inability to think for themselves.
And are you seriously equating a US citizen with religious militant extremists conducting suicide bombing operations or ambushes with automatic weapons in a foreign country against an organized military using state of the art equipment, with access to mobile artillery and fighter jets? Do you not get how fucked up that is? She was literally bare-ass naked, on the ground, visibly cowering from the men in body armor and semi-automatic rifles. It takes a good 3 seconds to tell that she's unarmed, and they "frisk" her anyways. In front of her kids. Grounds for sexual assault charges or not, it was undoubtedly extremely demeaning and embarrassing.[/QUOTE]
I am not saying it wasn't demeaning and embarrassing. Just saying it waant sexual assault.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;48546467]SWAT should never be deployed for anything lower than an armed stand off, but for some reason they're being deployed for search warrants of all things. I wonder who you have to write and how many times to stop this from happening again.[/QUOTE]
They gotta justify their existence.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48548825]I don't know if there is a reason, there just isn't. There's no federal police force or federal police standards. Cities and Towns just make their own, same for States.[/QUOTE]
Uhh... U.S. Marshals are our federal law enforcement agency. They are the oldest law enforcement agency in the country. They run the Witness Protection Program and serve federal arrest warrents.
Here's another time an officer used a trusted source and now defends the lack of actual intelligence after they raid the wrong damn house
[editline]27th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48548825]I don't know if there is a reason, there just isn't. There's no federal police force or federal police standards. Cities and Towns just make their own, same for States.[/QUOTE]
Well the DoJ is officially in charge but ya they only ever do anything after the fact and there's no agency specifically there to check on police policy
[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;48547353]That and it seems to me there are a lot of guys who want to play pretend special forces but didn't have the willpower or were too risk adverse to actually go join those units. I see a lot of obese guys on these teams now, and you have to wonder what standard, if any are they being held to?
There was a thread about this on a police forum, lots of these guys are even adopting special operations lingo like calling themselves "operators" and "assaulters", taking training courses in situations they will never face as police officers, which is all rather strange.
The original LAPD SWAT called themselves police officers....[/QUOTE]
SWAT officers aren't "pretend" anything. Calling them so is incredibly demeaning and disrespectful.
[QUOTE=Apache249;48552791]SWAT officers aren't "pretend" anything. Calling them so is incredibly demeaning and disrespectful.[/QUOTE]
So is strip searching naked women in front of their children.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48552827]So is strip searching naked women in front of their children.[/QUOTE]
Well you sure showed me and didn't miss the entire scope of my post. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Apache249;48553778]Well you sure showed me and didn't miss the entire scope of my post. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Scope of your post? Saying that all swat members are perfect? This article shows counter evidence, that was the point of the comment! :overyourhead:
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;48546467]SWAT should never be deployed for anything lower than an armed stand off, but for some reason they're being deployed for search warrants of all things. I wonder who you have to write and how many times to stop this from happening again.[/QUOTE]
SWAT gets used when a no-knock warrant is being served, because of the speed and intensity of the operation. No-knock warrants are used when there is substantial risk of the suspect destroying evidence, the typical example being by flushing drugs down the toilet.
A no-knock warrant requires a hell of a lot of justification to a judge, combined with observation over a period of days and weeks to verify the identity of the suspect and the location. When a mistake like this is made, it means someone on the police force really, really screwed up. It's not as simple as someone says a guy has drugs -> SWAT breaks down their door. There ought to be criminal repercussions for whoever botched the intel operation, but the SWAT team itself isn't to blame and they're not just doing these to justify their budgets.
[QUOTE=Apache249;48552791]SWAT officers aren't "pretend" anything. Calling them so is incredibly demeaning and disrespectful.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48553875]Saying that all swat members are perfect?[/QUOTE]
Are you physically incapable of comprehending plain English or what
What's so hard to understand about a criticism for swat forces if they can't even decipher when their intel is faulty, if you walk into a room with a half naked woman next to her children crying from your actions with no sign of fowl play, why on earth would you frisk her? You would have to be out of your mind to defend something that stupid on the part of these swat officers "by the book" or not.
[QUOTE=WarriorWounds;48554141]What's so hard to understand about a criticism for swat forces if they can't even decipher when their intel is faulty, if you walk into a room with a half naked woman next to her children crying from your actions with no sign of fowl play, why on earth would you frisk her? You would have to be out of your mind to defend something that stupid on the part of these swat officers "by the book" or not.[/QUOTE]
You should probably read the post I responded to before responding to mine.
They shouldn't be breaking down doors using no-knock warrants over drugs in the first place. That's the part that's completely asinine about this entire thing.
No matter how you feel about drugs, like even if you actually agree with prohibition of substances (which is ignorant and ridiculous, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt), any sane person should agree that these guys really should only be used for violent threats. Drug law enforcement should come along way, way, way down the list of priorities. And drug users / manufacturers / distributors wouldn't be ready to shoot at swat members if there were no prohibition laws in the first place, so this type of response should never be used in drug related situations because it just creates its own problems.
I know I'm being redundant but I think the central point that should be learned from events like this is that the only reason SWAT needs to act like a special forces operation and come in like soldiers with extreme prejudice is because the law states that otherwise nonviolent drug offenders need to be dealt with like domestic terrorists, prompting them to strengthen their own defenses in such a way that requires an extreme swat response. Get rid of the prohibition laws and all of this nonsense stops.
[QUOTE=J Paul;48554231]They shouldn't be breaking down doors using no-knock warrants over drugs in the first place. That's the part that's completely asinine about this entire thing.
No matter how you feel about drugs, like even if you actually agree with prohibition of substances (which is ignorant and ridiculous, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt), any sane person should agree that these guys really should only be used for violent threats. Drug law enforcement should come along way, way, way down the list of priorities. And drug users / manufacturers / distributors wouldn't be ready to shoot at swat members if there were no prohibition laws in the first place, so this type of response should never be used in drug related situations because it just creates its own problems.
I know I'm being redundant but I think the central point that should be learned from events like this is that the only reason SWAT needs to act like a special forces operation and come in like soldiers with extreme prejudice is because the law states that otherwise nonviolent drug offenders need to be dealt with like domestic terrorists, prompting them to strengthen their own defenses in such a way that requires an extreme swat response. Get rid of the prohibition laws and all of this nonsense stops.[/QUOTE]
Well, you should also consider the fact that drug dealers have to defend themselves against rival dealers/gangs as well as the police.
[QUOTE=Apache249;48554388]Well, you should also consider the fact that drug dealers have to defend themselves against rival dealers/gangs as well as the police.[/QUOTE]
But they only have to do so [I]because[/I] of the police. If the substances were legal (but regulated, like alcohol and tobacco - how many tobacco sting operations are there per year?), there would be no need for guns, as you could call the police to help defend yourself, like everyone else can.
There would still be an absolute need for swat, as there will always be gangs (and random hostage crises and other crazy shit), it's just now there will be an actual reason to break people's doors down because the gangs that still exist after the fall of drug prohibition would be doing actually terrible dirty criminal shit. The shit that police should actually be worried about in the first place.
[QUOTE=J Paul;48554435]But they only have to do so [I]because[/I] of the police. If the substances were legal (but regulated, like alcohol and tobacco - how many tobacco sting operations are there per year?), there would be no need for guns, as you could call the police to help defend yourself, like everyone else can.
There would still be an absolute need for swat, as there will always be gangs (and random hostage crises and other crazy shit), it's just now there will be an actual reason to break people's doors down because the gangs that still exist after the fall of drug prohibition would be doing actually terrible dirty criminal shit. The shit that police should actually be worried about in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but shouldn't the blame lie in the lawmakers, not the police then?
[QUOTE=kingcoolryan;48550075]You're right. Burn the SWAT teams at the stake for doing their jobs, they should be fired and put in jail for following procedures :suicide:[/QUOTE]
Please show me where i said that.
Don't put words in my mouth. And it's arguable that they were following procedures since you dont know 100% exactly what those procedures really are in such a scenario.
Anyways, like catbarf said, there's supposed to be a period of gathering/confirming intel before such a SWAT raid. Two reasons for this is to confirm the layout of the raid and give a chance for a plan to be made, and also to confirm that a SWAT raid is even necessary. Apparently neither thing happened. SWAT has a purpose, of course, but SWAT raids are becoming so common that it's not even seen as anything special anymore. I think part of that is that the reason SWAT became a thing was to deal with hostage situations and other high-profile, high-risk operations. Those really don't happen anymore like they did back when SWAT was first introduced as a concept. Either way, the fact that the intel gathering clearly didn't happen was A. the reason why the raid even happened at all, and B. the reason why this became a headline. It took the officers way too long to realize they didn't have the right place because they just assumed that it HAD to be the right place. That's why Swatting someone is effective; the police apparently don't check to confirm if the intel they're given is true or not.
[QUOTE=J Paul;48554231]They shouldn't be breaking down doors using no-knock warrants over drugs in the first place. That's the part that's completely asinine about this entire thing.
No matter how you feel about drugs, like even if you actually agree with prohibition of substances (which is ignorant and ridiculous, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt), any sane person should agree that these guys really should only be used for violent threats. Drug law enforcement should come along way, way, way down the list of priorities. And drug users / manufacturers / distributors wouldn't be ready to shoot at swat members if there were no prohibition laws in the first place, so this type of response should never be used in drug related situations because it just creates its own problems.
I know I'm being redundant but I think the central point that should be learned from events like this is that the only reason SWAT needs to act like a special forces operation and come in like soldiers with extreme prejudice is because the law states that otherwise nonviolent drug offenders need to be dealt with like domestic terrorists, prompting them to strengthen their own defenses in such a way that requires an extreme swat response. Get rid of the prohibition laws and all of this nonsense stops.[/QUOTE]
Drug dealers are xriminals that deal with gangs. Almost guaranteed to be armed.
They are exactly what SWAT is for. Armed threats.
Way to bring up your agenda here.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48548592]She was probably just asked to stand up and spread arms.
[editline]27th August 2015[/editline]
Where is the sexual part in that case?
There is nothing sexual about a police raid. Show me one sexual thing about the event.
No, not all actions towards a naked person are sexual. When you bathe your kid it's not sexual, when someone is searched in prison it's not sexual, when russians dive into frozen lakes naked every year its not sexual. If there was something sexual about that raid the media would already blow it out of proportion. If they didn't they just didbt get the chance, which proved my point.
And no, swat members dont realize they raided the wrong apartment. It's not their job to make such decisions. Treat them like soldiers. Soldiers dont get to decide what house they want to breakin and what they dont want to, what civilian to disarm and what to not disarm. Because lives are on stake. It may be laughable that a nude woman would do anything, but it's not like pregnant and old women didnt shoot and blow up US soldiers in afghanistan and iraq.
I wonder what bollocks info they were given. Still blaming the commander.[/QUOTE]
explain to me how you're supposed to search a naked person without assaulting them
[QUOTE=Sleepy Head;48557067]explain to me how you're supposed to search a naked person without assaulting them[/QUOTE]
By this logic washing a person is assault too.
You ask the person to stand up and spread thier arms, this way you see they werent hiding anything in their hands or on the floor below.
[QUOTE=Coridan;48551912]Uhh... U.S. Marshals are our federal law enforcement agency. They are the oldest law enforcement agency in the country. They run the Witness Protection Program and serve federal arrest warrents.[/QUOTE]
But they don't aimlessly patrol the streets of the country or respond to random calls, they have more specific duties.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48558537]By this logic washing a person is assault too.
You ask the person to stand up and spread thier arms, this way you see they werent hiding anything in their hands or on the floor below.[/QUOTE]
from oxford dictionary:
[quote] Frisk: [with object] (Of a police officer or other official) pass the hands over (someone) in a search for hidden weapons, drugs, or other items.[/quote]
with your definition, physical contact isn't necessary. however, the article clearly states frisk, which translates to physical contact. non-consensually touching a naked person quite well translates to assault.
washing someone usually involves consent.
This article gives next to no relevant information from any source besides the woman and her lawyer. I doubt the truthfulness of the situation given the sources, and I suspect this article was pubished with the hopes of taking advantage of anti-police sentiment to garner attention. I'd like to see some more detailed information on the incident before being outraged at what is reported to be a case of a female SWAT team member frisking a naked woman.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
