Comments on: Yer’ Monday Morning Roundup of Raid Stories

By: Rad Geek People’s Daily 2008-07-12 – No, seriously, I could swear the water in this pot is getting a little hotter… (#4)

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:10:11 +0000

[...] (Via Radley Balko 2008-06-23.) [...]

By: TruthNews.us » Blog Archive » Martial Law: A License to Loot, a Permit to Plunder

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:01:06 +0000

[...] clearly seen in — among other things — recruitment pitches like this one (courtesy of Radley Balko) from a SWAT team in Rome, Georgia. Sphere: Related Content [...]

By: Martial Law: A License to Loot, a Permit to Plunder | Alternative News Sources

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:43:09 +0000

[...] clearly seen in — among other things — recruitment pitches like this one (courtesy of Radley Balko) from a SWAT team in Rome, [...]

By: Martial Law: A License to Loot, a Permit to Plunder « THE EMERALD TRIANGLE NEWS MARIJUANA NEWS FROM MENDOCINO AND HUMBOLDT COUNTY

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:01:41 +0000

[...] can be clearly seen in — among other things — recruitment pitches like this one (courtesy of Radley Balko) from a SWAT team in Rome, [...]

By: Martial Law: A License to Loot, a Permit to Plunder « Kandylini’s

Martial Law: A License to Loot, a Permit to Plunder « Kandylini’s — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:50:47 +0000

[...] clearly seen in — among other things — recruitment pitches like this one (courtesy of Radley Balko) from a SWAT team in Rome, [...]

By: ohio newspaper

ohio newspaper — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:30:26 +0000

[...] rally against a proposed Castle Doctrine law. Presumably, such a law would not include the righthttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/06/23/yer-monday-morning-roundup-of-raid-stories/For many slaves, Ohio was the Promised Land Louisville Courier-JournalThe John Parker House in [...]

By: Dave Hummels

Dave Hummels — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:56:57 +0000

The fact that “law enforcement groups” (read police unions who have forgotten who their members are supposed to work for) would oppose Castle Doctrine legislation is truly pathetic. These laws protect potential vicitms of home invasion and their implementation would be an incremental step towards restoring the 4th Amendment. What the hell is so difficult about taking the time to announce “Police with a search warrant.” Why don’t you just come out and say, “we are above the law,” officers? Or, to paraphrase retired police chief Anthony Bouza, why don’t you just wipe your asses with the constitution. Then we would know where you really stand.

By: primus

primus — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:38:43 +0000

That’s nearly a quarter mill, not nearly a half mill.

By: Tokin42

Tokin42 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:01:13 +0000

Glad I missed these links earlier today, I would have spent my entire day irritable.

By: Packratt

Packratt — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:36:57 +0000

Here’s a wrong house raid story that came out of Yakima county, Washington a couple days ago.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008006146_apwawrongraid.html

Apparently, the cops hit a house a mile away from their intended target. They grabbed the homeowner out of his shower and wouldn’t let him get dressed or dry off when they took him into custody, only to figure out later it was the wrong house.

The good news… the county paid the poor guy nearly half a mill to settle.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:28:01 +0000

I don’t think the Castle Doctrine-opposing police need be so malign. They may think that people will shoot friends and family more often because of the law.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:29:53 +0000

And I’m supposed to be sympathetic towards these Jack-Booted Gestapo Thugs?

If the bad apples were actively punished and removed on a regular basis, if the “good” ones didn’t actively shield the bad ones, I might be. But now, fuhgetaboutit.

http://tinyurl.com/5ctoew

Here’s another one. I wouldn’t piss on a Chicago cop if he was on fire. The entire department has told the peasants in no uncertain terms that our help is neither wanted nor necessary. Wonder why ‘cop-killer’ rap is so popular? The entire set of links is a good reason.

By: gospazha

gospazha — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:15:52 +0000

So why would they oppose allowing people to defend their homes from criminals? The law excludes the right to shoot officers who lawfully enter one's home. I think the police union opposes the law because it might allow people to shoot police who unlawfully enter their homes. We can't have THAT possibility, can we?

By: Josh K

Josh K — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:08:01 +0000

Nando:

The article is titled “Silence Speaks Louder”. It’s an editorial.

Here’s a link: http://tinyurl.com/5rv8zj

By: Nando

Nando — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:58:40 +0000

Radley, the second to last bullet about the The Fairfield Minuteman newspaper doesn’t have a link to anything.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:51:56 +0000

I’m starting to think the Warren-Court era is going to appear, retrospectively, as a brief Golden Age of police as subordinate to the citizenry. In most of history, police work has been autocratic, self-serving and corrupt. That’s true even in most of American history. I did a fair amount of skimming through SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME last week in Borders, which was all about how police in the South spent literally decades using arbitrary arrest powers to capture and sell tens of thousands of black men into servitude. And there were all the abuses that led to the Exclusionary Rule and Gideon in the first place. But since the late 1970s, we appear to have been in a long counter-revolution by law enforcement to restore its own impunity. Now they don’t sell people any more, but civil-asset forfeiture means they can make a tidy profit taking your stuff. The Exclusionary Rule has been whittled down to a polite fiction. “Testilying” has entered the lexicon. And just in the last few years, the arrogance of LE officials seems to have gotten more open and preening.

By: Observant Bystander

Observant Bystander — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:48:56 +0000

I didn’t hear the police announce themselves before entering the homes in the recruitment video.