Comments on: Two More Isolated Incidents

By: markm

markm — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:47:59 +0000

“how thoroughly could they possibly have searched this informant if he was able to hide drugs in his clothing?” Due to the ridiculously tiny quantity of drugs required to “justify” breaking into someone’s home, I don’t expect the police can be sure an informant isn’t carrying drugs short of a strip search – including shining a light up his butt crack. And if they did that every time, there’d be almost no informants, and far fewer officers willing to work the narcotics squad.

Hey, I don’t see a problem with that…

The real problem is the sort of law they are trying to enforce. When crimes have victims, the cops don’t need to sneak around or make deals with known sleazebag criminals to discover when a law is being broken.

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:15:07 +0000

“Just count themselves lucky that the police did not plant contraband?”

Remember, the Katherine Johnson case exists only due to the massive civil outcry and a CI that went to the press and got protection before the police ‘took care of the problem.’ I would expect that police do plant evidence in cases where they believe the target has it coming.

Which makes the NY Time article highly disturbing. The police tend to act more like a street gang then a professional constabulary.

By: Whim

Whim — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:32:50 +0000

I wonder what degree and duration of Post-Traumatic Stress someone suffers when the police suddenly and unexpectedly knock down their door; storm into the premises yelling obscenities and brandishing weapons; sticking loaded and cocked firearms into people’s faces; body-slamming them to the ground; roughly cuffing the suspect’s hands behind their backs; standing with a boot on the suspect’s neck; tearing their premises apart; threatening them with arrest; questioning them at the point of a gun; finally, gathering up their personnel, and leaving the premises in a physical wreck, and the suspect in emotional wreck?

Just count themselves lucky that the police did not plant contraband?

By: La Rana

La Rana — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:49:28 +0000

uh oh. The tone is all wrong.

By: supercat

supercat — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:35:22 +0000

What we need are politicians who are “tough” on the crime committed by police.

To legally enter a person’s dwelling in the absence of exigent circumstances, a cop must have a warrant which he reasonably believes was issued on the basis of sworn testimony regarding personal knowledge (by the person swearing) sufficient to convince a reasonable person that (1) a specific discernible crime was probably committed, and (2) the search would probably yield evidence of such crime. Additional requirements apply for “no-knock” warrants.

A cop who enters a dwelling for purposes of assaulting (threatening force against) occupants without a reasonable belief of justification as described above is a robber. There is no reason society should tolerate robbers in uniform.

By: Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:40:45 +0000

“No solutions, just problems.”

Which we “solve” by a)throwing money at them and/or b) killing them.

Way to go, Feddies. Way to go. ‘Ray.

By: Edintally

Edintally — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:19:29 +0000

1 and 2,

There just isn’t enough measurable support for a politician to put his career on the line (yes, being an elected official is a career). Being seen as “tough on crime” can manifest a significant voting block. In order for there to be change, you would have to form a coalition capable of defeating the “tough on crime” coalition. Unfortunately, these types of things are seen as isolated incidents and because of that, lack support. We may be acutely aware of what is going on, but most people probably aren’t.

No solutions, just problems.

By: Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 22:05:13 +0000

“So when officers are known to lie to the press, can we assume that they are lying to the court?”

Is the bear Catholic? Is the pope a Nazi? I’m sorry, ex-Nazi. There. That better?

By: SusanK

SusanK — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:22:29 +0000

So when officers are known to lie to the press, can we assume that they are lying to the court?

By: Highway

Highway — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:16:09 +0000

I’ve asked that very same question here, Matt. The reasons I come up with why there aren’t are that 1) these stories really don’t get a lot of press, because I’d imagine the local papers and TV aren’t really interested in pissing off the cops, 2) people don’t really see this stuff as a threat to their person, even though that’s exactly what it is. They justify it by saying ‘oh, well, they were probably criminals anyway’ or ‘they’d never do that kind of thing here’. Well, people need to wake up, and realize that every two-bit town is getting its own SWAT team, and that this kind of major screwing up can happen anywhere. And if, heaven forbid, something goes wrong during a raid, someone’s life is going to be ruined. And the odds are good that it won’t be any of the cops, even though they CAUSE these situations in the first place.

So how about it, politicians? How about pandering to people who actually want to be SAFE in their homes from cops?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:56:24 +0000

There is a part of me that wonders why more politicians aren’t speaking out against these tactics. You would figure that a politician would get a lot of praise from a community that is constantly terrorized by its police force through bad information and over zealousness. Innocent Americans are getting abused so violent criminals can get better treatment. Is there a John Stossel story about this?