The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Police "not responsibe" for raiding wrong house by DesertRat66 2007-08-13 11:20:49
(story)
[ Reply ]
  Sigh, well time to mark yet another state I will by Imp2007-08-13 11:22:58
    Why? by subbywan2007-08-13 11:26:06
      Yeah. Because, God forbid they should actually by SnArL2007-08-13 11:29:53
        We have no idea if they did or didn't by subbywan2007-08-13 11:39:30
          Well, an apology is one thing by Imp2007-08-13 11:58:36
            Correct, we cannot by subbywan2007-08-13 12:01:26
          Seldom? by RetiQlum22007-08-13 11:58:52
            And that's happened to you how many times? (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 12:02:03
              About five total: by RetiQlum22007-08-13 12:09:08
                So 5 times out of about 2922 by subbywan2007-08-13 12:22:45
                  If one of my robots screwed up that much... by RetiQlum22007-08-13 13:29:37
                    Not at all. Machines *always* do the same thing by subbywan2007-08-13 13:39:00
                      Not at all. by RetiQlum22007-08-13 14:01:52
                        Depends on the decision. by subbywan2007-08-13 14:05:36
                          I thought the warrant was issued for the house by Menetlaus2007-08-13 14:26:46
                            I don't know. He brought up numbers by subbywan2007-08-13 14:28:01
                    That last sentence... O.o by theanomaly2007-08-13 13:49:12
          One obvious goof... by esbita2007-08-13 11:58:53
            Absolutely. by subbywan2007-08-13 12:02:33
          True, HOWEVER by SnArL2007-08-13 12:04:05
            Yes and no by subbywan2007-08-13 12:21:24
              I'm not talking about the outward appearance by SnArL2007-08-13 12:27:21
                *nods* that's how the whole neighbourhood by subbywan2007-08-13 12:28:37
                *tsk* no sense of efficiency or service. by esbita2007-08-13 12:28:41
                  Was it marked "Nice Dreams"? by SouthpawPL2007-08-13 12:30:27
                    What I wanted to know by esbita2007-08-13 12:33:31
                  We have, like, ice cream sandwiches, by SnArL2007-08-13 12:43:02
                He's right. I've seen it. by RetiQlum22007-08-13 12:36:02
      So, you'd have no problems if it happened to you, by othercomics2007-08-13 11:34:31
        Would scare the bejezuz out of me by subbywan2007-08-13 11:38:47
          Then maybe they should check before by othercomics2007-08-13 11:40:47
            Do you have any evidence they didn't? (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 11:42:08
              Can police easily check who lives there? by Menetlaus2007-08-13 11:51:08
                And we have no idea they didn't do that by subbywan2007-08-13 11:55:53
                  My point was... by Menetlaus2007-08-13 12:21:31
                    I'd day because perhaps sometimes you can by subbywan2007-08-13 12:23:38
                    If the cops scared my kids like that... by RetiQlum22007-08-13 12:41:55
      I agree. This seems to have been an honest mistake by raptillicus2007-08-13 11:35:07
        Making amends by othercomics2007-08-13 11:39:01
          That's not enough to sue over. by raptillicus2007-08-13 11:44:15
            The only thing I'd like to have seen done by subbywan2007-08-13 11:45:52
              I said above, I would expect that in the case of by raptillicus2007-08-13 11:52:14
            The suit aside... by Illiad2007-08-13 11:55:44
              Agreed... I wasn't even considering the lawsuit. by othercomics2007-08-13 12:04:35
              Exactly. The police have an almost impossible by Twitchh2007-08-13 12:07:30
                Maybe the Chief had a backlog of apology letters? by DesertRat662007-08-13 12:10:20
                  Heh. :-) (n/t) by Twitchh2007-08-13 12:11:38
                The first priority of any police organization by Peace_man2007-08-13 12:12:36
                  They don't protect anyone. by JPaganel2007-08-13 14:41:20
                    They protect everyone. by Peace_man2007-08-13 14:44:13
                      Police have no "Duty to Protect" individuals. by Twitchh2007-08-13 14:51:23
                        You have a sadly pessimistic view by Peace_man2007-08-13 15:06:59
                          It's not a "sadly pessimistic" view, ... by Twitchh2007-08-13 15:36:43
                            If you really believe that the police do not by Peace_man2007-08-13 15:43:53
                              Never mind - I'm off for now. See you tomorrow. (n (n/t) by Peace_man2007-08-13 15:51:13
                            Arguing with peaceman about this... by RetiQlum22007-08-13 21:27:29
      Honest mistake? by DesertRat662007-08-13 11:38:32
        As I said to snarl, we have no idea what they by subbywan2007-08-13 11:40:32
          What is important and unknown by DesertRat662007-08-13 11:52:11
            That's an assumption on our part by subbywan2007-08-13 11:54:56
              We do have at least some basis for a judgement by Saru2007-08-13 13:16:33
                I fully support scrutiny by subbywan2007-08-13 13:19:46
          It's becoming way too common. by lheggland2007-08-13 12:09:26
            Consider who they're going after. by subbywan2007-08-13 12:25:43
              Why? by JPaganel2007-08-13 15:54:25
                Absolutely not. (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 16:04:02
              Stopping drug dealers from flushing the evidence by lheggland2007-08-13 16:56:04
                That's a fair opinion. by subbywan2007-08-13 17:09:48
        I am not saying it wasn't a mistake by Imp2007-08-13 12:04:51
          Agreed (n/t) by DesertRat662007-08-13 12:06:37
      No, the taxpayers should not. by JPaganel2007-08-13 12:51:22
        Why? For following orders? (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 12:55:36
          "I vas only vollowink orders!" by SnArL2007-08-13 13:03:47
            That's a silly argument by subbywan2007-08-13 13:05:55
              It wasn't an argument, it was a joke (n/t) by SnArL2007-08-13 13:08:03
                ahhh (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 13:13:40
          No, for doing a shoddy job. by JPaganel2007-08-13 13:25:48
            yeah, they should be. by subbywan2007-08-13 13:37:08
              Every lead should be validated. by RetiQlum22007-08-13 13:56:06
                To what degree? by subbywan2007-08-13 14:01:53
                  SWAT teams don't advertise that they... by RetiQlum22007-08-13 14:18:35
                    Then you're going to die. (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 14:20:26
                      So might a few good cops by DesertRat662007-08-13 14:30:58
                        Such is the risk *they* take. Every day. (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 14:32:06
                          Believe me I know by DesertRat662007-08-13 14:39:15
                            Verified to what degree? by subbywan2007-08-13 14:40:52
                              Known violent person on premises by DesertRat662007-08-13 14:46:20
                                seems like all the more reason to me by subbywan2007-08-13 14:50:55
                                Oh, I can see it now... by JPaganel2007-08-13 15:57:25
                                Any responsible gun owner isn't going to have by subbywan2007-08-13 16:05:25
                                A prudent one will by DesertRat662007-08-13 16:45:44
                                Then you risk getting shot. by subbywan2007-08-13 17:08:54
                                That's a risk regardless of who came in by DesertRat662007-08-13 17:18:41
                                then you can't hold them responsible for doing by subbywan2007-08-13 17:48:48
                                Cops aren't trained to do that by DesertRat662007-08-13 18:22:11
                                Then the onus is on you, the gun owner by subbywan2007-08-13 18:24:50
                                Oh the target is identified by DesertRat662007-08-13 19:28:25
                                Some times, yes (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 19:56:54
                                You don't get it: by RetiQlum22007-08-13 21:18:50
                          You really don't get it, do you? by RetiQlum22007-08-13 14:43:16
                            I do get it, just fine. by subbywan2007-08-13 14:44:29
                              No one in this specific case... by Menetlaus2007-08-13 15:50:36
                                I don't know if you're advocating the idea or the by subbywan2007-08-13 16:03:22
              Horse excrement. by JPaganel2007-08-13 14:22:27
                I already said that (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 14:26:45
                  Already said what? by JPaganel2007-08-13 14:38:10
                    That they should be held to a higher by subbywan2007-08-13 14:39:30
                      *wibble* by JPaganel2007-08-13 14:43:04
                        Quite easily. by subbywan2007-08-13 14:49:04
                          A no-knock warrant is the override. by JPaganel2007-08-13 14:53:07
                            does anyone here know *why* though? by subbywan2007-08-13 14:55:31
                              Well, maybe he just thought by JPaganel2007-08-13 15:00:27
                                Maybe so. Is there any evidence of that? (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 15:01:24
  I, for one, am shocked! by justncase2007-08-13 11:44:03
  The one thing that occurs to me by SaylorA2007-08-13 11:47:31
  I see two problems here. by Peace_man2007-08-13 11:55:39
  No-knock warrants are bad, m'kay? by RetiQlum22007-08-13 12:06:21
    That's just selfish by subbywan2007-08-13 12:27:18
      So, what you're saying, is by leistico2007-08-13 13:31:36
        Largely, yes. by subbywan2007-08-13 13:41:20
          Then we need different cops. by RetiQlum22007-08-13 13:47:43
            Such is your choice. (n/t) by subbywan2007-08-13 14:06:39
              You have no idea what that means. by RetiQlum22007-08-13 14:27:09
                As I said, such is your choice by subbywan2007-08-13 14:29:15
                It would also, by extension, by krikkert2007-08-13 14:29:53
                  I'm pretty sure man used to live in the bush by Menetlaus2007-08-13 14:34:38
                    It may be possible, but is it desirable? by Peace_man2007-08-13 14:39:35
                      I'm with RetiQlum2 on this one. by Menetlaus2007-08-13 14:52:44
                  Easy peasy. by RetiQlum22007-08-13 14:50:25
                    If you're anywhere near the Great Lakes by subbywan2007-08-13 14:53:44
                      That statement is a few years out of date. by lheggland2007-08-13 16:48:50
                        well, they're still handing out information to by subbywan2007-08-13 16:52:42
                          That is one of the few places I would agree with. by lheggland2007-08-13 16:57:51
                            Yeah, Gary *still* smells funny. (n/t) by esbita2007-08-13 20:02:24
  I don't like the 'we are not responsible' stance. by aix tom2007-08-13 12:53:19
  is this racial, or classist? by Nightwind2007-08-13 20:01:38

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)