|
Police "not responsibe" for raiding wrong house | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 11:20:49 |
|
Sigh, well time to mark yet another state I will | by Imp | 2007-08-13 11:22:58 |
|
Why? | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 11:26:06 |
| No, the taxpayers should not. |
by JPaganel |
2007-08-13 12:51:22 |
| Take it out of the cops' paychecks. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Why? For following orders? (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 12:55:36 |
|
"I vas only vollowink orders!" | by SnArL | 2007-08-13 13:03:47 |
|
That's a silly argument | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 13:05:55 |
|
It wasn't an argument, it was a joke (n/t) | by SnArL | 2007-08-13 13:08:03 |
|
ahhh (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 13:13:40 |
|
No, for doing a shoddy job. | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 13:25:48 |
|
yeah, they should be. | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 13:37:08 |
|
Every lead should be validated. | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-08-13 13:56:06 |
|
To what degree? | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:01:53 |
|
SWAT teams don't advertise that they... | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-08-13 14:18:35 |
|
Then you're going to die. (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:20:26 |
|
So might a few good cops | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 14:30:58 |
|
Such is the risk *they* take. Every day. (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:32:06 |
|
Believe me I know | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 14:39:15 |
|
Verified to what degree? | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:40:52 |
|
Known violent person on premises | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 14:46:20 |
|
seems like all the more reason to me | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:50:55 |
|
Oh, I can see it now... | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 15:57:25 |
|
Any responsible gun owner isn't going to have | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 16:05:25 |
|
A prudent one will | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 16:45:44 |
|
Then you risk getting shot. | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 17:08:54 |
|
That's a risk regardless of who came in | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 17:18:41 |
|
then you can't hold them responsible for doing | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 17:48:48 |
|
Cops aren't trained to do that | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 18:22:11 |
|
Then the onus is on you, the gun owner | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 18:24:50 |
|
Oh the target is identified | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 19:28:25 |
|
Some times, yes (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 19:56:54 |
|
You don't get it: | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-08-13 21:18:50 |
|
You really don't get it, do you? | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-08-13 14:43:16 |
|
I do get it, just fine. | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:44:29 |
|
No one in this specific case... | by Menetlaus | 2007-08-13 15:50:36 |
|
I don't know if you're advocating the idea or the | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 16:03:22 |
|
Horse excrement. | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 14:22:27 |
|
I already said that (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:26:45 |
|
Already said what? | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 14:38:10 |
|
That they should be held to a higher | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:39:30 |
|
*wibble* | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 14:43:04 |
|
Quite easily. | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:49:04 |
|
A no-knock warrant is the override. | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 14:53:07 |
|
does anyone here know *why* though? | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:55:31 |
|
Well, maybe he just thought | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 15:00:27 |
|
Maybe so. Is there any evidence of that? (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 15:01:24 |