|
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 |
|
Why? For following orders? (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 12:55:36 |
| No, for doing a shoddy job. |
by JPaganel |
2007-08-13 13:25:48 |
And the prime candidate for having a pay cut is the guy who issued the orders. The information either was not verified or not verified well enough. That is poor performance.
Most people face consequences for not performing their jobs properly. Cops are an exception, but they should not be. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
