|
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 |
| yeah, they should be. |
by subbywan |
2007-08-13 13:37:08 |
any profession where you actively risk your life should have exceptions others don't.
Plus, there's no realistic way to fine just the cop.
1) they don't make enough to even partially cover a law suit.
2) Remove that protection, and they may just sit back until they have absolutely confirmation of activity, which may result in a LOT more people getting harmed, because the evidence against whoever is doing it isn't rock solid.
Ideally, every lead should be verified before acted upon. the reality is that time is not always on the cops side, verifications can also fail, etc.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
