freeatlast
New Member
Another case of excessive force...
http://news.yahoo.com/swat-teams-shooting-marine-causes-outrage-184928360.html
http://news.yahoo.com/swat-teams-shooting-marine-causes-outrage-184928360.html
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
SWAT team's shooting of Marine causes outrage
- Thread starter freeatlast
- Start date
I remember hearing about this when it first happened.
Its a messed up story. One of the sad things is that many in the police departments think that displays of excessive force are both warranted and justifiable. They aren't.
There are tons of unanswered questions about this shooting, just like with some others. The whole approach seems wrong. Why send in an armed SWAT team to flash-bang the house, breakdown the door, and fire 72 times? Why not follow normal procedure on a search warrant and give the benefit of the doubt to the suspect?
The police seem to have already had their minds made up about the culpability of the suspect with no real evidence to justify their attacks. Of course they the attempt to hide behind standard rhetoric and justify their excessive force.
Listen, I respect and appreciate the service of those who work in the police forces. They aid our communities and keep us safe and protected. Yet displays like this hurt their reputations across the board.
Reminds me a lot of this story: http://www.ajc.com/news/family-seeks-answers-after-129819.html
And a little bit like this: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/26/justice/arizona-walmart-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Its a messed up story. One of the sad things is that many in the police departments think that displays of excessive force are both warranted and justifiable. They aren't.
There are tons of unanswered questions about this shooting, just like with some others. The whole approach seems wrong. Why send in an armed SWAT team to flash-bang the house, breakdown the door, and fire 72 times? Why not follow normal procedure on a search warrant and give the benefit of the doubt to the suspect?
The police seem to have already had their minds made up about the culpability of the suspect with no real evidence to justify their attacks. Of course they the attempt to hide behind standard rhetoric and justify their excessive force.
Listen, I respect and appreciate the service of those who work in the police forces. They aid our communities and keep us safe and protected. Yet displays like this hurt their reputations across the board.
Reminds me a lot of this story: http://www.ajc.com/news/family-seeks-answers-after-129819.html
And a little bit like this: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/26/justice/arizona-walmart-arrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Last edited by a moderator:
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I have no clue why they sent the SWAT in the first place. That wasn't explained in the article. But if someone points an AR15 in my direction, and says, "I have something for you", I am going to shoot him. I don't care if the weapon is on safe.
71 shots does seem like overkill unless an officer tripped as was stated in the article, and the others thought he was shot. In this situation the force the SWAT team used was definitely warranted.
My problem, again, is why was the SWAT team sent at all? There has to be more to the story than is being reported. No one sends a SWAT team to break down a door to serve a search warrant because someone was caught with marijuana. They said that he was suspected of being muscle for a drug ring, but even then, the police don't send SWAT in for a search.
Conclusion: The force SWAT used was not excessive. However, based upon what information we have, SWAT usage was excessive.
71 shots does seem like overkill unless an officer tripped as was stated in the article, and the others thought he was shot. In this situation the force the SWAT team used was definitely warranted.
My problem, again, is why was the SWAT team sent at all? There has to be more to the story than is being reported. No one sends a SWAT team to break down a door to serve a search warrant because someone was caught with marijuana. They said that he was suspected of being muscle for a drug ring, but even then, the police don't send SWAT in for a search.
Conclusion: The force SWAT used was not excessive. However, based upon what information we have, SWAT usage was excessive.
freeatlast
New Member
No matter how it is labeled it is excessive force. Just based on the article this did not require this kind of force of and that means the actions they took was murder and not justifiable.Tis is an extension of the David Koresh thing where the government murdered women and children along with men and justified it all because of bad policy. It is no different then if someone is robbing someone else using a gun. Even if the person being robbed pulls a gun and gets shot the robber cannot claim self defense. Basically that is what happened here. This is what our military is fighting and dying for. Freedoms for other nations while ours is being eroded and you can bet that there was a large contingent of ex-military involved in this murder.
Last edited by a moderator:
(sigh)
I was gonna let it go, honest, I was, because it was excessive force. Four SWAT members with .40 pistols, and one with an assault rifle; the pistols most likely had 15-round magazines, and the rifle most likely had a 30-round magazine. 71 shots out of 90 rounds means a couple of them were reloading magazines. And with the fact that they couldn't have seen any muzzle flashes from a commercially available semi-automatic weapon that evidence shows was on "safe," and therefore couldn't have been fired. . .I used to teach Air Foce security specialists, and our golden rule for busting into a structure and shooting at suspects was "if you shoot once, shoot twice; but after that, you better be looking for something to get behind." So at most, I can justify, in my opinion, 10-20 shots. Not 71.
So yeah, I believe it was excessive force. So I was gonna let this one go. But then you had to resort to unfounded, unsubstantiated claims again. . . .
I was gonna let it go, honest, I was, because it was excessive force. Four SWAT members with .40 pistols, and one with an assault rifle; the pistols most likely had 15-round magazines, and the rifle most likely had a 30-round magazine. 71 shots out of 90 rounds means a couple of them were reloading magazines. And with the fact that they couldn't have seen any muzzle flashes from a commercially available semi-automatic weapon that evidence shows was on "safe," and therefore couldn't have been fired. . .I used to teach Air Foce security specialists, and our golden rule for busting into a structure and shooting at suspects was "if you shoot once, shoot twice; but after that, you better be looking for something to get behind." So at most, I can justify, in my opinion, 10-20 shots. Not 71.
So yeah, I believe it was excessive force. So I was gonna let this one go. But then you had to resort to unfounded, unsubstantiated claims again. . . .
I'll take that bet. Now show proof of your statement, or apologize for making a claim for which you have no proof, and thus falls into the category of slander or gossip.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
i am going to have to change my stance on this. After reading Don's post, I realized I somehow missed that 4 of them had pistols. In this case, yes, 71 shots was definitely excessive force.
I still don't understand why you flashbang a place and go in for a search warrant with, literally, guns drawn, ready, and blazing when you know that the prime suspect is a former infantryman in the Marines.
I asked a buddy of mine who is over the tactical response team for our local city police department and he says this is a textbook on how not to do it. There's a lot of chatter in his world about how badly this was executed (no pun intended.) He thinks they're getting ready to lose a lot of money in a civil suit.
Also, and this is incidental, but how ironic is it that this is over a negligible illegal substance...pot. One state over its legal "medically." Here it isn't and that could be reversed with the stroke of a pen tomorrow. I get that you enforce the laws on the books and I affirm that we should. Yet how odd is it that after the next election cycle this whole law could be off the books and this event would never happen again. Sort of like things that went on during prohibition.
I asked a buddy of mine who is over the tactical response team for our local city police department and he says this is a textbook on how not to do it. There's a lot of chatter in his world about how badly this was executed (no pun intended.) He thinks they're getting ready to lose a lot of money in a civil suit.
Also, and this is incidental, but how ironic is it that this is over a negligible illegal substance...pot. One state over its legal "medically." Here it isn't and that could be reversed with the stroke of a pen tomorrow. I get that you enforce the laws on the books and I affirm that we should. Yet how odd is it that after the next election cycle this whole law could be off the books and this event would never happen again. Sort of like things that went on during prohibition.
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
I am in agreement that this was excessive use of force. However, I cannot tolerate exaggeration even if I am in agreement. Yelling "police" in two languages, then breaking in, and then after 8 seconds shots start firing is not "guns blazing". Secondly, there's nothing in the report I read (the link in OP) about a flash bang. Lastly, if there were cause to flash bang / break in (not saying there was), then you would definitely go in with guns drawn and at the low ready, raising them to high ready upon entering the door. That's common room clearing.
Again, I agree that the use of force was excessive. However, let what they did speak for itself, don't try and make it sound worse by adding your own spin.
Last edited by a moderator:
That you keep repeating this mantra of yours, ignoring repeated calls for proof by those you insult with this drivel, shows you to be a troll who is being intellectually dishonest.
Whatever the cause of your bitterness, whether it be the military or law enforcement or individuals here on this forum, you should make peace with it.