The problem is they will claim it justifies thier actions, "See, this is exactly why we do it!!".... "We need even more, not less". Ruby Ridge, coming to mind for anybody????
The problem is they will claim it justifies thier actions, "See, this is exactly why we do it!!".... "We need even more, not less". Ruby Ridge, coming to mind for anybody????
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/crim...-raid-h/nPcW7/
And look what is the top story at slashdot:Quote:
It’s been almost two months since a SWAT team’s mortars, grenades and tear gas canisters peppered Melinda De La Torre’s Renton home of 15 years, as officers looked for a suspect who wasn’t there.
...
The team descended on De La Torre’s home on April 25 in a search for her son. Police said a woman had accused him of stealing from her and told police he was armed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...ws/?tid=pm_pop
Could that be a part of why they made that report from a small sample size?Quote:
Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws
A nice compilation if potentially biased interpretations.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...e_police_state
Quote:
A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
A part of me wishes I had never read that. Good catch on that article.
And this one is spot on with the thread:
Quote:
Legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police. Justices refused to hear Quinn v. Texas (2014) the case of a Texas man who was shot by police through his closed bedroom door and whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household.
More steps on the path...