PDA

View Full Version : Leo more highly trained with firearms? Not always


YubaRiver
03-29-2010, 9:06 AM
Another botched killing during the war on drugs.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/23/another-senseless-drug-war-dea

Texas Boy
03-29-2010, 9:31 AM
Yep, I saw this too. I think the real story here is the "WAR" on drugs. Since it started (30 years now?), there has been a dramatic increase in the use of commando/military tactics by LE, implementation of laws that allow forfeiture of property without any court involvement, and a huge rise in the prison population.

I don't use nor condone "recreational" drug use, but agree with the reason article - we are paying a very high price to reduce drug trade/use. The parallels to prohibition are obvious, and societies "zeal" to stop anyone associated with illicit drugs will only lead to more innocent deaths. Just look at the data base of botched paramilitary police raids and note how many had something to do with the war on drugs (hint - almost every one):
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Final note: LEO's are NOT the issue here. The issue is society demanding a tougher stance on the drug trade (or continuing to elect politicians who do).

imtheomegaman
03-29-2010, 9:53 AM
I'm a bit confused, the officers saw him give a ride and money to the suspect who had just purchased drugs from an undercover. Isn't it somehwhat reasonable for them to assume he was buying dope from her?
The shooting seems like a tragic series of events, though (with the info given in the article and the video) I would not point blame at the officers or the pastor. Just sad.

Turo
03-29-2010, 9:59 AM
I'm a bit confused, the officers saw him give a ride and money to the suspect who had just purchased drugs from an undercover. Isn't it somehwhat reasonable for them to assume he was buying dope from her?
The shooting seems like a tragic series of events, though (with the info given in the article and the video) I would not point blame at the officers or the pastor. Just sad.

I would agree, it would seem reasonable. But, I don't think it would warrant a felony hot stop style ambush from undercover cops. I don't care who you are, if I see 3 guys jump out of a truck in plainclothes, and they started pointing guns at me, I'm getting the heck outta there as fast as I can! I say the police made a mistake on that one.
Even with the assumption that the guy just bought drugs from someone, that type of stop is unwarranted.

ETA: I don't mean to bash our law enforcement, by any means. I just feel that in this particular case these officers made a mistake performing this stop. My opinion is solely based on what I saw in the video, and nothing else.

ZombieTactics
03-29-2010, 10:00 AM
... Final note: LEO's are NOT the issue here. The issue is society demanding a tougher stance on the drug trade (or continuing to elect politicians who do). I dunno. I don't tend to think of officers as mindless automatons simply carrying out the orders of a bloodthirsty electorate ... and thus blameless for their actions.

Unless the officers in question no latitude as to how they are required to initiate a $50 drug bust, I'd say they have some explaining to do.

I also have serious problems with the he tried to run me down=use deadly force protocol. Too many times this seems to actually mean "I got bumped, so now I am emptying my mag into the vehicle".

The real problem I see is that LE have been denied a rational escalation of force over the years. It seems like they have only 2 options available: Harsh Language and then Shoot-to-Kill. All the escalating methods of force in between have been stripped from them by over zealous courts and legislatures. This is where the officers have my sympathies and understanding.

chsk9
03-29-2010, 10:03 AM
..............Final note: LEO's are NOT the issue here. The issue is society demanding a tougher stance on the drug trade (or continuing to elect politicians who do).

What are you talking about? LEOs are tasked with performing their job in a manner that is safe to the citizenry they are paid to protect!

A "tougher stance on drug trade" does not equate to "opps.. we shot the wrong guy...."

chsk9
03-29-2010, 10:09 AM
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/23/another-senseless-drug-war-dea

"District Attorney Brian Rickman praised the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for going to "very extraordinary lengths" to insure the investigation into the shooting was fair. But Abigail Ayers' civil suit (PDF) calls that assessment into question. The complaint alleges that Officer Harrison, the cop who shot Ayers, wasn't even authorized to arrest him. On the day Ayers was killed, Harrison had yet to take a series of firearms training classes required for his certification as a police officer. More astonishing, Harrison apparently had no training at all in the use of lethal force."

Amazing...

Doheny
03-29-2010, 10:09 AM
Based on the OP's title, comments and shady source, it appears his intent is to bash cops.

A little more research would have turned up this article (http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/mar/26/woman-linked-ayers-case-indicted-franklin-county-s/), which says in part:


The Stephens County grand jury ruled in December that the use of deadly force by Mountain Judicial Circuit undercover narcotics agents was justified. The grand jury also said that the officers involved in the shooting would be immune from criminal prosecution based on the facts presented.


Enough said.

k1dude
03-29-2010, 10:11 AM
Yep, I saw this too. I think the real story here is the "WAR" on drugs. Since it started (30 years now?), there has been a dramatic increase in the use of commando/military tactics by LE, implementation of laws that allow forfeiture of property without any court involvement, and a huge rise in the prison population.

I don't use nor condone "recreational" drug use, but agree with the reason article - we are paying a very high price to reduce drug trade/use. The parallels to prohibition are obvious, and societies "zeal" to stop anyone associated with illicit drugs will only lead to more innocent deaths. Just look at the data base of botched paramilitary police raids and note how many had something to do with the war on drugs (hint - almost every one):
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Final note: LEO's are NOT the issue here. The issue is society demanding a tougher stance on the drug trade (or continuing to elect politicians who do).

We have little choice but to continue the war on drugs. This tragic incident was a result of a crack buy. So should we legalize crack? Heroin? LSD? Meth? You can't or you'll wind up like China with opium. It literally destroyed their country.

China's problem didn't go away until they instituted the death penalty for traffickers. And they aren't afraid to use it. The problem went away overnight.

Even places like the Netherlands have a rapidly increasing crime problem. It has been attributed almost exclusively to drugs. So legalization isn't the solution.

The only truly effective solution seems to be in places like Singapore and China where the penalties are truly severe and they have the balls to follow through.

pbchief2
03-29-2010, 10:28 AM
I dunno. I don't tend to think of officers as mindless automatons simply carrying out the orders of a bloodthirsty electorate ... and thus blameless for their actions.

Unless the officers in question no latitude as to how they are required to initiate a $50 drug bust, I'd say they have some explaining to do.

I also have serious problems with the he tried to run me down=use deadly force protocol. Too many times this seems to actually mean "I got bumped, so now I am emptying my mag into the vehicle".

The real problem I see is that LE have been denied a rational escalation of force over the years. It seems like they have only 2 options available: Harsh Language and then Shoot-to-Kill. All the escalating methods of force in between have been stripped from them by over zealous courts and legislatures. This is where the officers have my sympathies and understanding.

I agree for the most part. Although recently there has been an active move toward non-lethal incapacitation. I say this as my friend was tased[sic?] 8+ times by officers last week. I am pretty sure they would have shot him if taser were not being employed. The vehicle thing is something I think requires further training.

POLICESTATE
03-29-2010, 10:31 AM
I'm a bit confused, the officers saw him give a ride and money to the suspect who had just purchased drugs from an undercover. Isn't it somewhat reasonable for them to assume he was buying dope from her?


It could be, but then it's just as reasonable to assume that he was just giving her a ride somewhere. People give friends, co-workers and other people rides to places all the time, it's not like I frisk my friends before they get in the car. :rolleyes:

As for the money, probably was for drugs, still though it's very reasonable to assume it was pay back for a loan, or to buy something for them at a store, etc...

yellowfin
03-29-2010, 10:38 AM
For society supposedly demanding a "tougher stance on the drug trade" why is no regard given to the actual results? If we're arresting more and more people and filling up the prisons, isn't that supposed to work? Isn't there supposed to be less drugs and drug related crime? Yet there is more. If I ordered a pizza and got delivered an empty box, I think I'd notice. Why no notice of the difference here? For what we're paying you'd think it'd be worthwhile to check the box and see if the pizza is actually there.

nick
03-29-2010, 10:48 AM
For society supposedly demanding a "tougher stance on the drug trade" why is no regard given to the actual results? If we're arresting more and more people and filling up the prisons, isn't that supposed to work? Isn't there supposed to be less drugs and drug related crime? Yet there is more. If I ordered a pizza and got delivered an empty box, I think I'd notice. Why no notice of the difference here? For what we're paying you'd think it'd be worthwhile to check the box and see if the pizza is actually there.

It's the same as with "gun control" - results matter much less than "feeling good about what that guy's doing". Just look at the debates on "gun control" each time an article is posted on a major news site. Most anti arguments boil down to "I have the right to FEEL safe" as opposed to actually being safe.

cortayack
03-29-2010, 11:09 AM
We have little choice but to continue the war on drugs. This tragic incident was a result of a crack buy. So should we legalize crack? Heroin? LSD? Meth? You can't or you'll wind up like China with opium. It literally destroyed their country.

China's problem didn't go away until they instituted the death penalty for traffickers. And they aren't afraid to use it. The problem went away overnight.

Even places like the Netherlands have a rapidly increasing crime problem. It has been attributed almost exclusively to drugs. So legalization isn't the solution.

The only truly effective solution seems to be in places like Singapore and China where the penalties are truly severe and they have the balls to follow through.

Crime has gone up all over Europe. Could drugs be the problem or part of the problem, most likely. But most of their crime went up after Europe became unitfied with open borders aka European Union...So places which had little crime how have raising criminal activty....

RideIcon
03-29-2010, 11:43 AM
Based on the OP's title, comments and shady source, it appears his intent is to bash cops.

A little more research would have turned up this article (http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/mar/26/woman-linked-ayers-case-indicted-franklin-county-s/), which says in part:



Enough said.


This article is a few paragraphs, and mostly talks about the drug investigation involved, and really has nothing to do with the murder of a pasture except for a 2 paragraphs where he was mentioned.

jmlivingston
03-29-2010, 11:56 AM
Thread closed. This subject appears to be off-topic for the "2nd Amend. Politics and Laws" forum.

I'm willing to consider re-opening this thread if somebody can PM me with a reasonable explanation why they think that this is an appropriate section of CGN for this discussion. I don't see how drugs, cops, and a bad shooting make this a 2nd Amendment topic, but I'm willing to listen.

John