How a SWAT team upended my baby’s life — and got away with it

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Zeke

The same is true today.

It's just hopelessly naive to do so in a society where you are attacked for enforcing compliance with law...

Kwitcher fucking whining will ya? If the job is that challenging for you, start practicing..."Ya want fries with that?"

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Kwitcher fucking whining will ya? If the job is that challenging for you, start practicing..."Ya want fries with that?"

Or be adamantly in whole support of personal protection at acceptable public risk.

Choices.

Directive One in protecting the public is remain alive to do so.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Or be adamantly in whole support of personal protection at acceptable public risk.

Choices.

Directive One in protecting the public is remain alive to do so.

Be very very careful. You can't have that as 'Directive One.' A value like that at the top of the list destroys all others.

Choices indeed.

"If I am only for myself, what am I?"

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Or be adamantly in whole support of personal protection at acceptable public risk.

Choices.

Directive One in protecting the public is remain alive to do so.

In your street justice model, the only one who remains alive is the one wearing a uniform.

[sheltiedave]

hey Zeke, did you see what bad policing causes? Did you notice the photo of that baby? Does that even make you pause and think before you trot out your dogma?

[Rajoo]

In case people missed it, this came out a couple of weeks back. Title says it all.

U.N. panel criticizes U.S. policy on police shootings, tortures

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...128-story.html

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Be very very careful. You can't have that as 'Directive One.' A value like that at the top of the list destroys all others.

Choices indeed.

"If I am only for myself, what am I?"

I see your point but -- I presume -- you perceive mine?

[donquixote99]

Yep, but you're deeply wrong in implying it has any application here.

Basically, if you think that to survive you have to throw explosives into dark rooms, with no good knowledge of who's in them, you're utterly failed in any supposed mission to 'protect society.'

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Yep, but you're deeply wrong in implying it has any application here.

Basically, if you think that to survive you have to throw explosives into dark rooms, with no good knowledge of who's in them, you're utterly failed in any supposed mission to 'protect society.'

You do the best investigation that you can and act accordingly using non-lethal devices too protect everyone.

Most of the time, that works out.

That's just the way it is.

If something broke here it was the investigation (deemed hasty by review) but the entry was still by spec.

1. Sucks.
2. Happens.

That's not callous, it's realistic.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

You do the best investigation that you can and act accordingly using non-lethal devices too protect everyone.

Most of the time, that works out.

That's just the way it is.

If something broke here it was the investigation (deemed hasty by review) but the entry was still by spec.

1. Sucks.
2. Happens.

That's not callous, it's realistic.

Oh, it's OK because you say (as if you know) that it was "by spec."

Let's say for a moment that it was indeed according to some written procedure. So where did that 'spec' come from? Was it handed to a prophet on stone tablets by God? Or did some people make it up?

'Specs' are not a certification of moral rightness. If they permit this, it just means we're dealing with institutional brutality, in additional to individual brutality. And I think the case for that is rather open-and-shut, with the mangled baby as evidence.

Nor does the 'non-lethal' designation impress me as true and authoritative, given this practical demonstration. These devices are obviously capable of causing serious bodily harm--enough to result in death, even if the child survived this time.

It is just about unbelievable to m that you continue to defend this military-type attack. How can ANY risk of death or serious bodily harm to innocent civilians be justified as a 'just in case' measure? There was NO RESISTANCE when the weapon was deployed, and no positive reason to expect armed resistance with deadly force. And nothing less than the actual existence of such armed resistance can justify throwing explosives into a citizen's home.

What you describe is the absolute definition of institutional brutality.