Posted on 09/25/2012 9:04:13 AM PDT by AAABEST
Clearly, he was facing a real threat.
To be fair, if you Google it, a LOT of places took this story and ran it as current this week.
“Do alkies run things now, since their drug is legal? “
I don’t think so, since public drunkenness is normally illegal.
I suppose some successfully hide it, like other addicts. But I doubt they can do it forever. If they can hide it, like any other crime, they don’t get caught, obviously.
Do alkies run things now, since their drug is legal?
I don’t think so
Then why would the legality of drugs other than alcohol lead to "junkies, acid freaks and meth heads running things"?
To be fair I can see how someone innocently posted it on FR. However, it's viral spread shows how much astroturfing there is by the "cop haters" on the Internet.
“Then why would the legality of drugs other than alcohol lead to “junkies, acid freaks and meth heads running things”? “
Because there is no “moderate use” of heroin, LSD, or methamphetamine.
You take those to fly, not to get a tiny little bump of some kind.
Whereas moderate use of alcohol is the normal and usual use. My mom has wine with dinner every night. She is never high and is in full possession of her faculties. Were she to smoke a bowl every night I would not be able to say the same thing. Or, were she to take an acid tab or snort some meth.
Huge difference.
Because there is no “moderate use” of heroin, LSD, or methamphetamine.
What does (im)moderate use have to do with "running things"? Is the immoderation of their use what will allow junkies, acid freaks and meth heads to run things? If so, why aren't immoderate users of alcohol running things already?
“What does (im)moderate use have to do with “running things”? I”
Let’s take for example a supervisor at Exxon. He has a martini with his lunch, two glasses of wine with his dinner, and on the weekend he has three beers while watching a football game.
His sanity is untouched. He is in his right mind at all times. He does not hallucinate. He does not get paranoid. Etc. He is actually benefited from some nutrition and some health benefits from the drinks, unless he is allergic to it or something.
Now let’s have him smoke pot every day at lunch, snort Coke after dinner, and shoot smack on Saturdays.
Is there a difference in his ability to remain sane, to make rational decisions, to interact with people humanely, to stay in touch with reality? Of course there is.
I don’t expect police to go in guns blazing. But I don’t expect police to stand there when they are being shot at
Neither do I, but I *DO* expect the officers to be criminally charged and tried for manslaughter. And I also think that whoever *swore* before the Judge to get the warrant issued should be criminally tried and charged with homicide (not manslaughter).
If it wasn't for some idiot's malfeasant sworn oath on a warrant, erroneously detailing the place(s) to be searched and the item(s) to be seized, this homicide would not have occurred. The error was *completely* avoidable; there was no mention of any exigent circumstances involved. He either failed to validate the information or he lied on the warrant. It's one or the other. Either of those should be criminal felonies all by themselves (if there was such a thing as "true" justice).
I've always believed that whoever obtains the warrant should be on the entry team. Period. They can put him last in line and wrap him in kevlar if he's a desk-jockey, but he needs to be in an on-site position to visually verify the target & point it out to each entry-team member before the curtiledge is ever crossed, allowing no-one to proceed until everyone has a clear understanding of the target and the warrant. And if *anything* goes wrong, that person who obtained the warrant is personally liable, with no immunity, for the actions of each and every person who commits an error (either innocently or otherwise).
If they can't make that commitment, then they have no business serving forced-entry warrants in my opinion.
Utterly irrelevant to your claim that the legality of drugs other than alcohol would lead to "junkies, acid freaks and meth heads running things."
“My brother is a retired police officer. They are permiitted to fire back when fired upon. They were given the wrong address, and by all accounts they did identify themselves.”
Breaking into a house with guns is a very dangerous activity. They should be held criminally accountable if wrong, even if merely negligenct. In fact, it should be a capital offense.
“No, they did not deserve to die. The homeowner fired first, without determining whether or not he was facing a real threat.”
You’ll make a fine Obama storm-trooper boot licker. Anyone breaking into a house with guns is a “real threat.”
Shame the innocent man had to die instead of the criminal police whose idiocy caused the problem.
Supposedly, this tragedy occurred in October of 2000. Also the cops had a warrant with this address on it (the warrant was wrong, but that didn’t seem to be their fault, or at least nothing in the story says they were involved with it).
They knocked on the door. The people inside said they heard the knocking, but didn’t listen. The police say they identified themselves and broke in the door. The woman doesn’t say they didn’t.
When they came in, the man shot at them with a shotgun. They returned fire. As far as I know, the woman doesn’t dispute this.
I certainly don’t expect police to go in guns blazing. But I don’t expect police to stand there when they are being shot at, either.
Also, maybe Rush just wasn’t aware of the incident.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.