You think after awhile those in LE would get tired of the bad publicity and clean themselves up or check and double check. What is it that have prevented our departments here in Indy from having this happen, maybe we can learn from them?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
SWAT uses flashbang on sleeping 12-year-old girl
- Thread starter rambone
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
You think after awhile those in LE would get tired of the bad publicity and clean themselves up or check and double check. What is it that have prevented our departments here in Indy from having this happen, maybe we can learn from them?
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Good point. I seem to recall IPD having some problems and the accompanying black eye about 20 years ago. I also seem to recall the offending parties getting demoted to inmate. Seems to have worked.
Perhaps many do expect that. But others just simply expect one(and even themselves) to accept the responsibility that come with their profession, daily activities, driving, gun ownership, etc.
I don't demand perfection...that is unattainable. But gross negligence is not acceptable.
HeadlessRoland
Shooter
Archaic_Entity
Sharpshooter
- Nov 9, 2008
- 626
- 16
Again, I don't think anyone has argued that gross negligence is not acceptable. I'm still not grasping where the gross negligence is here. No one has answered, they've just decided to blame all involved on the side of the law.
Other way around in my world.
In every government controlled interaction, if perfection is not obtained I have to pay for it.
Archaic_Entity
Sharpshooter
- Nov 9, 2008
- 626
- 16
Perfection you say soo much perfection in piclast guy
I don't get it?
Archaic_Entity
Sharpshooter
- Nov 9, 2008
- 626
- 16
We can certainly discuss the merit of no-knock raids, and that's one thing, but that was never brought up in this topic of discussion (unless I missed it in your posts somewhere).
I would agree that no-knock raids cause a lot of problems, and may cause more problems than they solve, but if you're trying to dissect one-off instances with lawsuits and crying wolf, then you're really derailing your purpose. Getting people incensed is one thing, and getting them justifiably incensed is a good thing. I just don't see the point in posting a story about something that is blown way out of proportion, one-sided, and refuted by folks on here who (presumably) have more hands-on experience than either of us. Seems to me like focusing on the real tragedies would suffice better.
It's unfortunate that the girl suffered burns. But it's also unfortunate that she lives in a house that is even suspected of having a meth lab. A mistake happened, but no one has proven negligence of due diligence on the parts of the judges, the investigating officers, nor the SWAT officers.
Very well said! But, rambone classifies ALL warrants as no knock.
EvilBlackGun
Master
That judge who voted to make it illegal ...
.... for home-owners to resist w/ lethal force, the unlawful entry of LEO into an innocent person's home, is up for re-approval to retain his seat on the Bench. I suggest we de-employ him !!
.... for home-owners to resist w/ lethal force, the unlawful entry of LEO into an innocent person's home, is up for re-approval to retain his seat on the Bench. I suggest we de-employ him !!
EvilBlackGun
Master
If you knew anything about what you're talking about, Hoosiers have ALWAYS had the right to resist, even unlawful entry by a LEO. It wasn't stripped by the Barnes decision, it was always there and still is, even after the passage of a poorly written and worthless SB1.
EvilBlackGun
Master
Until "peaceful" citizens achieve a kind of parity ...
.... of arms w/ renegades and JBTs, thru equal availability of M60, etc., and M26, M33 devices at the corner 7 - 11, there can be no assured peace and safety for any citizen. "They" aren't coming to take your rabbit-hunting guns. The cry at Concord was, "Run To The Sound Of The Gun," and "gun" meant CANNON. The Minute Men knew what parity in arms meant, and that it meant victory. Take the cannon: win the war. Small victories on dark streets or back roads is what Solzhenitzyn meant. Always carry. <===Purple. EBG
.... of arms w/ renegades and JBTs, thru equal availability of M60, etc., and M26, M33 devices at the corner 7 - 11, there can be no assured peace and safety for any citizen. "They" aren't coming to take your rabbit-hunting guns. The cry at Concord was, "Run To The Sound Of The Gun," and "gun" meant CANNON. The Minute Men knew what parity in arms meant, and that it meant victory. Take the cannon: win the war. Small victories on dark streets or back roads is what Solzhenitzyn meant. Always carry. <===Purple. EBG
Last edited:
I think they make medication for what you have....Oh, and there's a tinfoil sale at your local store.
EvilBlackGun
Master
So leave him sit .......
.... to strike again?? Firing him, I meant, was to punish him. Let him get a real job. Take a deep breath and a bite of pop-corn. EBG
.... to strike again?? Firing him, I meant, was to punish him. Let him get a real job. Take a deep breath and a bite of pop-corn. EBG
HeadlessRoland
Shooter
Frederic Bastiat, 'The Law', excerpt
"The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?"
Res ipsa loquitur. It very much speaks for itself.
"The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?"
Res ipsa loquitur. It very much speaks for itself.
