The parents were then charged with child endangerment....

[scarica]

i did a quick look for the news article about that swat incident to see something other than citizen outrages. upon observation, i found that columbia, mo has a public review board for their vice squad dept where they review disciplinary actions within the vice squad department. is that the transparency you were looking for? do you trust the citizens on that review board? would you feel better bing part of said board yourself?



anyway, i found this short bit of an article, but i didn't exactly dig too deep.



<!-- m -->http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/201 ... eizes-pot/<!-- m -->

[Meat Engine]

It depends. Can the board do anything but recommend, how are its members appointed, blah blah blah. But yeah, it's a start. Accountability to the constituency is important.



I've seen a novel concept proposed that is mostly unrelated to this topic. It assumes, however, that voters are engaged and informed. Patrol officers would be required to run for "election" in their patrol areas. Now this might be impractical if one's patrol changes from day to day, but it sounds like an interesting way to improve community-vice squad relations.

[Verbal]

Didn't erica say that SWAT teams are usually just vice squad officers with extra training in "weapons and tactics"? If so, what is the problem in using them? They're hardly trained to go in and kill everyone. Surely their training should make the use of lethal force less likely than it would be if "normal" officers were on their own. The only problem I can see with them doing every potential drug bust is that it may be a waste of money. Limited resources probably demand they be used selectively.



But seeing as I actually haven't a clue what they do, or anything really about this, be warned I will get offended if anyone points out my mistakes.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man]

You guys can talk in circles all day and get nowhere. The fundamental problem here is the legally-sponsored use of violence as a tool for social control. No man has the right to decide for another when it comes to a peaceful matter such as drug use.



And it doesn't matter what "duh law" says. If you're really willing to destroy an individual's life over a bowlful of FUCKING VEGETATION, you are a sick, twisted, evil person with no moral compass to speak of. SS officers had rules they needed to abide by, which were legitimately put in place by a legitimate, democratically elected government, but that doesn't excuse their actions. If you need to appeal to authority to justify your brutality, then you probably know deep down that what you've done is wrong.

[Verbal]

[quote name="Subcomandante Marcos"]The fundamental problem here is the legally-sponsored use of violence as a tool for social control.[/quote]



Strongly-worded letters would definitely be safer.

[Meat Engine]

[quote name="Subcomandante Marcos"]You guys can talk in circles all day and get nowhere. The fundamental problem here is the legally-sponsored use of violence as a tool for social control. No man has the right to decide for another when it comes to a peaceful matter such as drug use.



And it doesn't matter what "duh law" says. If you're really willing to destroy an individual's life over a bowlful of FUCKING VEGETATION, you are a sick, twisted, evil person with no moral compass to speak of. SS officers had rules they needed to abide by, which were legitimately put in place by a legitimate, democratically elected government, but that doesn't excuse their actions. If you need to appeal to authority to justify your brutality, then you probably know deep down that what you've done is wrong.[/quote]



Your first point is exactly why I would like to see new legal codex written for nearly all nonviolent offenses. What good is it to stick a petty thief in jail? So he can learn how to commit more crime? Wouldn't it be more productive to require these offenders to make restitution? The felony incarceration system in the U.S. tends to provide negative reinforcement. Look at our recidivism rates.

[Verbal]

[quote name="The Fu Monster"]The felony incarceration system in the U.S. tends to provide negative reinforcement.[/quote]



Why do you think this?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm-Flailing Tube Man]

[quote name="Verbal"]
[quote name="The Fu Monster"]The felony incarceration system in the U.S. tends to provide negative reinforcement.[/quote]



Why do you think this?[/quote]I dunno, could be the act of locking non-violent "criminals" up with a bunch of deviants, rapists, and murderers. I imagine those guys might exert some negative influence.



But hey, I'm not a scientist or anything, shucks!

[scarica]

small possession charges are releasable on a summons in my state, which means we write them a ticket in which they promise to appear in court, and they're free to do whatever until the hearing. misdemeanor amounts rarely incur jailtime. usually a fine, probation, community service, etc. based on their criminal history.



the point some of you are missing, is that there is rarely force used in the apprehension of a small possession charge. the heightened security in any drug scenario is due to the fact that weapons possessions are too often present with drug users. we're not talking about the 17 year old with a joint...we're talking about the hard-on bearer with scales, cokeheads, meth users, etc. the issue of legalizing pot is a whole other topic for discussion, but as of right now, it's illegal. and no...not all potheads are peaceful. they may be calm when high, but if they're doing other shit, selling, mixing drugs, etc. they can be quite combative and thus pose as a potential threat to the safety of law enforcement. like i said, we find weapons on these cats regularly.

[Meat Engine]

Guns and violence are symptoms of prohibition. That's for the lawmakers to figure out...for the second time. Seventy years after the first try, and 30 years into this try, and they don't get it. At all.

[scarica]

my dad supervises a shift in another vice squad department and was nearly shot just making an approach to a vehicle that looked suspicious. one of his colleagues WAS shot twice by one of the vehicle's occupants. all were armed, two occupants shot, multiple shots fired at vice squad, remaining occupant crashed vehicle and shot himself before vice squad could apprehend...all drug related. luckily, the injured officer was in non-critical condition and survived. while this sort of thng happens quite regularly in law enforcement, you can imagine how fucked up it would be to actually live out this type of scene, and how it would change your tactics in the future.

[Haunty]

The question seems to be "what constitutes the idea of being suspicious?" Now, I can understand the concept of proper suspicion when somebody's running around shooting at something, that's pretty obvious. But if you made music illegal, how often would you suddenly start finding a correlation between music and shootings? It may seem like a painfully stupid question, but ask yourself anyway.



On a side note, I was in a "suspicious car" once myself, and appreciated the vice squad not rushing to my windows with guns drawn, although me and my lady fellating lover were more than a little startled by how on-edge they were.

[Verbal]

I suspect we're not going to come to any meaningful conclusions on what situations require what level of "WAT".

[Haunty]

Way to arrive at the obvious, you useless cock-holster.

[scarica]

[quote name="hbw"]



On a side note, I was in a "suspicious car" once myself, and appreciated the vice squad not rushing to my windows with guns drawn, although me and my lady fellating lover were more than a little startled by how on-edge they were.[/quote]

they probably thought they saw the car a-rockin'



but in the scenario involving my dad's squad, they didnt have weapons out initially, hence one of them getting shot. i'd venture to say that a "suspicious vehicle" is difficult to define. elements to consider: age of occupants (past curfew? elderly, could be ill or lost?), location (is it parked in a non-public area, high vandalism/break-in area, in an attempt to be hidden), time of day (you don't see three dudes sitting in a parked car in an alley at 3am very often. chances are, they're up to no good or wasted). when something is suspicious, it doesn't mean vice squad are allowed to open fire, for fuck's sake...it just means they can check it out and make sure everything's ok. i do it alot when i see folks parked along the roadway to make sure they aren't needing motorist assistance. the only folks that have a problem with vice squad approach are the ones that are up to no good.

[Verbal]

[quote name="hbw"]Way to arrive at the obvious, you useless cock-holster.[/quote]



My posts are only useless in comparison to yours. Which are just fucking revolutionary.