Ryanh1801 said:It makes me mad for the fact that now Detective Jarrod Shivers three kids and wife now have to live with out him..
Fingers said:Let's look on the bright side, this guy won't be sitting in his house and smoking weed anymore. We're all safe now!
JohnA111 said:Beyond the questions of the efficacy of the "Drug War", how about the unconstitutional paramilitary armies that most police departments have made for themselves with cheap purchases of surplus US military gear. When is somebody going to face the fact that this is a "boy's toys" club for the weekends. Does it make anyone feel safer when the police are armed better than the army at times? Or does it make anyone worried like myself?
Police does not equal Army.
BlindLemonLars said:Of course, his death is a huge part of this tragedy. There isn't a person reading this story that doesn't feel for the officer and his family. The key is to correctly identify the factors and circumstances that led to his death, and correct them so it doesn't happen again.
That's really the legal crux of it. Never mind whether marijuana laws are justified or not, why did somebody feel it necessary to authorize a no-knock warrant for a marijuana grower?!? Did they feel there was a risk of him leaping into his yard, uprooting enormous plants, carrying them back inside and flushing them?Evan! said:Bravo. The blame for Shivers' death lies on the shoulders of the over-zealous superiors who sent him to serve a no-knock warrant on someone based on the suspicion that he was growing some pot in his yard,
Evan! said:Bravo. The blame for Shivers' death lies on the shoulders of the over-zealous superiors who sent him to serve a no-knock warrant on someone based on the suspicion that he was growing some pot in his yard, which came from an informant---and informants will typically say anything to shave some jail time off their sentence.
The death of Office Shivers rests on the shoulders of those very scumbags who put him in harm's way for nothing more than a plant. Or, the assumed, erroneous suspicion of a plant. The blood is on their hands. And they should be sentenced for it, not this man who was simply trying to protect his home and himself from invaders.
TxBrew said:Also our prison system is becoming privitized. They have lobbyists to help keep drug laws intact to preserve their clients coming in for extended stays at their lock and key resorts.
PeteOz77 said:I agree.... However...
I'm sorry, but it's just common sense. you do NOT EVER shoot through a door because you THINK you know what's on the other side of it.
Yes, the police were wrong in the way they handled this situation, and if they hadn't been acting inappropriately, no shots would have been fired, but I still have to lay the blame for the death of the officer on a scared little man shooting through a DOOR.
As far as I am concerned, using a weapon (Gun or any other) when you are reasonably certain that you are about to seriously harmed or killed, is 100% justifiable in every instance. But using a weapon (Gun or any other) on an unknown assailant that you cannot see, or be certain of, is NEVER justifiable.
ANY time you pull a trigger, you need to be CERTAIN of your target, and their intent.
I would rather take a beating from a couple of overzealous cops than KILL one of them by accident.
PeteOz77 said:I agree.... However...
I'm sorry, but it's just common sense. you do NOT EVER shoot through a door because you THINK you know what's on the other side of it.
Yes, the police were wrong in the way they handled this situation, and if they hadn't been acting inappropriately, no shots would have been fired, but I still have to lay the blame for the death of the officer on a scared little man shooting through a DOOR.
As far as I am concerned, using a weapon (Gun or any other) when you are reasonably certain that you are about to seriously harmed or killed, is 100% justifiable in every instance. But using a weapon (Gun or any other) on an unknown assailant that you cannot see, or be certain of, is NEVER justifiable.
ANY time you pull a trigger, you need to be CERTAIN of your target, and their intent.
I would rather take a beating from a couple of overzealous cops than KILL one of them by accident.
However, if you read the article carefully, it sounds like the shooter could see a target and the the officer was actually entering the premise when he was fired upon.Fingers said:That's a really good point. Like most others, I condemn the law that precipitated this insanity, but shooting at an unknown target is pretty nuts especially when you know that target is human. There has to be a consequence for lethal force unless it's to protect your own life.
PeteOz77 said:I'm sorry, but it's just common sense. you do NOT EVER shoot through a door because you THINK you know what's on the other side of it.
PeteOz77 said:I agree.... However...
I'm sorry, but it's just common sense. you do NOT EVER shoot through a door because you THINK you know what's on the other side of it.
Yes, the police were wrong in the way they handled this situation, and if they hadn't been acting inappropriately, no shots would have been fired, but I still have to lay the blame for the death of the officer on a scared little man shooting through a DOOR.
As far as I am concerned, using a weapon (Gun or any other) when you are reasonably certain that you are about to seriously harmed or killed, is 100% justifiable in every instance. But using a weapon (Gun or any other) on an unknown assailant that you cannot see, or be certain of, is NEVER justifiable.
ANY time you pull a trigger, you need to be CERTAIN of your target, and their intent.
I would rather take a beating from a couple of overzealous cops than KILL one of them by accident.
kornkob said:With the same information Id use to break into your house, Law Enforcement could plan a raid on a suspected grow operation or drug dealer that would not necessitate the execution of a dynamic entry on an occupied dwelling. They could easily roll up on the suspect on his way home, even on his very block, and snatch him up before hes anywhere near his empty home. They could even then use that opportunity to ask his permission to enter the house and search (which would make any evidence they found almost unassailable in court--- evidence found on a consented search is damn near cast iron). If he says no, THEN they could present the warrant, tell him they are going in and give him the opportunity to make it easier on himself by owning up to what they are going to find anyway. tey could also take his keys and use that to open the door.
All that without firing a shot, driving a single armored car into a wall, breaking down a single door or throwing a single explosive device into someone's living room. They could also fire the carpenter they have on staff (for the purpose of repairing the doors that they bust in on 'wrong door warrants').
PeteOz77 said:I would rather take a beating from a couple of overzealous cops than KILL one of them by accident.
cglkaptc said:It is rediculous that weed is illegal.
cglkaptc said:It is rediculous that weed is illegal.
Enter your email address to join: