Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by PaulO, May 5, 2010.

  1. PaulO New Member

  2. I treat my animals as if they were family. If anything happened to any of my family no matter what it was, I would kill every mother fucker responsible for it. Thats the bottom line. That is just fucking ridiculous.
  3. Dozel Member

    this has to get out. very sad
  4. Sanjo Mr. No Fucks Given

    This shit makes me so fucking mad I cant even think of something intelligent to say about this right now.

    Thanks Patriot Act.

    Thanks Bush.

    I feel way fucking safer at night now.
  5. Pookee Lord

    The war against drugs has definitely gone a little overboard and has been that way for a while.

    I would venture to say that this is a good example of the core principles upon which our country was founded as having been trampled.
  6. Valor Buffalo Rancher

    Hey, lets all eat the creampuff story that was posted on youtube. Maybe we should step back and take a look at this situation as a man who is a police officer charged with doing his job.

    1. Some form of intel led them to raid this house. They knew there were drugs there but likelyhood was someone tipped them off to there being more than what they found.

    2. They entered this house with the intent of a shock strike to capture the father quickly. They were wearing typical armor for our area because we have a HUGE meth industry where cracked out meth heads will attack cops with knives and guns.

    3. In the dark, a pitbull (stereotyped as an extremely aggressive and defensive animal) starts barking at them... most likely out of fear. If you know anything about dogs, if they feel cornered and are scared, they will attack. We didn't see what this dog did, only the cops did. If the dog ran towards me, I would shot the bitch in it's face and not think twice about it.
    [Edit] After going back through the movie, when they first broke in the door, the pitbull was at the front door and was hit by it when it swung open. You can hear it whine when that happened. All the cops continue advancing through the house, which would have been seen as an aggressive act by the dog. In all likelyhood, the dog was going to or already had attempted to attack an officer.

    4. They had a warrant. Why? Because intel led them to believe that there were drugs in this mans house. Under those assumptions, the charges were levied against the parents concerning the state the children would have been living in.

    All you know is what you saw on the clip(which you obviously didn't watch objectively) and the obvious libertarian slanted comments set you up in a mindset to see 6 cops raid a house without cause and with no intent other than to enforce Bush policies.

    Fucking retards, there was a narcotics search warrant. The only thing to happen in this movie was the cops shot 5 shots to most likely protect themselves from dogs who were protecting their territory. Any ignorant piece of shit who wants to blame the Patriot Act(wtf does that have to do with anything here) or President Bush(again, wtf does he have to do with our out of control narcotics problems here) is a brainwashed weak minded fool.
  7. Dozel Member

    my little dog barks at everyone who enters the house, plus with wearing body armor, im pretty sure even a ravage of a dog in aggression couldnt harm these swat members

    the guy seems to be in good cognitive order, he isn't high or out of his mind because of any drugs.

    google : KANEH BOSM



    marijuana has many applications. industries would not appreciate more effective way to do things, and being natural there is less $$ involved.

    also marijuana is not a gateway drug, its just fearmongering by the people in power

    how many medical documented cases have marijuana caused death?

    wheres the compassion?
  8. Dozel Member

    also put any type of dog into a negative environment and they will turn out as such.

    dog type or size is irrelevant.
  9. El Topo Lord

    I'll have to agree with Valor on this one. It sucks that the dog died, but its still unclear what happened between the cops and the dog. My only problem with what happened here was the cops should have know the family had a dog, and prepared themselves accordingly. There is obvious other issues with what happened, but its still rather early to make any assumptions.

    Please keep the discussion mature, no name calling please.
  10. Valor Buffalo Rancher

  11. Valor Buffalo Rancher

    On the subject of legalizing pot, I agree. Weed if regulated would be no more dangerous than alcohol. Slap the same restrictions on it as alcohol and then tax the shit out of it.

    This new synthetic stuff K2, well, it is getting banned as well. Society isn't ready to give up on this topic yet.
  12. Koribundar Inactive Chapter Member

    My brother grows this purple stuff that is AMAZING!
  13. Daemon Lord

    Unfortuately, everything Valor said. It's sad we weren't there to see what the dogs were doing, but police have a job to protect themselves, and unfortunately shoot first, ask questions later prevents injuries. Sure, the dog COULD have just been playing, but if you wait long enough to find out.... you have damage. And while shooting a corgie is a bit qestionable, a pitbull WILL do damage if it gets you--you don't second guess 'is he friendly'.

    If the police in that video were your family, which would you care about more, the dog or your brother?

    I'm sad about the loss of any animal, they just do what we train them to do. And unfortunately, many pitbulls are intentionally trained to attack.
  14. Anwedie Lord

    I am for legalization of every single drug there is. However, I am also in favor of the most extreme penalties and enforcement of such. You can be as high and drunk and screwed up as you want in your own house. You can marry 6 wives, eat yourself into a coma at 700lbs, hell marry a computer for all I care.

    However if your actions impact negatively on me or society as a whole, such as killing someone as a drunk driver, eating yourself into poor health which you expect then the taxpayer to pick up the bill for or trying to go on welfare after having 23 kids and you work as a used-car shall be left to die, survive on your own or be put to death in the most inventive ways possible and your death broadcast on public TV as a warning to others.

    I don't think it's so much the drugs that bother people. I personally could care less if you overdosed on anything. However, when your addiction leads to robbery or relying on the public health system that's the rub for me.
  15. Sanjo Mr. No Fucks Given

    Ok first off... It was a FAMILY house with a little kid. I'm sure their super awesome snitch (which was prolly some pissed off friend) anyway I'm sure they knew there was a kid inside, and a dog right? I mean they opened the door right? I'm sure they heard the dog barking unless it was the Only dog on the planet who doesn't bark when people come to the front door. Their M.O. for this "bust" of some guy who has POT... POT! Jesus Christ... Their M.O should have been something... Ya know what it doesn't even really matter - my point is they fucked up and literally "screwed the pooch" People from any side and defend them all they want but everyone will have their own opinion about this video.

    Cops wasting time fucking around with POT are wasting my tax dollars. The war on drugs is modern prohibition and it's high time (see what i did there) that people open up their eyes.

    Yes cops have rough jobs to do and "most" do it fairly well but for you to go off on some crazy rant about how your point of view is the only right one and everyone else are fucktards or bleeding heart Liberals is equally biased in my opinion. People like you make me fucking sick.

    Do you even know whats in the Patriot Act or how Bush increased law enforcement budgets specifically for the war on crime? Or do you just think people on the left are trying to take your guns and let fags into the Military?

    This topic is done for me and likely wont be bothering reading the boards anymore since most people seem to share your views. It's really sad how someone cant control their diarrhea of the mouth and have an intelligent conversation with someone who doesn't share their views..

    Good job.
  16. PaulO New Member

    Mmmm. Creampuffs.

    Someone, somewhere, has to show discretion. The voters, the legislature, the governor, the judge, the police chief, the officer. Someone in this system has to show discretion. The officers are the last line of defense. They are the witnesses to the transgressions and decide what actions to take in enforcing laws. They can show discretion.

    They show discretion when writing speeding tickets. They show discretion in many disputes.

    The military does not show discretion. They bravely do their duty.

    It is not the same for law enforcement. There are no enemies involved. There are only citizens. The officers themselves are just citizens.

    As for me, I've lost my faith in the government. I just want to be left alone.
  17. Valor Buffalo Rancher

    Ah Sanjo,

    My point, convoluted in the harassment, was simply that the cops were doing their job as their job required them to do it. The dog was an unfortunate incident but under the circumstances, an understandable one. I disagree with your opinion as the evidence supporting my view was layed out and your view had no support or evidence and was based off of pure speculation.

    I went and skimmed over points on the Patriot act and that bill was designed to accomplish the following:

    * 2.1 Titles I and X: Miscellaneous provisions
    * 2.2 Title II: Surveillance procedures
    * 2.3 Title III: Anti-money-laundering to prevent terrorism
    * 2.4 Title IV: Border security
    * 2.5 Title VI: Victims and families of victims of terrorism
    * 2.6 Title VIII: Terrorism criminal law
    * 2.7 Title IX: Improved Intelligence

    Now, if your point was that they used this bill to support what would typically be immoral but legally justified surveillance, then I would simply disagree because terrorism never played a factor in this raid.

    Now, President Bush did place an increased importance on the war on drugs, and for those of you who live here in MO with me, you would know of the widespread production and use of Meth. Now, I don't know WHY these cops went into this house. I assume that because they had a warrant, they had enough evidence to show cause to raid this mans house. So, if you can find fault in that process, I can't argue.

    But, the video shows 6 cops who roll into a house legally, following procedure and IMO shoot a dog out of self defense. Every house is a residence, these cops knew they would have to deal with that and no humans were hurt. I am still uncertain as to why this doesn't make sense to you, but sticks and stones...
  18. Pookee Lord

    You're defending a fucked up system, Valor. The roots of our current War on Drugs go back to Prohibition Era America.

    Incoming TL;DR for the less intellectually inclined

    This is a report on Prohibition that I had to extensively research before I could even begin to ponder how to write the first word.

    While it was quite easy for many to see the Volstead Act as an attack upon the tree of liberty, many missed what else happened at the same time. Prohibition could be viewed as the axe wound that was eventually healed with the passing of the Twenty First Amendment. But interpretations of the Fourth Amendment during this era were more insidious in nature, something more akin as to the shaving away of the trunk of the tree of liberty. And as can be seen time and time again throughout history, when a government takes away, or in this case, decides to start to narrowly define what a freedom or right is, seldom does the government just one day spontaneously relinquish its control and expand upon or give back the right or freedom. As a result, this shaving away would come at a permanent cost that, unlike the axe wound of the 18th Amendment, could not be healed.

    The catalyst in this event was the Volstead Act. This act was the culmination of years of grass roots lobbying for the national illegalization of alcohol. This would be problematic due to the widespread use of alcohol, not for any other reason than America had a well established cozy relationship with alcohol since its founding. The architects of the legislation foresaw this and wrote into the act the seeds of what would grow into a problematic issue. Understood, when writing the enforcement section of the act, was the ubiquitous nature of alcohol within American society and the easy ways in which alcohol could be concealed and transported. In an attempt to give the officers charged with prohibition some teeth with which to back up the legislation, guidelines were spelled out for what and where the officers were to search. From the Virginia Law Register of May, 1919: “ Section 29 of the prohibition act purports to give him (the officer of prohibition) the right to break open and enter a house, building, boat, car or place, or any room or part of any of them. But this right is given only to an officer “charged with the execution of a warrant.” Also in this document was listed the right of an officer in commission of enforcing the prohibition act the right to search without warrant: “But section 35 expressly purports to give to deputies and inspectors appointed by the prohibition administration the right, “with a warrant,” to enter buildings, and the right, “without a warrant,” to enter freight yards, passenger depots, baggage and storage rooms of any common carrier. It further says “and may enter any train, baggage, express, Pullman, or freight car, and any boat, automobile or other conveyance, whether of like kind or not, when there is reason to believe that the law relating to ardent spirits is being violated.”

    The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (American History). While the majority of the body of the Fourth Amendment is easily interpreted in relating to personal property of persons, houses and papers, there would be challenges to this during the prohibition era that would conservatively interpret what constituted one’s personal property and effects. One of the first issues to arise was that of personal transportation. As outlined in the Volstead Act, an officer of prohibition was charged with the ability to search “any boat, automobile, or other conveyance.” It was a generally held concept, even today, that the right of Fourth Amendment protection would include one’s automobile or boat, but the writing in the Volstead Act obviously went counter to this. One thing that is interesting to note is that the Volstead Act had no legal ground to stand upon due to lack of any prior legal precedent establishing a vehicle as something that could be searched without warrant. The legal decision that established automobiles were not under the protection of the Fourth Amendment, Carroll v. United States, would not occur until March 2, 1925; 6 years after the passing of the Volstead Act ( . In the mean time though, prohibition officers would conduct themselves as though this precedent existed.

    Another important Supreme Court case that affected the operations of law officers enforcing prohibition was Weeks v. United States ( This established the legal precedent known as the Exclusionary Rule. This decision said that any evidence seized in an illegal manner was counter to the Fourth Amendment and therefore could not be used in court as evidence. The next case that addressed this precedent came in 1920, in the case Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. In citing the Weeks case, the Justices established that evidence gained in an illegal manner could not be used to produce charges against a defendant, as the Weeks case had established that the illegally seized evidence could not be used in court after the charges had been brought about ( The decision in the Silverthorne case would come to be known as The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, which in essence said that if the tree itself is rotten, then any fruit gained from the tree would be rotten itself. Translated into legal jargon; if charges are brought about through illegal seizure of evidence, then the charges themselves are corrupted and have no legal ground to stand upon.

    While these preceding cases would logically seem to be in favor of a liberal reading of the Fourth Amendment, there is one key idea missing. These legal decisions only applied to Federal officers of the law. The Justices saw a separation and implied that the Fourth Amendment rule of exclusion was only applicable in illegal search and seizures executed by a federal officer. The federal officers were able to exploit this loophole by allowing the states to conduct their own investigations using their own guidelines, and after conclusion of the prosecution on a state level would “adopt” the case and all the ensuing evidence for use in a federal prosecution. So even though the citizens were under the protection of the Fourth Amendment on a Federal level, the Supreme Court’s decision had left them defenseless against illegal search and seizure on a state level. The only thing working in their favor at this point was what state they lived in and that states diligence or lack of in enforcing prohibition (Enforcing Prohibition).

    Further degradations of a liberal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment would come in several more Supreme Court cases. In a 1924 case heard before the Supreme Court, known as Hester v. United States, the courts set about limiting the idea of what constituted private property. The general idea of private property and application of the Fourth Amendment would hold that any search of any aspect of a citizen’s property would constitute the need for a warrant. But in Hester v. United States, the courts held that even though the officers were standing on the defendant’s land when they made their observation of a crime, their ensuing arrest and inspection of the paraphernalia that was strewn around the premises in the excitement did not constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Holmes narrowly interpreted the Fourth Amendment by saying that a person could not expect protection outside of their house, due to the Fourth Amendment saying “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” (Prohibition and the 4th Amendment).

    Another example of a Supreme Court case that would further limit the idea of what constituted private property would be Olmstead v. United States. In this case, Olmstead had been running a lucrative business of bootlegging in the state of Washington. The police had built a case against him by tapping the phone lines outside of his house and listening in on his operations of his bootlegging business. Olmstead asserted in court that the wiretapping was illegal due to the lack of a search warrant, but the Courts asserted that the wiretapping evidence was legal due to the lack of any actual physical entry into Olmstead’s property. The Court maintained that a person could not reasonably expect privacy when they were broadcasting their voice over an electronic medium, even if that medium was to only be heard by one person on the other end of the line (

    Prohibition was a desperate attempt to legislate the morality of the nation, but what no one on either the legislative or judicial side of the issue could foresee was the amount of people that would break the law in pursuit of their idea of happiness. One of the most common arguments back and forth across the fence of prohibition was how far should the Fourth Amendment go in protecting people, even if they were breaking the law, and whether the Volstead Act was rendered toothless by the Fourth Amendment. This was best expressed by Charles Hall Davis when he wrote: “Many good citizens are so desirous that the prohibition act shall be enforced that they are disposed to overlook and minimize the breach of the law by the officers….Some of our newspapers even ask how the law is to be enforced if search warrants are required, if “its teeth are drawn,” as they put it. They argue that the advantages of prohibition are so great that this disregard of constitutional rights out to be overlooked. It is the old argument that “the end justifies the means”” (Right of Search and Seizure). Even though Prohibition and the ensuing legal activities occurred 80 years ago, it is still having an effect upon legislation even today. One can very easily parallel what Charles Hall Davis wrote with the sentiments of backers of the Patriot Act. Even today it is argued that for the better of the whole, the government should be able to suspend the rights of a few in the name of preventing terrorism. Of course our Forefathers never could have foresaw such issues as terrorism as a threat to our country, but it can reasonably be assumed they would have never foresaw the outlawing of alcohol in their country as well.

    Works Cited
    Charles Hall Davis, The Right of Search and Seizure under Prohibition Act, The Virginia Law Register, Vol. 5, No.1, May 1919, pp 32-26, as found in JSTOR

    Brinkley, Alan, A Survey of American History, pp A-17, New York City, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2007

    Carroll v. United States, Carroll v. United States, 4/16/2008

    Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States,, 4/16/2008

    Olmstead v. United States,, 4/16/2008

    “Enforcing Prohibition under the Federal Rule under Unreasonable Searches”, Yale Law Journal, (May, 1927) 988, as found in Wickersham Commission (1931) microfilm 8:0683

    Please transpose this to our current War on drugs.

    The most important take away from this is the Wickersham Commission. It's a great historical starting point example of the deterioration of the 4th Amendment and the various circumstances that led to where we are today.

    What's paramount though is that though the police officer's actions are reprehensible, they are a couple steps beyond what is truly the ugly crack in the foundation of freedom within our country.

    Unfortunately, democracy has flaws in it, and one of them being that the ignorant masses can be influenced to allow their representatives to do dumb shit. But in this case, the masses never did that for alcohol nor drugs (Prohibitioin was a purely rural vs. urban mindset fight transposed across the changing of America from an agricultural based economy to one of Industrialism). The representatives adopted these causes as personal crusades and convinced the masses that they were working in their favor.
  19. My point here and I'm sure most would agree if you have owned animals. No matter what happened you teach your dogs to protect your family and the ones they love. I show my dogs the same respect. What would you do if that was your kid and wife and your dog that got shot? Tell me you wouldn't take action and do something about it. Like I said, I don't give a fuck, every mother fucker in that house would pay for taking a member of my family away. What would you tell you son? That boy looked to be about 6-8 years old. Having that happen in the middle of the night? That boy is going to be tramatized for the rest of his life. I know I would be. They could have gone about it in a lot of different ways. Could have came in the afternoon unexpected, while the boy or the husband was at school or work. The situation is just wrong in every aspect and to sit there and pick out one thing about cops doing their job and running with it is BS IMO. They could have done their job better and differently.
  20. I completely agree... I'm honestly craving Anarchy. :p

Share This Page