I saw this posted at the Pav. It's inexcuseable enough to carry here.

http://www.pavilionboards.com/forum/sho ... hp?t=23940

I don't necessarily agree with the firefight with the cops scenario, I do think they go too far some times. But people are going to continue to accept it until it goes a step too far.

Hearing the dog being shot to death was very hard to hear. That was the absolute worst part. I don't know what I'd do if someone came into my house and shot my dog for literally no reason.

Doggie = R.I.P.


(actually...Welsh Corgy...

No wonder Terr posted that...)

*edit* Actually wasn't Ein Mora's Avatar for a long time?

What the cops shot.



What the cops saw.

The worst that dog could have done was slightly annoy the cops from tugging on the base of their pant legs. Absolute assholes.

what's worse is that the little dog was probably just freaking out trying to protect his family.

I'm aware Terr posted this, and I'm aware he's not in this thread.

I don't really have the energy to duke it out in a lexical battle with Terr (who I'd probably get just as frustrated with as I would with a religious evangelist), and am only posting my thoughts on what he said so that there's at least an opposite view being represented.



They do something about it. They're not going to show up calm as day with no gear in hopes of saying hey hows it going and praying to god that the people in question aren't hostile. Even if they're not, the people will see that the cops have no warrant and pack their sh*t up before they get a warrant.

That's what.



little or no evidence.

Great.

The cops need a warrant in order to get any kind of actual evidence to go on, or it just turns into a movie sort of tag game where the cops get nothing and the crime goes on. The tip is all they need, and the warrant is what they need in order to get some physical evidence. Giving a tip with a name and an address, as was apparently given, is enough reason to follow through.



He can't collect any evidence. In those 8 days, about all they could have done was survey the place and they can't do that without A) scaring away the accused offenders by being not so stealthy about it and B) first having enough evidence existing to deploy undercover operations. In either case, no warrant is going to be shown and any self-reliant drug cartel will not give up anything whether accidental or not without that warrant for search being shoved in their face.

Can't jump to them being innocent, and you can't base your opinion on fox f*cking news.

That said, acting immediately (whether drugs were present or not) will likely result in even more sh*t for Terr to cry about. The option of surveillance won't even be there.



Of course they were. Irrelevant.



Type of dog doesn't matter. Not everyone knows what breeds of dogs are hostile and which ones aren't. Cops aren't f*cking all knowing. They follow orders the same as your accountant, the same as the dishwasher at the restaurant you just ate at, and the same as you. By the sounds of the video, the dogs were not entirely passive. Either way, if the guy is innocent, he'll get compensation for it. Nothing for anybody else to shed a tear about.

Also, kids know guns exist. Same as they know men have penises and women have vaginas. If the parents are found to be innocent, the kid'll get therapy if s/he needs it. If not, s/he'll STILL get it as well as care from the government while finding him/her a new home. Doesn't sound like any people were fired at, which means it was just the dogs, and the cops are justified in that. Move on.





Other articles are saying intelligence WAS gained and evidence existed. IF the guy ever had anything that could be considered evidence, he may have moved it and is now pinning guilt on the cops. If the guy never had anything, whether the intelligence/evidence was real or not, then it's just a big ol' oops and deserves the above label.



Controlling one of the biggest businesses in all of the modern world makes no sense?

Get the f*ck out.



Rights thought up, written down, enacted by, and aimed at people. These aren't fundamental laws of physics. They aren't inalienable. Laws are broken, rights are shortchanged, norms are ignored, clocks can be set forward and back.

We made them. We choose when they are followed the way they were intended. When they aren't, legal bullsh*t follows. Cry more.



I'll see you crying when they take away the right to bear arms after some idiot takes it too far. Enjoy your civil war that follows that.



When the f*ck did modern time become post-apocalyptic territorial barbarianism? Collateral damage happens in every effort to create lawful society. Mistakes are always made. That doesn't mean you get the right to kill people because one was made against you.

Well, what really surprises me here is that Terr is such a political buff at the Pav (thinks he knows so much), yet he doesn't understand that to get a warrant, they don't need evidence, but PROBABLE CAUSE. If they have reason to believe someone is dealing drugs, they can get a warrant. That simple. And yes, the tip is all the reason they need to search. Not trying to argue your point, just throwing in a little somethin' else.

it would seem ok if they did get compensation but remember when kittykicker had that place they were renting out or something and the tenants had drugs and the cops busted it all up, they didn't get any compensation for that. i don't think cops give out compensation. the only compensation they'll get is out of their insurance hoping they have some. not only for the building but for the contents and for the dogs and for themselves and their kids if any therapy or whatever is needed. or they could try a law suit. the only things i can find online for compensation is from companies to their employees if something happens on the job. here is a compensation lawyers site: http://www.siclaims.com/ ... apparently only bad accidents they can deal with legally for compensation. and this article here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _77417462/ also seems to only deal with fatal accidents or serious injury due to police action. I'm not sure that loss of property or trauma fall into those kinds of things. but if anyone knows more and could clarify on that issue please do.

but for the most part i think that's what bothers people, is the fact like police can just walk in wherever they get some tip off and go all crazy and do whatever they want and thats just ok and the victims have to deal with it because it's for their protection and the good of the country. come to think of it how much compensation did you get when the police raided your house lone?

Nothing because I never asked for it.

I don't know how it works down there, but if the cops do something in Canada they replace or compensate if it gets documented and asked for.

Either way, they could get compensation through the courts if they can get jurors/a judge that sympathize with the plaintiff rather than the cops.

by going through a lawsuit which would be almost as traumatic as the event in the first place and could take years and might not grant them anything at all but would cost them loads either way.

Then they get nothing. Either way, I don't give a f*ck about the dogs.

that's because they aren't your dogs. but about the people n'all that like - i don't really know how it works but social justice mook says there should be victim support built in to the type of system that doesn't have to be careful how they go about things.

Not because they're not my dogs, but because dogs are animals frequently used for house protection.

If they shot at parrots or cats, there'd be a problem. Dogs are, more often than not, something to be concerned about.

Therefore, I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over dogs who got shot at while barking during a raid.

I actually spent some time in the place this happened. Funny town.

And it's standard operational procedure to take out anything perceived as a threat - dogs get taken down all the time, because drug dealers like dogs that go for the throat. The fact is that one of the dogs was in its cage for the night, and the other one was tiny, in a house that wasn't a drug dealer's that they were probably going into on a bogus tip-off that no one bothered to fact-check.

It's shoddy policing, and so it goes.

While I think you have some points on the raid, the war on drugs is a retarded effort. Even with all they do they aren't really controlling it, if they made it legal they could have just as much control, if not more, and make money off of taxing it as well, instead of just pouring money into it. Then when they raided some place and got a bunch of drugs, they could actually do something with them to make money (which I wouldn't doubt some of them do right now by selling them back to the black market).

To think that they will ever have true control over the drug market is laughable at best. And already we peddle tons of harmful drugs to the people in the name of pharmaceuticals. Only difference is they go through government testing, and a lot of them are still as dangerous, if not more so, and there are some that give no real health benefit. Not to mention cigarettes, a highly addictive drug with no known health benefits, and also has the ability to affect the health of those around it, yet still perfectly legal, never made illegal. Then there was that time we made alcohol illegal, and we all know how that worked out. Making your own alcohol, still technically illegal, but I don't see big raids in the news on moonshine operations anymore.

I think there are much better things the police could be doing than busting drug dealers, especially alleged ones. The ones that have armies and are shooting up the town, yeah go after them for the shooting and such, not because they happen to sell a substance we arbitrarily decided should be illegal.

Couldn't you train cats to rip out people's throats/scratch faces, or parrots to peck out eyes. I think if we're going to make the assumption a welsh corgi could be dangerous, pretty much every other domesticated predator should be considered dangerous as well. Also if they're in full body armor, wouldn't dogs present a very low thread at that point?

@stythe - i wasnt getting my panties in a bunch over the dogs either, to be honest i dont know why you brought them up and keep talking about them. dogs or not dogs dont have too much to do with lack of compensation and victim support. like fixing the doors and possibly walls and windows the police broke. and getting new carpets in if thats what the dogs bled all over. like you actually said dealing with the trauma caused to small children. did the police apologise for it? or did they just leave this family with no idea as to why this happened to them to clean up the mess?

Doesn't matter what animals can and can't be trained to do what. As already said, it also doesn't matter that one of them was a Corgi. Dogs are normally protectors, cats and birds are not, and this makes dogs a target during raids. It's normal. This isn't a case of cops being overly forceful.

The swat team was the one sent there on orders. They won't always have all the facts - they are sent their with the gear and weapons they need to succeed. Whether or not any of the fact-checking happened, they're still going to do everything they can to ensure that nobody on their roster is hurt during the venture while at the same time protecting innocents.

Dogs = threat. Dogs fired at.

Man = target. Subdued, but not hurt. Woman and child = innocents, let out.

They did nothing wrong. The raid itself is not part of the issue, the only issue that can be bitched about is the police chief sending them out either too late, so the goods get moved and they look like the bad guys, or without gathering any evidence except for that tip, which some articles are saying did happen.

Either way, the tip may not have been bogus, the guy still may be a dealer, and there's no proof he's not. Not saying he's guilty, but saying that it's too early to assume he's innocent just because nothing was found in his home 8 days after the tip happened.



I'm sure that because we know why this happened, the family was told too.

What was the point of any of that line?

Because the rest of us are talking about them. But I think the point about the dogs has already been made. You know, the whole "how could they even be percieved as threatening" thing. (I think Lantis put it best.)

"They did nothing wrong."

Even assuming everything else you said had verifiable validity, which most of it does after all, this doesn't stand utterly. They filmed it and let it get leaked.