Texas deputy dies serving no-knock, no-announce SWAT raid for marijuana

[phylodog]

It could change if the enforcers decided to stop doing it.

And I could buy a new truck with cash if the IRS agents wouldn't put me in prison for not paying my taxes. IRS agents are the devil.

Fat people wouldn't be fat if grocery store cashiers wouldn't sell them food. Cashiers are the devil.

You're smarter than that Steve.

 

[Rookie]

It is easy to be a badass vicariously through your husband, especially on the internet. Does he know about/approve of all the bull**** you are talking?

More importantly, will I be seeing that sammich any time soon?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

More importantly, will I be seeing that sammich any time soon?

I hope so. I would hate to see you starve.

 

[GunnerDan]

FIFY

But I say legalize it all. Just don't make me pay for their rehab, OD medical bills or death expenses.

So I assume that you also feel the same way about alcohol and tobacco products which can, have, and do kill people every day. The ONLY people who die because of cannabis are at the hands of the drug lords and the police, PERIOD.

Gunner

 

[88GT]

Risk vs. Reward...

Even if the guy had the 12 plants the informant claimed, how-in-the-world did these guys imagine the home owner would have flushed the evidence down a toilet?

.

I had the same thought when reading one of the other threads, though I don't know if I actually posted. Isn't the whole purpose of a no-knock two-fold: reduce the risk to LE and reduce the chances evidence is tossed. Seems like the former is clearly not a valid argument anymore. And in this case, the latter never was.

 

[steveh_131]

And I could buy a new truck with cash if the IRS agents wouldn't put me in prison for not paying my taxes. IRS agents are the devil.

Fat people wouldn't be fat if grocery store cashiers wouldn't sell them food. Cashiers are the devil.

You're smarter than that Steve.

Agree with the first.

The second is not a fair analogy. It involves no initiation of force.

You can not disconnect yourself from any responsibility when it comes to the drug war. If you disagree with it then you have a moral obligation to refuse to participate in it.

 

[phylodog]

Agree with the first.

The second is not a fair analogy. It involves no initiation of force.

You can not disconnect yourself from any responsibility when it comes to the drug war. If you disagree with it then you have a moral obligation to refuse to participate in it.

There are a lot of things in this world that I disagree with yet I'm not afforded a reasonable opportunity to refuse to participate in them. That refusal comes with consequences and that leaves me with a decision to make. Is my refusal worth the consequences? There is a point where the answer to that question will transition from no to yes, a line in the sand if you will. You'll know when I cross that line. I decide my own moral obligations, no one else. I don't attempt to impose mine on anyone else nor will I accept someone attempting the same on me.

 

[88GT]

There are a lot of things in this world that I disagree with yet I'm not afforded a reasonable opportunity to refuse to participate in them. That refusal comes with consequences and that leaves me with a decision to make. Is my refusal worth the consequences? There is a point where the answer to that question will transition from no to yes, a line in the sand if you will.

Well, let's clarify that statement a bit. LE duties ain't one of them. Unless your employement as a LEO is at the point of a gun, you do have an opportunity to refuse. Your choice not to find alternative employment is a clear statement that you place other priorities higher than the ones you might oppose related to your duties as a LEO. I pass no judgement on your choices in this particular post, but you cannot be blameless on both issues here. You have either chosen to compromise your personal morals to retain employment (or I suppose you could agree with the obligations of your employment as well) or you are employed against your will. Again, in this particular post I am not passing judgement either way. But logically you can't be held at arm's length from the job you do by choice and still say that you have no choice.

 

[phylodog]

Well, let's clarify that statement a bit. LE duties ain't one of them. Unless your employement as a LEO is at the point of a gun, you do have an opportunity to refuse. Your choice not to find alternative employment is a clear statement that you place other priorities higher than the ones you might oppose related to your duties as a LEO. I pass no judgement on your choices in this particular post, but you cannot be blameless on both issues here. You have either chosen to compromise your personal morals to retain employment (or I suppose you could agree with the obligations of your employment as well) or you are employed against your will. Again, in this particular post I am not passing judgement either way. But logically you can't be held at arm's length from the job you do by choice and still say that you have no choice.

Depends on how you look at things I guess. This country is (supposed to be) governed by the people. As a result the laws represent the will of the people. The people pay me to enforce their will whether I personally agree with it or not. I am afforded discretion in enforcement and have used it to my best ability and take pride in enforcing the law in a reasonable fashion. My hope is that the people will agree with my point of view on some things and change the laws accordingly.

The execution of our system may be flawed but I believe in its design. I hope,, just as do many others, that it will be restored to how it was intended but I do not accept responsibility for its current condition. Some would like to place the blame on my shoulders, I place it on the people.

 

[Birds Away]

Sometimes, in the grown up world, you can't always do what you want. I was in the Navy for 26 years. No one took a vote over where we went or what mission we performed. Some days I was proud of the job we did, other days not so much.
And yes, sometimes good people died.

 

[steveh_131]

I hope,, just as do many others, that it will be restored to how it was intended but I do not accept responsibility for its current condition. Some would like to place the blame on my shoulders, I place it on the people.

No-knock warrants served at gunpoint over possession of a plant. Is this morally acceptable?

If you were not a member of law enforcement, would you be morally comfortable with doing this?

 

[GunnerDan]

Sometimes, in the grown up world, you can't always do what you want. I was in the Navy for 26 years. No one took a vote over where we went or what mission we performed. Some days I was proud of the job we did, other days not so much.
And yes, sometimes good people died.

Master Chief, just remember there is a total and complete difference from being in the military and following an order to being a police officer and refusing to serve a no knock warrant for a plant the GOD himself put on this planet, for man to use. And I am not trying to get religious, but I am trying to say that there are total differences between the military and law enforcement. Oh and thanks again for your service... I only made it 8 years before I got out which I am still kicking myself in the arse for today...

Gunner

 

[steveh_131]

Sometimes, in the grown up world, you can't always do what you want. I was in the Navy for 26 years. No one took a vote over where we went or what mission we performed. Some days I was proud of the job we did, other days not so much.

Are you implying that service members are not responsible for the moral ramifications of their actions, if they are following orders?

 

[Birds Away]

Gunner I respect your position but I disagree. We both take an oath to serve and, in doing so, have to subordinate our wishes of how that is done to those appointed over us. That's the way it has to be for us, military or police, to function effectively. They are a para-military force whether we like to think of them that way or not.

 

[Tombs]

Depends on how you look at things I guess. This country is (supposed to be) governed by the people. As a result the laws represent the will of the people. The people pay me to enforce their will whether I personally agree with it or not. I am afforded discretion in enforcement and have used it to my best ability and take pride in enforcing the law in a reasonable fashion. My hope is that the people will agree with my point of view on some things and change the laws accordingly.

The execution of our system may be flawed but I believe in its design. I hope,, just as do many others, that it will be restored to how it was intended but I do not accept responsibility for its current condition. Some would like to place the blame on my shoulders, I place it on the people.

Not to beat you over the head but...

Regardless of what you're "made" to do, the responsibility for using force against another human being is still on your shoulders. It doesn't matter whether it's done for money or to save your own life.

The rights we hold are to protect us from ourselves. When our legislatures weaken or abolish those rights, they remove those protections. That is not a fault of the public, it's a fault of the legislators for committing treason, which is not something the public should have to fear when casting a vote.

 

[phylodog]

No-knock warrants served at gunpoint over possession of a plant. Is this morally acceptable?

If you were not a member of law enforcement, would you be morally comfortable with doing this?

I didn't make the plant illegal. I don't support it continuing to be illegal. I don't conduct the investigations, I don't write the warrants, I don't sign the warrants and I don't accept responsibility that you would like to place on my shoulders. I worked my ****ing ass off getting this job and I've managed to provide a decent life for my family as a direct result of that hard work. If I win Powerball Saturday you'll see me leave it behind, both the things I agree with as well as those I don't.

No one here is willing to make my mortgage payment in return for sacrificing my family's well being by quitting my job on their behalf. I don't smoke weed and I don't worry about a SWAT team kicking down the doors of any of my friends or family for weed. You guys make it legal, you fix the problem the way it's supposed to be fixed. I'll support you all the way. Don't expect others to make sacrifices on your behalf that you wouldn't make for them.

 

[GunnerDan]

Gunner I respect your position but I disagree. We both take an oath to serve and, in doing so, have to subordinate our wishes of how that is done to those appointed over us. That's the way it has to be for us, military or police, to function effectively. They are a para-military force whether we like to think of them that way or not.

I agree 100% for the military, but I disagree in terms of police actions. It is almost like anymore now-a-days that the police treat everyone as the enemy, and until the person is determined to not be the enemy we are treated that way. Now, I hate to hear when a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty, but to be killed in the line of duty because of a God given plant is completely insane. The police CAN refuse, but because they care about the paycheck, they WONT refuse plain and simple.

Gunner

 

[phylodog]

Not to beat you over the head but...

Regardless of what you're "made" to do, the responsibility for using force against another human being is still on your shoulders. It doesn't matter whether it's done for money or to save your own life.

The rights we hold are to protect us from ourselves. When our legislatures weaken or abolish those rights, they remove those protections. That is not a fault of the public, it's a fault of the legislators for committing treason, which is not something the public should have to fear when casting a vote.

And I've never been accused of excessive force. Not once in 15 years. I don't accept responsibility for what others do.

You are 100% right! it is the fault of the legislators. The people have to fix that.

 

[88GT]

Depends on how you look at things I guess. This country is (supposed to be) governed by the people. As a result the laws represent the will of the people. The people pay me to enforce their will whether I personally agree with it or not. I am afforded discretion in enforcement and have used it to my best ability and take pride in enforcing the law in a reasonable fashion. My hope is that the people will agree with my point of view on some things and change the laws accordingly.

The execution of our system may be flawed but I believe in its design. I hope,, just as do many others, that it will be restored to how it was intended but I do not accept responsibility for its current condition. Some would like to place the blame on my shoulders, I place it on the people.

As I said before, it was not a condemnation of your personal choices. But there is no defense for running roughshod over the public just because it's legal to do so and/or you are ordered to do so. If it is morally wrong, and you choose to do it anyway, is there any wonder why people would question where you stand? There are only 2 possibilities. You either agree with the laws you enforce or you disagree with them but not enough to sacrifice the perks that you get from the employment. You don't have to enforce immoral laws. Either way, you choose to do so.

Blaming the people and arguing that our solution is to write the legislators to change the laws is just a modern version of "just following orders."

 

[Tombs]

And I've never been accused of excessive force. Not once in 15 years. I don't accept responsibility for what others do.

you are 100% right! it is the fault of the legislators. The people have to fix that.

It's a responsibility of the people, yes. But you are the people, as well as all of the military, and all of law enforcement.

The public doesn't swear an oath to fix these problems, but police and military CERTAINLY do. Which is why I'm finding it increasingly harder to have any respect for either.