What would they have done if she had been there?
Shot her and the husband, beat the kids, and raped the animals ... but that's just a guess.
What would they have done if she had been there?
Your claim that their entry WAS an unwarranted use of force has also yet to be proven.I think my claim that the entry was an unwarranted use of force has yet to be dis-proven.
Your claim that their entry WAS an unwarranted use of force has also yet to be proven. Yep, 100% true also. I don't disagree that it's not proven, just that based on the facts in that article it appears correct. Our conclusions aren't mutually exclusive.
The SWAT team is innocent of wrong doing until proven guilty, not vice versa.
They dont have to dis-prove anything. An accuser would have to prove something out of line was done, and as next to zero facts have been released, making a decision on who is right or wrong would be remiss. I would say that unless there's some other significant facts (missing from the article) that it appears out of line/unnecessary to me.
Funny how we like that innocent until proven guilty line when it applies to us or our friends/family, but we dont seem to extend that benefit of the doubt to the police...
PS - If we waited for all the evidence we would never get to discuss it. It's just the internet, and this is just an academic discussion of ideas for me.
So...white collar crimes need SWAT teams to pick up suspects now?
I think my claim that the entry was an unwarranted use of force has yet to be dis-proven.
And Charlie, you may question my sanity but not my intelligence, LOL.
Sorry old friend, but the last thing someone can label any discussion based on Internet garbage is "academic!" I've spent plenty of time in academia (I've got three college degrees) and my last graduate program was all about research methods and analysis. That is what irks me so much about these painfully prolonged discussions that go on about such matters, as there is so little true evidence to be debated that it quickly gets emotional instead of logical.
Honestly, I'd much rather discussion something less controversial, like guns!
Cheers! M2
No worries SA_RR, it's just a good natured debate. Nothing heated, just opinions.
I think our disagreement is mostly academic and maybe bad word choice on my part. I should have said appears instead of was.
The state does bare a burden of explaining itself when it's citizens ask. As citizens these teams answer to us. The agencies answer to us. They are there to do our bidding and exist on our tax dollars. They are beholden to us and must answer these questions when we, the citizens, pose them.
Does it suck for them to be second guessed all the time? I'm sure it does. Does it mean we can't scrutinize them? Absolutely not, and it's our DUTY as citizens to question things that seem out of line to us.
I wouldn't consider them guilty as in "court of law guilty" without a full examination of evidence and an opportunity for defense. But I would absolutely say that based on the article it looks like an unwarranted use of force to me, even if it was for fraud/embezzlement. I would pursue asking the followup questions of the agency to validate/invalidate my conclusion if I had a horse in the race.
All news stories on this link back to that "News10" story. I would also give this one some time to play out and see what the specifics were. I would think that there is much more to this story. We have only heard the homeowner's version.
We have the police version, too. They're looking for the psychic who gave them the "tip." As if anything a psychic tells you is credible...
Huh? I think that is a different story, different state.