Poll of the Day > So, like, police assassinated another dude in a no-knock raid...

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheSlinja posted...

if I was assigned to clean the sewers and saw a big ass rat I dont know what Id do
damn its a good thing I can just not sign up for a job im not prepared for

A sewer worker is trained to clean sewers, if a rat shows up, it's not their job to bother with it and can drop their duties to avoid getting bit.

A police officer has to do no-knock raids and is trained to shoot people who pose a threat, they're doing their job as trained and instructed.

Just as there's no means to make a sewer worker grab a rat bare handed, there shouldn't be a means to make police officers do no-knock raids. The problem is with the system and how it is currently operating, not the people operating in it necessarily.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The problem is with the system and how it is currently operating, not the people operating in it necessarily.

It's both.

And cops can push back on assignments like this. They need to, if the institutional powers are going to keep twiddling their thumbs about things like this. Yes it's uncomfortable to push back, but I don't see how it can be more uncomfortable than confronting a possibly lethal situation.

The problem is, I think most of the time the cops assigned to these things relish the opportunity. It's not like they just pluck some guys off desk duty for it, this is what they train for. And that's why any way you try to look at it, it gets hard to absolve individuals "just following orders", and this is why you get people wanting to tear down the whole system because it's an accountability failure at every level.

teddy241 posted...

This story has gotten no media attention. Hardly anyone is talking about yet this to me this is worse than George Floyd. At least Floyd had the option of cooperating with officers where as Amir literally had his door kicked in while sleeping and savagely murdered him without ANY chance of surviving/protecting himself. To me this needs to be the center of attention marches need to take place sev1 sound the alarms etc

The big difference is George's murder occurred in public with multiple camera's and witnesses that immediately went public; as I understand it, there is a short video showing Amir's murder, to my knowledge it has not been widely distributed. This will likely play out like Breonna Taylor's murder as the only video will be from body cams and the only witnesses are the officers who committed the offence.

Lokarin posted...

Then the blame shifts to the person who signed the raid approval.

CoorsLight posted...

I do think it's wrong that the higher ups don't get much punishment for this.

I am reminded of the murder of four young RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe (was it really 17 years ago??) They ended up charging a couple of buddies of the perpetrator as he had killed himself after shooting the officers and the RCMP (and the public to a certain extent) wanted blood, but they neglected to charge the individual who knowingly put the officers in harms way, the commander who signed off on allowing these officers to attend the premises in the first place.

See, the shooter had been in an ongoing dispute with his truck dealership (warranty repair or some such, doesn't really matter) so the owner of the dealership decided to use his privileged and standing in the community to coerce the local RCMP into being his repo men. Now if you or I go to the police for a matter like this, we are told "It's a civil matter, not our problem" but because the dealer was a brother, ancient free and accepted, the detachment commander said "Sure, I can give you four officers to storm the wackjobs farm."

The shooter was known in the community as being on the radical right and willing to defend his property with force if necessary; the detachment commander specifically knew what a dangerous man the shooter was but sent his officers anyway hoping that sheer numbers would provide the level of intimidation needed to carry out this unlawful civil action.

The four officers had maybe thirteen years experience between them, with the greenest being three weeks out of the academy. The commander that sent them to their deaths faced no consequences, same for the truck dealer.

CoorsLight posted...

The problem is, I think most of the time the cops assigned to these things relish the opportunity.

It doesn't help that after twenty some odd years of war in the Middle East, there is a surplus of highly trained individuals whose narrow set of specialized skills is only really viable for one (quasi) civilian job.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You know Hitler also drank water... and ordered his people to drink water;

The nuremburg defense doesn't apply when the orders are reasonable... now, if you want to make a case that the orders are unreasonable, then you MUST also agree that punishment has to go up to the order giving level at a minimum.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

you know there were more words after the analogy.

Zangulus posted...

False equivalency. You're just really bad at even attempting a response in any respect. You should really just slink away and stop posting in this topic.

It really isn't, and when you're envoking Godwin's Law, you have nowhere to stand.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


See, this is why I can't tell if you specifically are gaslighting me...

I already said someone in the police needs to be punished, so when I say it should be a higher-up and you disagree it makes me think you're in favour of the current system.

I agree with the notion of punishing both though.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Are you or are you not in favour of punishing the higher ups?

Lokarin posted...

No, that's very very bad - I was saying the best outcome was adding a murder charge to the warranted teen

Holy shit, how about no? This is brazen scapegoating/shunting of responsibility.

Lokarin posted...

Are you or are you not in favour of punishing the higher ups?

Sure, IN ADDITION to the cops involved.
This changes nothing; no knock warrants should not be an option for cops to take.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Holy s***, how about no? This is brazen scapegoating/shunting of responsibility.

You're right - I was mistaken about the situation, where if a crime is in progress the criminal is reponsible for tangential damage - but serving a warrant in no way counts as a crime in progress

So ... yes... I was wrong.

Lokarin posted...

You're right - I was mistaken about the situation, where if a crime is in progress the criminal is reponsible for tangential damage - but serving a warrant in no way counts as a crime in progress

No. The problem is that it's not all black and white. Like in this case, the warrant teen shouldn't be charged. This isn't his fault. This is police negligence. But there are cases where a criminal would be responsible for other things that happened during the crime. Then it would be on them. Plus, in this case, it's also not a crime in progress, right? It was them just trying to arrest the teen, correct?