FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Sour Grapes on August 03, 2013, 08:54:15 pm
-
Because it happened (http://www.wisn.com/news/armed-agents-raid-animal-shelter-for-baby-deer/-/9373668/21272108/-/wvh1n7z/-/index.htmll) in Wisconsin. The writer from the Daily Kos seemed to think it was a precursor to worse to come (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/01/1228320/-The-Fawning-Police-State-The-Apex-of-American-Insanity-Has-Been-Reached?detail=email), but the writer comes off as a bit hysterical.
-
Oh wow. They stuffed it in a body bag before they killed it. Such big, brave men. (s*)
-
You're missing an L and a bracket there, Grapes.
Edit: Reading these articles reminds me of a book I saw in the store about how America's police are becoming more and more akin to military in their tactics and thinking. The problem is, if you're trained to act like an occupying army, you're going to start seeing everyone who lives around you as a potential enemy insurgent. I need to find that book and actually read it, as opposed to just reading the dust jacket.
-
I read about this. Walker's Wisconsin in a nutshell....Land Of Fiend & Home Of The Insane. How long until Walker's time is up? Maybe that will be the opportunity the Progressive Wisconsinites will be waiting for.
This is heart-breaking. I hope the shelter sues the tar out of those thugs....or something, anything!
I wonder what those two busybodies who "tipped off" the Teeny Peeny Meanie team?
-
I don't think the writer is overly-paranoid at all. This is batshit fucking insane. I hope every single one of the officers gets attacked be deer and killed.
-
I'm sorry, but... I fail to see the problem here. Sure, it's sad that they had to kill the fawn. But it's policy. The shelter was illegally housing a wild animal. If they had called ahead, chances are the shelter workers would have tried to hide the fawn, which likely would have gotten them in legal trouble for obstructing the duties of law enforcement officers.
No one was hurt. From the sounds of it, the fawn was killed in as humane a manner as possible. It's sad, sure, but not something to be angry over.
-
Umm. I think that a few uniformed officers could have done the job without the SWAT gear. And I don't get it why they had to stuff the animal in the bag before shooting it.
-
Umm. I think that a few uniformed officers could have done the job without the SWAT gear. And I don't get it why they had to stuff the animal in the bag before shooting it.
And they didn't have to herd up the staff and take one's phone and delete the pictures they were taking.
-
Umm. I think that a few uniformed officers could have done the job without the SWAT gear. And I don't get it why they had to stuff the animal in the bag before shooting it.
And they didn't have to herd up the staff and take one's phone and delete the pictures they were taking.
These, I think, are the big issues. The police acted like the staff were running a meth lab and going to open up on them with machine guns. If they had called ahead, I'm pretty sure they could have helped the staff arrange to transport the deer to a facility that could legally care for it; failing that, they could have at least taken the deer elsewhere to be put down, rather than doing it where the staff could see. Additionally, taking the phone and deleting the pictures stinks of "secret police" tactics; if everything was really on the up and up, they should have had no problem with it being recorded.
-
Oh the big, tough SWAT Agents must be so proud of themselves, killing a single baby deer./sarcasm
Bunch of disgusting gun toting psychos. Sure you're here to protect and serve. SUURE.
-
I say fire them, AND their pussy of a boss. May a herd of deer run them through with their horns. You don't do that shit unless there's a damn good reason. And somehow, I don't think sheltering a baby deer is a very good reason.
-
Okay, seriously... did any of you even fucking read the article? The fawn was tranquilized at the scene, and removed to be euthanized elsewhere.
Why the hell are none of you upset that the shelter took in a baby deer, which they had no training or legal ability to do, and kept it for two weeks instead of immediately turning it over to a facility with the training and resources to handle wild deer?
I mean, you're acting shocked that the police treated a facility full of criminals like a facility full of criminals. Because, you know, they were kind of committing a crime. Which makes them criminals. The fact they're not being charged or fined shows admirable restraint and respect for the fact that the people at the shelter believed they were doing a good thing. It doesn't change the fact they were breaking the law, and endangering both their own lives and the life of the fawn by trying to take care of an animal they were not trained or licensed to care for.
-
Because it's easier to be "OH FUCK THE POLICE! LOLOLOL!" then to actually act like rational thinking adults here.
Ironbite-seriously guys...stop.
-
The article also says that the setup with the fawn was temporary and the shelter had already arranged for her to go to a licensed facility. We don't know what difficulties they might have had finding and contacting such a facility; I know I wouldn't have a lot of idea where to start looking. I will admit that I overlooked the section that said the fawn was tranquilized there and taken elsewhere to be euthanized.
Legal or not, this raid was an entirely over-the-top reaction. You talk about the police "treating criminals like criminals", but there's a world of difference between people breaking the law while trying to do the right thing (this situation) and something like violent gang activity, which is more along the lines of what I would have expected this raid for. For all the article says, the people at the shelter might not have even known they were committing a crime.
This isn't a simple case of "fuck the police." This is a case of an overblown reaction to a minimal or nonexistent threat.
-
This is horrible. There is no question, at least in my mind, that the police went above and beyond their duties here. An innocent animal died because the police couldn't wait for the deer to be sent to a wildlife preserve and decided to justify spending taxpayer money on swat gear.
Sickening.
-
I mean, you're acting shocked that the police treated a facility full of criminals like a facility full of criminals. Because, you know, they were kind of committing a crime. Which makes them criminals. The fact they're not being charged or fined shows admirable restraint and respect
Actually it's being convicted by a court that would have made them criminals, the fact that they're not being charged makes me think the prosecutor feels that the evidence they had actually committed the crime is weak. And means that they are, legally not criminals.
I say the evidence is weak because (according to Popehat) the relevant law is a ban on owning wildlife, and I think it would only take a halfway competent lawyer to argue that temporarily housing a deer whilst actively arranging for an appropriately licensed home is not ownership (no intent, now effective ownership etc).
Law enforcement agencies manipulate public opinion - and endanger fair trials - all the time by doing this. They act as though you are convicted the moment they suspect you and the raid and arrest are the punishment.
-
I don't mind that they have a policy to keep people from keeping deer. Heck, I think an argument could even be made that the fawn should have been put down (though I would have liked to have seen a biologist look it over and then make the call). But the SWAT-style raid was uncalled for. And we should almost always be wary when police try and keep people from taking pictures of them performing their duties.
-
My entire issue is that they acted like jackboots. Show up with a warrant? That's one thing. Aerial photographs, destroying personal property, and using a SWAT team like it's a goddamned drug raid? Fire the lot of them. Besides that, it wasn't a private citizen owning a deer. It was a rescue organization that was sending it on to a properly licensed facility. Better make sure they grabbed it so they could get their venison before it got sent somewhere they couldn't bully.
-
And we should almost always be wary when police try and keep people from taking pictures of them performing their duties.
On the other hand, a properly timed picture with a properly spun description turns routine duties in to a viral scandal. I can understand exactly why even police officers following the law and proper procedure would be leery of having their photo taken - a SWAT team busting a meth lab and a situation where SWAT would be excessive don't look that much different from the outside.
That said, there's oh so much suck here to go around. Before keeping a wild animal on hand for two weeks, maybe your shelter ought to contact DNR and/or animal control and let them know what's going on. Maybe don't go big when raiding an animal shelter, maybe keep that squad to five or less.
-
Okay, seriously... did any of you even fucking read the article? The fawn was tranquilized at the scene, and removed to be euthanized elsewhere.
Why the hell are none of you upset that the shelter took in a baby deer, which they had no training or legal ability to do, and kept it for two weeks instead of immediately turning it over to a facility with the training and resources to handle wild deer?
I mean, you're acting shocked that the police treated a facility full of criminals like a facility full of criminals. Because, you know, they were kind of committing a crime. Which makes them criminals. The fact they're not being charged or fined shows admirable restraint and respect for the fact that the people at the shelter believed they were doing a good thing. It doesn't change the fact they were breaking the law, and endangering both their own lives and the life of the fawn by trying to take care of an animal they were not trained or licensed to care for.
As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!
-
As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!
I dunno, I think a law preventing randoms from possessing wild animals that they aren't properly trained to care for is a pretty moral law.
Although I really wish I could read (and/or understand the legalese) in the police's reasoning for this clusterfuck. Either someone needed to use resources to justify their budget or they had reason to believe that they'd find something more insidious than a single baby deer. The way they raided the place you'd think they expected to find an entire illegal wild animal pet store.
-
As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!
I dunno, I think a law preventing randoms from possessing wild animals that they aren't properly trained to care for is a pretty moral law.
Although I really wish I could read (and/or understand the legalese) in the police's reasoning for this clusterfuck. Either someone needed to use resources to justify their budget or they had reason to believe that they'd find something more insidious than a single baby deer. The way they raided the place you'd think they expected to find an entire illegal wild animal pet store.
The Facebook page shows that it's based of disease paranoia.
-
As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!
Now, show me where it's law enforcement's job to enforce morality, rather than the law.
If you don't like the law, that's fine. It's stupid to be angry at the officers for doing their jobs. I don't care if it's cocaine or Bambi, they were a group of people hiding illegal items. The police response has to be consistent. While the police only knew of one animal, it's entirely reasonable to suspect a group harboring one illegal animal could be harboring others. Until you're in there, you have no way of knowing. You also have no idea how far the people may have been willing to go to stop law enforcement from seizing the animal.
Seriously, they kept the thing for two weeks. It does not take two weeks to find a facility to take it in. I should know, I have access to Google. And even then, it seems a little odd that an animal shelter that specializes in domestic animals would not already have contacts with shelters capable of handling wildlife specifically for instances like these.
This whole mess could have easily been avoided by the people of the shelter choosing not to break the law. If a fawn is abandoned by its mother, chances are, something was wrong with it, and nature should have been allowed to run its course. The only sad part of this entire story is that the fawn was probably incinerated instead of ending up as a meal for a hungry predator.
-
As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!
Now, show me where it's law enforcement's job to enforce morality, rather than the law.
If you don't like the law, that's fine. It's stupid to be angry at the officers for doing their jobs. I don't care if it's cocaine or Bambi, they were a group of people hiding illegal items. The police response has to be consistent. While the police only knew of one animal, it's entirely reasonable to suspect a group harboring one illegal animal could be harboring others. Until you're in there, you have no way of knowing. You also have no idea how far the people may have been willing to go to stop law enforcement from seizing the animal.
Seriously, they kept the thing for two weeks. It does not take two weeks to find a facility to take it in. I should know, I have access to Google. And even then, it seems a little odd that an animal shelter that specializes in domestic animals would not already have contacts with shelters capable of handling wildlife specifically for instances like these.
This whole mess could have easily been avoided by the people of the shelter choosing not to break the law. If a fawn is abandoned by its mother, chances are, something was wrong with it, and nature should have been allowed to run its course. The only sad part of this entire story is that the fawn was probably incinerated instead of ending up as a meal for a hungry predator.
Even if you want to defend this, you can't defend a goddamn SWAT team, and taking a person's phone and deleting images. If we can't record the cops, the cops can do whatever they want. Personally, I think anyone who enforces an unjust law is just as bad as that law itself, and the correct thing to do is play stupid.
-
Okay, seriously... did any of you even fucking read the article? The fawn was tranquilized at the scene, and removed to be euthanized elsewhere.
Actually the article said that the police supervisor said that's what they did.
Right around the same time she compared the shelter to a meth lab.
I think the reason most people aren't talking about the shelter illegally housing a deer is :
one, the deer was scheduled to go to a licensed facility so the problem was about to solve itself.
two, how does that justify what the cops did? I mean they used a swat team and had the place under aerial surveilence before they came in. And yet couldn't bother just calling the shelter to ask about one deer. Not to mention the number of times cops have destroyed video evidence to cover wrong doing just makes these cops erasing anyone's pictures look bad.
This is horrible. There is no question, at least in my mind, that the police went above and beyond their duties here. An innocent animal died because the police couldn't wait for the deer to be sent to a wildlife preserve and decided to justify spending taxpayer money on swat gear.
Thats' the reason. Cities spend millions on this stuff.
If there's no massive crime waves going on, how do they justify that?
-
Thats' the reason. Cities spend millions on this stuff.
If there's no massive crime waves going on, how do they justify that?
Because it makes little old ladies feel safer, and little old ladies vote.
-
Thats' the reason. Cities spend millions on this stuff.
If there's no massive crime waves going on, how do they justify that?
Because it makes little old ladies feel safer, and little old ladies vote.
Too bad there is no death panels /joke
-
If I remember right it's illegal in a few states to photograph or videotape a police officer, and I think it might be a felony in some of those places.
Lovely laws you have there.
-
...The police response has to be consistent...
So close, yet so far. :(
You are right, the police need to apply laws consistently and without bias. The problem is that this kind of enforcement means that every little interaction with the public can and should be dealt with as a hostile encounter necessitating overwhelming numbers massive amounts of firepower. Why, because it is too hard to use a little tact, diplomacy, and they don't know how to command respect without acting like bullies?
Really, it is not very far from here to finding yourself face-down on the side of the road with your hands cuffed behind your back and a gun in your ear while they run your license and registration for a speeding ticket. And as much as I wish it was, that is not hyperbole.
Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
-
Guys, Yae is right. The law is the law, & procedure is procedure. Frankly, some of you need to stop being so bleeding heart that you focus on a single issue & defend it to the death while ignoring other issues that might come into play. Being outraged & raging at everyone over the internet helps no one. Calling for mass firings helps no one. And I can't help but notice that one of the articles being sourced is DESIGNED to whip people up in a moral frenzy, making liberal comparisons to Nazis, overemotional language, etc.
-
Guys, Yae is right. The law is the law, & procedure is procedure. Frankly, some of you need to stop being so bleeding heart that you focus on a single issue & defend it to the death while ignoring other issues that might come into play. Being outraged & raging at everyone over the internet helps no one. Calling for mass firings helps no one. And I can't help but notice that one of the articles being sourced is DESIGNED to whip people up in a moral frenzy, making liberal comparisons to Nazis, overemotional language, etc.
I was the one who sourced it, and I thought it was a bit over-the-top.
-
I'm amused by Schultz whining about having nightmares about the raid. Yeah, okay. Simper some more.
I didn't read the daily kos one cause lol wow they've gotten really pathetic lately. But the first article made me scoff.
No, they wouldn't call you because you broke the law. That'd be ridiculous. That isn't in procedure. Should they have knocked? Probably. But still. C'mon.
-
....
No, they wouldn't call you because you broke the law. That'd be ridiculous. That isn't in procedure. Should they have knocked? Probably. But still. C'mon.
Why would that be ridiculous exactly?
We aren't talking about drug dealers here. No one was going to take that deer and use it to kill anyone. The shelter wasnt' filled with religious fanatics who were likely to do suicide attacks to keep one baby deer.
In short why the fuck should enforcing the law mean throwing common sense out of the window?
Not all crimes are comparable. Not all crimes are equally serious. Not every reaction of the cops is ok just because it was the cops.
I cant' be the only to notice that despite all the resources used for the raid, no one was actually charged with a crime. So even the police didn't think this was a serious offense and they were the ones sending in a swat team and spying on them before hand.
The problem is this wasn't just over reaction here. It wasn't just "hey these particular cops were crazy in this one specific instance" This is part of a larger pattern of cops using swat teams for minor offenses or by mistake and the excuse is always the same.
The law is the law.
I hate to bring this up but that's the kind of thinking authoritarians use to excuse abuses in power. Whenever that excuse comes up we should look at it really hard. That's where the outrage is coming from, that this sort of thing seems to be becoming more and more common. You can't dismiss the outrage if you don't understand why it' s there.
Yes they should have called. They should not have escalated the situation. At the least someone in the police force should have mentioned that this would reinforce the perception of cops as jack booted thugs and open the dept to charges of misusing tax payer monies.
Oh on a side note.. when someone stole my plates and used them while stealing gas in Arnold Missouri, the Arnold cops actually DID call me to question me if I was the one who stole the gas. I explained my plates had been stolen, my car was totally different make/model from the one they said had fled the gas station and somehow 13 law officers did not have to show up to corral me at work or erase pictures off my phone while they searched for the car.
So yeah.. apparently cops do know how to use the phone and there's nothing in procedure that stops them from doing so.
-
A SWAT team to take down a fawn? It must've been Osama Bin-Bambi in there. They were just protecting us from the danger such a powerful creature spawned from the very pits of Hell itself could pose!
-
It's stupid to be angry at the officers for doing their jobs.
Actually, it's not. Officers aren't robot drones, they're human beings. The idea is that insensible (or worse, corrupt) application of law and force is being questioned instead of blindly followed and if warranted, the officer should decide to use a more moderate approach. If they don't, they have failed their calling. "Doing my job" is called the Nuremberg defense, and guess how and why it got that name. It's not a moral defense, and only barely a legal one.
This is a general point that I stumbled upon in your argumentation and that I'm not going to give you a free pass on. However I'm not about to Godwin because of the deer affair.
That, I think, it's stupidity all around. The shelter could have avoided all this, the police massively overreacted, and now the public (i.e. us) overreacts about the police action.
-
You're missing an L and a bracket there, Grapes.
Edit: Reading these articles reminds me of a book I saw in the store about how America's police are becoming more and more akin to military in their tactics and thinking. The problem is, if you're trained to act like an occupying army, you're going to start seeing everyone who lives around you as a potential enemy insurgent. I need to find that book and actually read it, as opposed to just reading the dust jacket.
Just a preview of coming attractions. This is just the overture. Make book on it--in the years and decades to come, we're going to be seeing things that make this OR even Kent State look like kindergarten recess. They've been preparing for this for a long, long time. Welcome to the Long Emergency--and we're going to have to hit rock bottom before it ever becomes better.
I read about this. Walker's Wisconsin in a nutshell....Land Of Fiend & Home Of The Insane. How long until Walker's time is up? Maybe that will be the opportunity the Progressive Wisconsinites will be waiting for.
This is heart-breaking. I hope the shelter sues the tar out of those thugs....or something, anything!
I wonder what those two busybodies who "tipped off" the Teeny Peeny Meanie team?
Also, sadly, this.
-
The thing is, it's always "a larger problem." Well, give me a story that represents the actual fucking problem. Not something that is completely legal, where no one gets hurt.
Listen, the point is, cops can't just arbitrarily decide which laws they're going to enforce. Why would we WANT them to? No, that is NOT the same as saying that "all laws are just, & we can do whatever we want to uphold them.*
-
The fact that the police had to enforce the law isn't what's getting to people, Lithp. It's the completely overblown police reaction to a complete non-threat.
-
The fact that the police had to enforce the law isn't what's getting to people, Lithp. It's the completely overblown police reaction to a complete non-threat.
Which is what the law says to do. The policy is to treat it as though it's harboring a substance that could cause a harmful disease outbreak. This is exactly my point, you're upset, so you want to take it out on the first people you see. It's not their fault, & firing them won't solve it.
-
....
No, they wouldn't call you because you broke the law. That'd be ridiculous. That isn't in procedure. Should they have knocked? Probably. But still. C'mon.
Why would that be ridiculous exactly?
We aren't talking about drug dealers here. No one was going to take that deer and use it to kill anyone. The shelter wasnt' filled with religious fanatics who were likely to do suicide attacks to keep one baby deer.
The law is the law.
I hate to bring this up but that's the kind of thinking authoritarians use to excuse abuses in power. Whenever that excuse comes up we should look at it really hard. That's where the outrage is coming from, that this sort of thing seems to be becoming more and more common. You can't dismiss the outrage if you don't understand why it' s there.
Yes they should have called. They should not have escalated the situation. At the least someone in the police force should have mentioned that this would reinforce the perception of cops as jack booted thugs and open the dept to charges of misusing tax payer monies.
Oh on a side note.. when someone stole my plates and used them while stealing gas in Arnold Missouri, the Arnold cops actually DID call me to question me if I was the one who stole the gas. I explained my plates had been stolen, my car was totally different make/model from the one they said had fled the gas station and somehow 13 law officers did not have to show up to corral me at work or erase pictures off my phone while they searched for the car.
So yeah.. apparently cops do know how to use the phone and there's nothing in procedure that stops them from doing so.
That's a completely different situation and context. And I think you know it.
But sure, keep on going with the whole 'everyone who says the cops only followed procedure and the law are being authoritarians'.
God damn I hate hysterical response to anything dealing with cops. Even the positive stories have had people scream about how it's just a cover for something sinister.
-
Osama Bin-Bambi
Goddammit, I'm fighting the urge to make this my new screen name or tumblr url now.
-
Osama Bin-Bambi
Goddammit, I'm fighting the urge to make this my new screen name or tumblr url now.
DO IT!!!
-
Osama Bin-Bambi
Goddammit, I'm fighting the urge to make this my new screen name or tumblr url now.
DO IT!!!
For the love of the deities, Eva, you must do this!
-
The thing is, it's always "a larger problem." Well, give me a story that represents the actual fucking problem. Not something that is completely legal, where no one gets hurt.
Listen, the point is, cops can't just arbitrarily decide which laws they're going to enforce. Why would we WANT them to? No, that is NOT the same as saying that "all laws are just, & we can do whatever we want to uphold them.*
Here, have some examples. (http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/12/if-you-dont-want-to-be-tased/)
Yes, the cops job was to make sure the fawn wasn't a threat. Hell, if they looked over the situation, and it was determined the best thing was still to euthanize the fawn, I don't have a problem with that. It's sad, but it happens.
But the way they went about it was asinine. They didn't need to send in what amounted to a SWAT team (no, they weren't actual SWAT, but they sure as hell acted like it). It was an animal shelter. A registered animal shelter. They were not authorized to handle deer, no. But it's not like there was any reasonable suspicion that violence was imminent. There was no reason to believe that they would be uncooperative. Even if they showed up unannounced, they didn't need to intimidate the staff with their weapons, corral them away, and do a room-by-room search for the fawn.
If that's the procedure, then the procedure needs to change, because it's a stupid fucking procedure. The fact that someone wrote that up as the procedure does not make it right, warranted, or reasonable. It just means that the person who wrote it is a goddamned idiot.
There was a cop a while back who shot two dogs that were in kennels because it was the local department's procedure to kill any potentially dangerous animals when entering a house. The dogs were locked up, and he was told they were locked up. He still shot, because that was the procedure. That doesn't mean he was right to do so. Things are not automatically right and justified because they're by the book. Sometimes the book's wrong. Sometimes the situation at hand was not dreamt of when the book was written.
The police are not above reproach just because they're following procedure. They're still expected to exercise judgement in unusual situations. If the rules they follow aren't reasonable, then that needs to be elevated to someone who can change it.
-
Osama Bin-Bambi
Goddammit, I'm fighting the urge to make this my new screen name or tumblr url now.
DO IT!!!
For the love of the deities, Eva, you must do this!
Ask and ye shall receive.
-
Here, have some examples.
I've looked through a few of these. Some of them are good examples. But I think you're missing the point. I wasn't saying, "Show me some police brutality to justify this topic," I was saying, "Don't make a topic saying, 'X is bad,' & then backtrack later & say, 'You just don't get it, the REAL problem is Y.'" If the problem is Y, make a topic about Y. If the topic is about X, focus discussion primarily on X.
But the way they went about it was asinine.
How do you think illegally harboring a communicable biohazard should be handled, bearing in mind that you're supposed to treat those situations in the same way, according the law?
Even if they showed up unannounced, they didn't need to intimidate the staff with their weapons, corral them away, and do a room-by-room search for the fawn.
Yeah, I'd take a lot of the story with a grain of salt.
If that's the procedure, then the procedure needs to change, because it's a stupid fucking procedure. The fact that someone wrote that up as the procedure does not make it right, warranted, or reasonable. It just means that the person who wrote it is a goddamned idiot.
DING! DING! DING! Bolding this part because it finally hits the point. Knee-jerk "fire everyone!" responses do NOT change procedure.
That doesn't mean he was right to do so.
That doesn't sound like it fits the definition of "potentially dangerous," & therefore is not the same thing.
If the rules they follow aren't reasonable, then that needs to be elevated to someone who can change it.
Sure, but that doesn't mean you go, "In the meantime, I'm going to break the goddam law!"
-
....
No, they wouldn't call you because you broke the law. That'd be ridiculous. That isn't in procedure. Should they have knocked? Probably. But still. C'mon.
Why would that be ridiculous exactly?
We aren't talking about drug dealers here. No one was going to take that deer and use it to kill anyone. The shelter wasnt' filled with religious fanatics who were likely to do suicide attacks to keep one baby deer.
The law is the law.
I hate to bring this up but that's the kind of thinking authoritarians use to excuse abuses in power. Whenever that excuse comes up we should look at it really hard. That's where the outrage is coming from, that this sort of thing seems to be becoming more and more common. You can't dismiss the outrage if you don't understand why it' s there.
Yes they should have called. They should not have escalated the situation. At the least someone in the police force should have mentioned that this would reinforce the perception of cops as jack booted thugs and open the dept to charges of misusing tax payer monies.
Oh on a side note.. when someone stole my plates and used them while stealing gas in Arnold Missouri, the Arnold cops actually DID call me to question me if I was the one who stole the gas. I explained my plates had been stolen, my car was totally different make/model from the one they said had fled the gas station and somehow 13 law officers did not have to show up to corral me at work or erase pictures off my phone while they searched for the car.
So yeah.. apparently cops do know how to use the phone and there's nothing in procedure that stops them from doing so.
That's a completely different situation and context. And I think you know it.
No I don't see how that is all that different or rebuts my point.. Nor do you bother to explain, apparently.
It was different in my case it was actual larceny, certainly a more serious crime then having a baby deer. Yet the cops still managed to handle it without scores of officers. There was nothing in procedure that kept them from calling.
So why could the cops use the phone in my case but not call an animal shelter? The claim that the cops were not allowed to call someone they thought might have broken the law is patently false.
But sure, keep on going with the whole 'everyone who says the cops only followed procedure and the law are being authoritarians'.
of course I didnt' say that "everyone who says" that is being authoritarian.
What i said was we should look at arguments centered on the idea that the "law is the law"with more scrutiny because authoritarians use that as an excuse to justify/dismiss charges of abuse of power by authorities. Because authoritarians do do that.
If you give them moral dilemmas (e.g. should one steal an absurdly
expensive drug to save a life?) they’re more likely to say, “The law is the law and
must be obeyed” than most people are.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
That seems like an important distinction and when you ignore that difference, it looks like you're building a straw man. Especially when you cut out a large portion of my text without even so much as an ellipse to indicate that what you were quoting wasn't exactly what I had said.
God damn I hate hysterical response to anything dealing with cops.
But are you sure it's not just your perception that it's hysterical?
Even the positive stories have had people scream about how it's just a cover for something sinister.
Now who's making blanket accusals?
Anyway, I don't have to prove that no one ever had bad feelings/suspicion of the cops to show that the cops over reacted and abused their power, sending a swat team where it was not needed and escalating the situation.. here specifically or in a general sense.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2006/01/swat-teams-everywhere
BTW, a lot of you seem to be using the word "policy" like a rhetorical shield.
Here's a secret I am still surprised is secret.
Cops and indeed lots of people make up "policy" as it suits their needs. Cops have even made up laws on the spot to justify threat of arrests. Cops have admitted this to me. I have had lawyers tell me this. I have seen it happen.
I bring this up here because while the law that forbids possession of wild animals is cited, no one has shown the written policy that says the cops can't make a phone call or have to have to use overwhelming force even in such a low threat case (remember, no one was arrested. that's how DANGEROUS!!!! the cops thought these animal shelter workers really were)
The only person who claimed this officially is the spokesperson, who's job it is to protect the police dept's image and apparently cant' tell the difference between an animal shelter and a drug lab.
-
....
How do you think illegally harboring a communicable biohazard should be handled, .....
Ok that seems extremely hyperbolic (which considering the point you seem to be making might be ironic).
A fawn was nto a bio hazard. Some times wild animals do harbor disease but there was no reason to suspect that here (certainly if the fawn had rabies they would have said so). People actually come into contact with deer all the time and somehow dont' get the plague.
It's a fawn. Not a used syringe from a drug den.
Even if they showed up unannounced, they didn't need to intimidate the staff with their weapons, corral them away, and do a room-by-room search for the fawn.
Yeah, I'd take a lot of the story with a grain of salt.
Why? none of the parties involved is disputing it. Even if one wasn't to automatically distrust the account of the shelter workers, saying this is untrue would also mean the police themselves were being deceitful about their own actions. IF there was an account that was more favorable to the police, I would think the police spokesperson would have brought it up.
On what basis do you distrust this account of what happened.
If that's the procedure, then the procedure needs to change, because it's a stupid fucking procedure. The fact that someone wrote that up as the procedure does not make it right, warranted, or reasonable. It just means that the person who wrote it is a goddamned idiot.
DING! DING! DING! Bolding this part because it finally hits the point. Knee-jerk "fire everyone!" responses do NOT change procedure.
Ok I guess my main point here is... aren't procedures written by PEOPLE? Don't people interpret those procedures and decide what they mean?? Aren't people the ones who act on that procedure?
If there are no consequences to people for a bad "procedure" then what pressure can be applied to do things any differently?
-
Was the shelter breaking the law, yes. Did the police over react and show a utter failure in the use of common sense, yes.
One phone call or even a visit by a detective could have solved this to everyone's satisfaction. The deer could have been moved the next day, and the shelter could have been issued some type of warning not to do this again.
-
Or, if the fawn had to be euthanized, they could have sent a couple of animal control officers in to get it. Animal control has to go get animals all the time. Only rarely (usually in the cases of things like dogfight rings or smugglers) do they go for the brute force approach. Usually, they talk to people first to try and resolve the situation peacefully.
Not all crimes are equal. Nor are all criminals. Plenty of police forces will use a soft approach when dealing with this sort of situation because they don't need a show of force. What they need is cooperation, and when dealing with a licensed, reputable animal shelter (albeit one not licensed for wild animals), there was absolutely no reason to expect that they wouldn't cooperate.
Of course, if I were that shelter, I'd be a lot less inclined to cooperate with police in the future. The police gave them no reason to, other than intimidation. And certainly, there are times when that's the correct tool to use. But this was not one of them.
-
Ok that seems extremely hyperbolic
If you're not going to answer the question, or even read the damn thing, I'm done. Keep repeating the same complaints on the internet, see if that rights what was wronged.
-
Ok that seems extremely hyperbolic
If you're not going to answer the question, ....
I did read it. and the question you posed seemed fallacious.
So if the premise of your question was so, I dont' think I help by pretending otherwise and answering it.
IF you disagree, then by all means answer my questions and show me how I was incorrect.
-
It is important to realize that if the only tool you have is a hammer, eventually everything begins to look like a nail.
I do have to ask, do they bother teaching non-violent conflict resolution at the academy any more?
We have a situation right now where a cop shot a kid with a knife that is getting a lot of attention right now because it appears that it was unnecessary since the kid was bottled up alone on a streetcar. Toronto streetcar shooting (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/07/29/toronto-streetcar-shooting-video-questions.html) In contrast we have infamous Greyhound beheading wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean) where the police essentially waited him out (he eventually tried to go out a window and got tazered).