Police raid home looking for weed......success they found a small amount of weed!

[Pragidealist]

Yes my point is police should not be in the house in the first place and your point is there is nothing wrong with the law as per the above quote.

If you believe in the law that marijuana should be treated as a class A felony how can you not believe they don;t have the right to raid a house and shoot dogs if marijuana activity is going on. It;s a class A felony dude. Like rape. Do you agree cops should be able to raid a house if they think rapes are going on? Yep.

So if they think Rape is going on and they raid the wrong house, shoot family pets, and throw grandma against the wall- Its okay?

[tinman]

You have to be a hard person to be a soldier or a cop.

Both have to take a us vs. them mentality in order to be good at the job.. They deal with situations on a daily basis we hope to never deal with in our lives..

[tinman]

They also do not make laws, they are just the arm used to carry it out.. How right or wrong a law is has nothing to do with the job at hand..

[reo]

So if they think Rape is going on and they raid the wrong house, shoot family pets, and throw grandma against the wall- Its okay?

Depends on if grandma likes it rough and if she had a parakeet.

too much?

[Pragidealist]

They also do not make laws, they are just the arm used to carry it out.. How right or wrong a law is has nothing to do with the job at hand..

Been my point for about 3 pages now.

[Guest]

So if they think Rape is going on and they raid the wrong house, shoot family pets, and throw grandma against the wall- Its okay?

That would be called shoddy police work and yes they need to be punished for it.

There was no shoddy police work here according to the law. They suspected there was marijuana in the house. There was marijuana in the house. Thwey suspected they wlould run into a criminal who was engaged in class a felony criminal activity and they armed themselves appropriately for that.

If you believe the marijuana is worthy of being a class a felony with Class A felons I am not sure why anyone would have any issue with what the police did.

If you changed the context of this to they were going in to get a kidnappped girl that was being raped and tortured no one would have an issue with the dead pitbull.

It's only because people understand this is a stupid law over a harmless plant that makes it all so appalling.

[reo]

There was no shoddy police work here

I think this is where we disagree.

[Guest]

Been my point for about 3 pages now.

Well that point would be completely out of context since my point is it;s the law that is at fault here not the dumbass rigger happy cowboys who carry it out.

[Guest]

I think this is where we disagree.

Doesn;t add up.

Class A felony. Class A felons. They thought marijuana was in there. They found Marijuana.

How was this shoddy police work?

[tinman]

A - That would be called shoddy poice work and yes they need to be punished for it.

B - It's only because people understand this is a stupid law over a harmless plant that makes it all so appalling.

C.. the police should be punished for using force and subjective tactics in carrying out a warrant based on a SHITTY LAW..

A+B does not equal C..

A and B are two totally different objectives..

[reo]

Doesn;t add up.

Class A felony. Class A felons. They thought marijuana was in there. They found Marijuana.

How was this shoddy police work?

excessive force. @TitansWycheck89 explained it pretty well I think.

[Pragidealist]

That would be called shoddy poice work and yes they need to be punished for it.

There was no shoddy police work here according to the law.

No shoddy police work in breaking down the door, shooting two family pets, and point guns at kids?

Where in the law does it say Class A felony "CHARGE" means its okay to do all of that?

http://nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/welcome.htm

"Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death."

Felony or not had nothing to do with it.

"Lethal Force — Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual."

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/205/205lect03.htm

As a constitutional principle, (Tennessee v. Garner 1985), the level of force must be reasonable -- not the most minimal level possible, just reasonable. As a common law principle, there should be some warning beforehand by the police before force is used

Suspect's Resistance Level:

Officer's Level:

1. Suspect presence 1. Interview stance 2. Verbal resistance 2. Verbal commands 3. Passive resistance 3. Passive techniques (handcuffs) 4. Defensive resistance 4. Chemical agents 5. Active physical resistance 5. Physical tactics/impact weapons 6. Firearms/deadly force 6. Firearms/deadly force

What you have been describing appears to be bad police work.. not necessarily a reflection of the law itself.

[Guest]

BTW...I am confusing merijuana being a class A drug with it being a class A felony. Marijuana distribution is a felony but not class athough repeat offenders can be imprisoned for life.

Excessive force is very subjective.

If you agree that officers being told to kick down the door in in the first place should be held to some subjective judgement of force that is wholly unrealistic and unreasonable.

They have no idea what they are dealing with when they get there.

Again, what you are failing to accept, is we need to have common sense laws that doesn't put the officers there in the first place. This means declassifying it as a class a drug. It's pretty simple.

[Pragidealist]

Well that point would be completely out of context since my point is it;s the law that is at fault here not the dumbass rigger happy cowboys who carry it out.

You're whole argument in this thread has been a video that depicts exessive use of force. My point is that the police enforce the law- don't make it.. the video that you posted was a reflection of the enforcement and not the law itself. Therefore- it was a bad example of trying to make an argument for legalizing marijuana.

Again... the video was a bad example... not that an argument doesn't exist. You're just not making it and the video is irrelevento to the argument that you are trying to make.

[Guest]

C.. the police should be punished for using force and subjective tactics in carrying out a warrant based on a SHITTY LAW..

A+B does not equal C..

A and B are two totally different objectives..

Oh you're telling police not to carry out shitty ass laws.

"No captain...that's a shitty law. Reo said I don;t have to do if it;s shitty. Sorry."

Hey how about we change the law if it's shitty?