Surely there just has to be more to this story, one way or another? I mean, the police donât have the resources to arbitrarily launch this kind of assault on just anyone, do they?
I came here to say just that.
Of course there is a freestanding constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution. The judge here is an idiot.
What more do the police need?
The guy was big, shaven-headed, tattooed, and otherwise scary-looking, and we know how poorly cops react to individuals who are physically imposing.
Emotional difficulties were described by his âfriendâ in the call that brought the cops into the picture, and we know how much they fear and despise the domestic calls.
Heâs lucky they didnât just dust off and nuke him from orbit since it would be the only way to be sure.
I dread the day they get their hands on actual tanks, because it will be only a matter of time before the first thing through the door goes from being a flash-bang grenade to a high-explosive round.
They bought all the toys on DoD grants, but have to justify buying more by using said toys on occasion. Net result is a constant lowering of the threshold to trigger a disproportionate response. tl;dr - yes, yes they do.
This, absolutely this.
When the concept of the SWAT team was first implemented, it was anticipated to be for active shooters and/or hostage situations, both of which remain (sensational news notwithstanding) quite rare.
Nearly 80% of all SWAT raids these days are serving a search warrant, per the ACLU report.
[quote=âdavide405, post:69, topic:48634â]The guy was big, shaven-headed, tattooed, and otherwise scary-looking, and we know how poorly cops react to individuals who are physically imposing.[/quote]Well, okay, but how did the cops know that in advance? (I guess that it goes without saying that being big, shaven-headed, tattooed, and otherwise scary-looking is a personal choice that people of all temperaments should be free to make without being subjected to police brutality.)
[quote]Emotional difficulties were described by his âfriendâ in the call that brought the cops into the picture, and we know how much they fear and despise the domestic calls.[/quote]But like I said, surely there must be more to it? Was this person really a âfriendâ? What sort of âemotional difficultiesâ did he describe?
In the original reporting I linked to upthread, it says:
âa man called 911 to say his friend was thinking about doing something violentâ
No idea if thatâs true, of course, since everything else that article says seems to have been disbelieved.
Iâm afraid I donât understand what you mean when you say there must be more to it. Are you looking for a justification for the police violence, some hidden facts that would make their actions seem reasonable in retrospect?
Those things donât exist.
They (the cops) did their damnable damnedest to manufacture that rationale. Itâs literally the subject of the story weâre talking about.
What more are you looking for?
âThey told a judge I had hostages. They lied to a judge and told him I had hostages in my apartment and they needed to enter,â said Chadwick.
Is that a crime? Lying to a judge in an official capacity?
If the warrant was obtained by lying to the issuing judge, does that poison any evidence?
âŚwas taken to the Ft. Bend County Jail with a fractured nose, bruised ribs and whatâs proven to be permanent hearing loss.
Instead of a hospital? Is it a crime for the police to take someone clearly injured to jail instead of a hospital?
A month ago, three years after the SWAT raid, a jury found Chad Chadwick not guilty of interfering with police.
A jury trial for âinterfering with policeâ? Is that really a good use of the taxpayerâs money when there are no other crimes involved?
Iâm starting to suspect gross incompetence of the police and the prosecutor.
[quote=âdavide405, post:74, topic:48634â]Are you looking for a justification for the police violence, some hidden facts that would make their actions seem reasonable in retrospect?
Those things donât exist.[/quote]âReasonableâ and âjustifiedâ are clearly the wrong words here. Iâm looking for "just the slightest smidgen less than batsht insane". I mean, even in that thing with the off-duty Chicago cops the victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time. If raining hellfire down upon oneâs neighbours was as easy as calling the police and saying oneâs friend was thinking about doing something violent, surely there are more than enough un-neighbourly people who would seek to abuse this power?
*(This phrase is not intended to imply that they were in the slightest way to blame for what happened to them. Quite the contrary.)
There is a reason that âSWATingâ is a transitive verb.
When someone does this with criminal intent, we can clearly lay the blame for the danger/tragedy at the feet of the person who falsely declared an emergency.
But when itâs the police themselves who take it to that whole 'nother level of batshit crazy, who committed the crime? Itâs not the cops, as the judge in this case has opined, even though they manufactured charges to cover their tracks.
I increasingly think that batshit crazy is all the farther we need to look to explain police misconduct.
- Authoritarian personalities with a strong emotional need for control.
- Institutionalized paranoia and chauvinism.
- Sociopath-level skills at rationalizing their conscience about the effects of their violent actions on their victims.
Sounds like a description of a crazy man to meâŚ
Join the club.
Above average Middle Class white manâŚwas out on a date with my wife, but it was late. Cop pulled us over. Asked a series of rapid fire questions I could not answer quickly enough. He then told me to get out of my car and made me take a sobriety test. Thought I did well, though I do have issues with my eyes, and had problems following his pen. He then asked me to lift my leg and count to 6. I did, then set my foot down. He yells at me âDid I tell you to put it down?â - I then lifted it, counted to 6 again, held itâŚ
He then walked up and cuffed me. Under arrest for drunk driving (lol)âŚMy wife then gets out of the car and asks âWhere are you taking him?â (we were out of town and did not know the area). He told her to get back in the car or he would arrest her. She asked âFor whatâ. He repeated his comment. She walked back to the car, then she tried again with tears in her eyes âI just want to knowâŚâ.
âMaam, you are under arrestâ
Long story shortâŚI blew clean and was arrested for âFailure to Dim Lightsâ which is considered an offense in that state. My wife and I were thrown into jail for 18 hoursâŚwith no way to get out, because we did not have cash on hand.
It was all a money grab on a tourist. After getting our car out of impoundment, paying a bail bondsmen, my fine, an extra night for our hotel room so our luggage was not taken away, lawyer for my wifes charge of Disorderly Conduct (officer bailed twice on her court dates, btw, so charges were dismissied) âŚover $2500
Cops do not protect, they offend and strike fear where they canâŚall for the money.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
