Police Thugs Storm Homes In Minn.

[Terralthra]

It is probably a bit of both. Look, it is really really easy to get people to do terrible things. have some guy in a lab coat tell you to torture someone? IIRC 65% of those sampled will torture that person to death provided they dont have to see the blood or charred flesh.

Tell a group of people that they are "guards" and that the other group are "prisoners".... horrific abuse.

This is a moderate oversimplification of the Milgram experiment, and an incredibly vast oversimplification of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment.

[Dark Hellion]

What I don't get is this. Aren't civilian authorities (such as police officers) meant to represent a picture of higher moral order. Soldiers are expected to exemplify the "virtues" of the country they represent and as such are under much stricter legal codes then civilians, and police officers found committing crimes are treated as failing at their basic duty. Yet why is it when it comes to a situation of police vs. some group that may be unpopular, the police get free pass to act as authoritarian as they wish, and to skirt the responsibilities to civic virtue they are meant to stand for?

The police should be the ones being the least violent. They have no reason to instigate anything, they have the legal mandate to utilize force when it becomes necessary, so why should they seek to facilitate that necessity, other than the thuggish behavior that seems common? And why is it that there are members of this board who feel they must side with the police who are clearly failing the mandate that they are given within the social contract, simply because no one was permanently injured? Police are supposed to represent a higher standard, not a drastically lower one that what we would expect of our neighbor.

Supporting the "home team" doesn't mean letting them cheat. The police have to win fair and square, otherwise they are just thugs with badges.

[chitoryu12]

What I don't get is this. Aren't civilian authorities (such as police officers) meant to represent a picture of higher moral order. Soldiers are expected to exemplify the "virtues" of the country they represent and as such are under much stricter legal codes then civilians, and police officers found committing crimes are treated as failing at their basic duty. Yet why is it when it comes to a situation of police vs. some group that may be unpopular, the police get free pass to act as authoritarian as they wish, and to skirt the responsibilities to civic virtue they are meant to stand for?

Because the group is unpopular. When someone dislikes a particular group or person, they often have no problem with watching them get abused, brutalized, humiliated, etc.

It extends to some officers as well. If you take a team of SWAT officers and tell them to raid a building populated by people who belong to a group they all generally dislike, they'll have less qualms about abusing them because they get the chance to take people they hate and toss them around and scare the shit out of them.

[General Zod]

What I don't get is this. Aren't civilian authorities (such as police officers) meant to represent a picture of higher moral order. Soldiers are expected to exemplify the "virtues" of the country they represent and as such are under much stricter legal codes then civilians, and police officers found committing crimes are treated as failing at their basic duty. Yet why is it when it comes to a situation of police vs. some group that may be unpopular, the police get free pass to act as authoritarian as they wish, and to skirt the responsibilities to civic virtue they are meant to stand for?

Supposed to, in theory, yes. In practice it's much less pleasant because an abusive asshole in a uniform is still an abusive asshole.

[Feil]

What I don't get is this. Aren't civilian authorities (such as police officers) meant to represent a picture of higher moral order. Soldiers are expected to exemplify the "virtues" of the country they represent and as such are under much stricter legal codes then civilians, and police officers found committing crimes are treated as failing at their basic duty. Yet why is it when it comes to a situation of police vs. some group that may be unpopular, the police get free pass to act as authoritarian as they wish, and to skirt the responsibilities to civic virtue they are meant to stand for?

Supposed to, in theory, yes. In practice it's much less pleasant because an abusive asshole in a uniform is still an abusive asshole.

Add to that the fact that the uniform tends to attract abusive assholes by representing a power-trip, and you have the problem faced by police forces.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is probably a bit of both. Look, it is really really easy to get people to do terrible things. have some guy in a lab coat tell you to torture someone? IIRC 65% of those sampled will torture that person to death provided they dont have to see the blood or charred flesh.

Tell a group of people that they are "guards" and that the other group are "prisoners".... horrific abuse.

This is a moderate oversimplification of the Milgram experiment, and an incredibly vast oversimplification of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment.

I am sorry I dont have the space/time to go into the details of both studies(and the follow up studies). But considering how often you get real-world replications of both, I dont necessarily need to. Merely mention them to illustrate the point.

Unless you want more detail, which I can give.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What I don't get is this. Aren't civilian authorities (such as police officers) meant to represent a picture of higher moral order. Soldiers are expected to exemplify the "virtues" of the country they represent and as such are under much stricter legal codes then civilians, and police officers found committing crimes are treated as failing at their basic duty. Yet why is it when it comes to a situation of police vs. some group that may be unpopular, the police get free pass to act as authoritarian as they wish, and to skirt the responsibilities to civic virtue they are meant to stand for?

Supposed to, in theory, yes. In practice it's much less pleasant because an abusive asshole in a uniform is still an abusive asshole.

Add to that the fact that the uniform tends to attract abusive assholes by representing a power-trip, and you have the problem faced by police forces.

And the fact that power, authority, and insulated power structure can make abusive assholes.

Group identification is a powerful thing, it creates shields against prosecution, all kinds of happy fun stuff.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

Which gives us reason to believe that this raid was completely on the level. . .why? Because they're police?

Well, let's see. Because it was signed by a judge, and the found items that if backed by the intel they have would justify the raid. That's why.

Now I'm not saying the police have sold me on their raid. I still would like to know what made these individuals a target, and if any of the items seized where apart of that intel.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Quite frankly I'd have to question the judgment of anyone that thinks it's a-okay to raid someone's homes when they haven't committed a crime without rock-solid proof. To be perfectly blunt the level of proof the police gave that something was going to happen was grossly insufficient, especially when no arrests were made and it was "intentionally" described as an intimidation tactic. That's rather damning imo.

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

I suppose we should always defer to authority figures. After all they are all knowing and powerful and we should blindly, and meekly, trust their judgement until someone who wrongfully doesn't trust authority digs in and finds evidence that the police were acting with malice?

I'm not saying that at all. If you can control your emotions for a second and stop being so offended by anyone who speaks for the police.

I find it interesting that people like yourself, but not you specifically, eat these stories up, but when it comes to stories that hurt your side, or make your side look bad suddenly you want to see both sides, and want to a careful examination of all facts. Don't get me wrong that's what you should do but this policy should be applied equally.

[Kamakazie Sith]

An intentionally vague statute is highly questionable in regards to something being legitimate, regardless of the "evidence" they acquired beforehand. Quite frankly I'm amazed the judge even allowed them to gain a warrant with such loosely-defined parameters.

It's not vague at all. Do you realize that people who have been arrested by police for crimes also lie, and the laywers they hire also lie?

609.175 CONSPIRACY.
Subd. 2. To commit crime. Whoever conspires with another to commit a crime and in furtherance of the conspiracy one or more of the parties does some overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy may be sentenced as follows:
(1) If the crime intended is a misdemeanor, by a sentence to imprisonment for not more than
90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $300, or both; or
(2) If the crime intended is murder in the first degree or treason, to imprisonment for not
more than 20 years; or
(3) If the crime intended is any other felony or a gross misdemeanor, to imprisonment or to payment of a fine of not more than one-half the imprisonment or fine provided for that felony or gross misdemeanor or both.

609.71 RIOT.
Subdivision 1. Riot first degree. When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property and a death results, and one of the persons is armed with a dangerous weapon, that person is guilty of riot first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 20 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $35,000, or both.
Subd. 2. Riot second degree. When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property, each participant who is armed with a dangerous weapon or knows that any other participant is armed
with a dangerous weapon is guilty of riot second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Subd. 3. Riot third degree. When three or more persons assembled disturb the public peace by an intentional act or threat of unlawful force or violence to person or property, each participant therein is guilty of riot third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one
year or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.71; 1984 c 628 art 3 s 11; 1986 c 444; 1993 c 326 art 4 s 33

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would agree with you if we had access to what the police know. You obviously have not noticed, but we have not been given that information from police sources.

I suppose we should always defer to authority figures. After all they are all knowing and powerful and we should blindly, and meekly, trust their judgement until someone who wrongfully doesn't trust authority digs in and finds evidence that the police were acting with malice?

I'm not saying that at all. If you can control your emotions for a second and stop being so offended by anyone who speaks for the police.

I find it interesting that people like yourself, but not you specifically, eat these stories up, but when it comes to stories that hurt your side, or make your side look bad suddenly you want to see both sides, and want to a careful examination of all facts. Don't get me wrong that's what you should do but this policy should be applied equally.

Thing is, at this point even the urine buckets have been explained by the locations they were seized (water conservation, and lack of plumbing)

Considering the long history of police being used as blunt object to stifle political dissent, and considering some of the groups they targeted (a watchdog group that films police conduct, at protests) and considering that they targeted bystanders that demanded justification, and journalists, this is a case of clear cut, politically motivated intimidation. They even got their warrants under the auspices of counter-terrorism, then played up what they found under their bogus warrant to make the protesters look like criminals, when the "edged weapons" were probably in a display case, or backpack(depending on the type) and the "glass bottles" are scattered around the home of any self respecting college student.

What kind of "secret knowledge" could the police feasibly have had that could justify these raids?

The answer is none.

They didnt even need a warrant that would stand up in court, because no one would have standing to challenge it until AFTER the intimidation was complete.

When demonstrators do something bad, it is usually just the result of mob effects/young immaturity, or doing something bad for the right reasons. It is bad, but it is not what you would consider evil (usually, there are exceptions as there are for almost everything).

WIth this there is no reasonable way to salvage some decency, just like there is non reasonable way to salvage decency out of tazing a handicapped person, or someone who just fell off a bridge.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Thing is, at this point even the urine buckets have been explained by the locations they were seized (water conservation, and lack of plumbing)

Again, note the part where I said the defendants and their lawyers will lie. This is why I want to see what evidence the police which motivated the local, county, and federal (FBI) forces to obtain warrants from a judge.

Considering the long history of police being used as blunt object to stifle political dissent, and considering some of the groups they targeted (a watchdog group that films police conduct, at protests) and considering that they targeted bystanders that demanded justification, and journalists, this is a case of clear cut, politically motivated intimidation. They even got their warrants under the auspices of counter-terrorism, then played up what they found under their bogus warrant to make the protesters look like criminals, when the "edged weapons" were probably in a display case, or backpack(depending on the type) and the "glass bottles" are scattered around the home of any self respecting college student.

None of this is an excuse to engage in a zero thinking policy. Yes, police have been used as tools to crush poltical dissent, however, that does not mean it is the case everytime the police break up an assembly or do something like this.

For example. You made a comment earlier about a police officer who orders you to move on from your non-violent legal protest.

Well, what you don't realize in that on the other side of you where you can't see or hear is an illegal action that is quickly becoming violent. Yes, that means that when a part of a protest becomes violent the entire thing will be shut down.

What kind of "secret knowledge" could the police feasibly have had that could justify these raids?

They mentioned it in the OP. If that was truly the information that they came across then that would more than justify it. Don't you think protestors planning to disrupt transportation should be prevented from doing so?

The answer is none.

They didnt even need a warrant that would stand up in court, because no one would have standing to challenge it until AFTER the intimidation was complete.

Intimidation tactics don't work. If the police want to disrupt the protests then they will wait for the protests. These tiny raids will have zero impact as far as intidimation goes. If anything this only fuels the resolve.

When demonstrators do something bad, it is usually just the result of mob effects/young immaturity, or doing something bad for the right reasons. It is bad, but it is not what you would consider evil (usually, there are exceptions as there are for almost everything).

I never said it was evil. However, I'm not going to come down on the police for doing their jobs unless their reason behind it is flawed.

WIth this there is no reasonable way to salvage some decency, just like there is non reasonable way to salvage decency out of tazing a handicapped person, or someone who just fell off a bridge.

Right. Raiding some homes and seizing some property is right on the level with people being physically abused who obviously don't present a threat.

Again, did I miss the part where they beat a baby seal?

[Kamakazie Sith]

What I don't get is this. Aren't civilian authorities (such as police officers) meant to represent a picture of higher moral order. Soldiers are expected to exemplify the "virtues" of the country they represent and as such are under much stricter legal codes then civilians, and police officers found committing crimes are treated as failing at their basic duty. Yet why is it when it comes to a situation of police vs. some group that may be unpopular, the police get free pass to act as authoritarian as they wish, and to skirt the responsibilities to civic virtue they are meant to stand for?

I've asked this question three times now. What police violence are you talking about? Unless I've missed something the worst that happened to somebody was they were handcuffed and told to lay on the floor. Did someone get pepper sprayed in these raids?

The police should be the ones being the least violent. They have no reason to instigate anything, they have the legal mandate to utilize force when it becomes necessary, so why should they seek to facilitate that necessity, other than the thuggish behavior that seems common? And why is it that there are members of this board who feel they must side with the police who are clearly failing the mandate that they are given within the social contract, simply because no one was permanently injured? Police are supposed to represent a higher standard, not a drastically lower one that what we would expect of our neighbor.

Perhaps people side with the police because it isn't so clear to them? The reason I am is because I'm only seeing the side of the story from those who were raided. Sorry, but that's a biased group, and so are the police as well. That's why I want to see both sides, and I'd like to hear the conclusion that a third party would have after looking at both sides.

[General Zod]

Well, let's see. Because it was signed by a judge, and the found items that if backed by the intel they have would justify the raid. That's why.

Now I'm not saying the police have sold me on their raid. I still would like to know what made these individuals a target, and if any of the items seized where apart of that intel.

Perhaps it's just me, but this sounds patently retarded. All the police have to have in order to justify a raid is someone saying "He's got <xxx>! in his house!11!, I saw it, really!1!11"? Does the burden of proof no longer apply to the police or something? Had they not found these items, then what? I have a hard time believing any type of serious reprimand would have been levied against them.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, let's see. Because it was signed by a judge, and the found items that if backed by the intel they have would justify the raid. That's why.

Now I'm not saying the police have sold me on their raid. I still would like to know what made these individuals a target, and if any of the items seized where apart of that intel.

Perhaps it's just me, but this sounds patently retarded. All the police have to have in order to justify a raid is someone saying "He's got <xxx>! in his house!11!, I saw it, really!1!11"? Does the burden of proof no longer apply to the police or something? Had they not found these items, then what? I have a hard time believing any type of serious reprimand would have been levied against them.

If what you said is all they have then yeah I completely agree. However, assuming the judge is competent then there is no way in fucking hell the judge would sign off on something as simple as that.

Warrants are meant to be detailed and the reasons behind the warrant also needs to be backed up by evidence.

Anyway, there is a thing called the "good faith" clause. It absolves the police of any wrong doing assuming that they made a conlusions that any reasonable person would also make within the parameters of the law.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, let's see. Because it was signed by a judge, and the found items that if backed by the intel they have would justify the raid. That's why.

Now I'm not saying the police have sold me on their raid. I still would like to know what made these individuals a target, and if any of the items seized where apart of that intel.

Perhaps it's just me, but this sounds patently retarded. All the police have to have in order to justify a raid is someone saying "He's got <xxx>! in his house!11!, I saw it, really!1!11"? Does the burden of proof no longer apply to the police or something? Had they not found these items, then what? I have a hard time believing any type of serious reprimand would have been levied against them.

If what you said is all they have then yeah I completely agree. However, assuming the judge is competent then there is no way in fucking hell the judge would sign off on something as simple as that.

Warrants are meant to be detailed and the reasons behind the warrant also needs to be backed up by evidence.

Anyway, there is a thing called the "good faith" clause. It absolves the police of any wrong doing assuming that they made a conlusions that any reasonable person would also make within the parameters of the law.

It also makes it very very difficult to prosecute them if the search was not indeed conducted in good faith.

And as I said before, the warrant itself does not have to stand up in court. All it has to do if the police are being used as a blunt object, is get them in the door.

[General Zod]

If what you said is all they have then yeah I completely agree. However, assuming the judge is competent then there is no way in fucking hell the judge would sign off on something as simple as that.

Except, we don't know what else they had, and quite frankly there's no reason to assume the judge was competent at all. The fact that people don't put the police under even greater scrutiny in cases like this which seem to be based on rather shaky evidence baffles me.

Anyway, there is a thing called the "good faith" clause. It absolves the police of any wrong doing assuming that they made a conlusions that any reasonable person would also make within the parameters of the law.

I'd say this clause needs a severe revision given that the police have significantly greater authority than your average person.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It also makes it very very difficult to prosecute them if the search was not indeed conducted in good faith.

Incorrect. If the warrant was based off knowingly false information then that opens those police officers that wrote it up to all kinds of legal liability.

And as I said before, the warrant itself does not have to stand up in court. All it has to do if the police are being used as a blunt object, is get them in the door.

Wrong again. Go take some fucking law classes or something. If the warrant fails then everything seized in the search is illegal.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except, we don't know what else they had, and quite frankly there's no reason to assume the judge was competent at all. The fact that people don't put the police under even greater scrutiny in cases like this which seem to be based on rather shaky evidence baffles me.

What baffles me is you're calling it shaky evidence without having reviewed that evidence. How you're able to do that is what astoundes me in these threads.

You do know that you haven't seen the evidence, or the police report right? The media articles aren't those reports.

I'd say this clause needs a severe revision given that the police have significantly greater authority than your average person.

You want to hold them accountable for reasonable human mistakes, really? How does that fair to you at all? It seems like you just would rather the police not take any proactive action and just wait for a crime to occur.

[General Zod]

What baffles me is you're calling it shaky evidence without having reviewed that evidence. How you're able to do that is what astoundes me in these threads.

The same way you're able to call it acceptable. Quite frankly the burden is on the police to show their evidence was good, so far this hasn't happened.

You want to hold them accountable for reasonable human mistakes, really? How does that fair to you at all? It seems like you just would rather the police not take any proactive action and just wait for a crime to occur.

What's unreasonable about holding people with greater authority than most citizens to a higher standard?

[Kamakazie Sith]

The same way you're able to call it acceptable. Quite frankly the burden is on the police to show their evidence was good, so far this hasn't happened.

The only way this is acceptable is if the intel was good, and the results of the raid supported that intel.

The burden is on the police. However, the place to fulfill this burden lies in the courtroom, and not to the media. I've attempted to educate people about this fact before.

What's unreasonable about holding people with greater authority than most citizens to a higher standard?

Nothing. As long as what you're holding them to is still reasonable. I didn't define the good faith standard, but you answered anyway as if you knew what I was talking about and claimed that it needs to be revised. Why? What's wrong with? What do you think it means?

[General Zod]

The only way this is acceptable is if the intel was good, and the results of the raid supported that intel.

Perhaps it's just me but this comes off as massively backasswards. It sounds to me as if you're saying that any raid is acceptable as long as what they "find" supports what they were given to work with, regardless of how incredibly shaky what they were working with in the first place was.

Nothing. As long as what you're holding them to is still reasonable. I didn't define the good faith standard, but you answered anyway as if you knew what I was talking about and claimed that it needs to be revised. Why? What's wrong with? What do you think it means?

Holding them to the same standard as "any reasonable person" is what I have an issue with. How many "reasonable people" have access to all the information and tools the police do? Hence, they need to be held to significantly higher standards than your average citizen.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wrong again. Go take some fucking law classes or something. If the warrant fails then everything seized in the search is illegal.

Do you fail at reading comprehension? What I am telling you, is that if they have no intention to take the case to trial, they dont need the warrant to stand up in court. They can find a judge (depending on how the state's system works) that rubber stamps warrants, cut as many corners as they can get away with, intimidate people, seize equipment (like the cameras of watchdogs) and use what they find to discredit the protesters.

If that is indeed their goal, then they dont actually need to have an airtight warrant, they just need one good enough to keep them out of trouble.

Incorrect. If the warrant was based off knowingly false information then that opens those police officers that wrote it up to all kinds of legal liability.

Yeah, if it can be proven they did that. But seeing as that is rather difficult to do, if they were to want to do that, they can.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The only way this is acceptable is if the intel was good, and the results of the raid supported that intel.

Based on the info we have, there is a good chance that it actually does not. Axes, slingshots, other edged weapons. I own all of those things, a good number of my friends own firearms and full suits of armor. We all have laptops, cell phones etc. Several of my friends like to create armored suits and go at each other with home-made low-explosives (Captain Cyran I am looking at you) and build siege equpment

and I am not as willing as you are to brush aside the very real possibility that the buckets of urine were indeed seized from the very areas where you would expect them to be useful. An attic room apartment, or a left-wing hippy doing water conservation. It is just as reasonable as medium term urine storage for use as a weapon at the very least

[Kamakazie Sith]

Do you fail at reading comprehension? What I am telling you, is that if they have no intention to take the case to trial, they dont need the warrant to stand up in court. They can find a judge (depending on how the state's system works) that rubber stamps warrants, cut as many corners as they can get away with, intimidate people, seize equipment (like the cameras of watchdogs) and use what they find to discredit the protesters.

No, but you do. Have you forgotten that they made five arrests and charged those five with a felony.

Furthermore, warrants are still public. A false warrant would still be available for scrutiny and review leaving the city open to civil suits, and certain individuals open to criminal charges.

If that is indeed their goal, then they dont actually need to have an airtight warrant, they just need one good enough to keep them out of trouble.

Their plan fell apart then because they foolishly decided to arrest five people, charge them with felonies, and allowed the raid to make it to major media sources.

Yeah, if it can be proven they did that. But seeing as that is rather difficult to do, if they were to want to do that, they can.

What experience do you have that suggest this is a rather difficult task to accomplish?