Police raid wrong house, shoot dog (again)

[Uraniun235]

Uraniun apparently doesn't understand anecdotal evidence, either. I guess shock-value reporting is popular for a reason.

What evidence, short of a completed state or federal investigation, would you find acceptable in a discussion as indicative of a given police department's corruption and/or tendency towards the unethical use of force?

Dogs can be pretty damn dangerous, overseas (AKA Afghanistan) feral dogs get shot all the time. So I can see why cops would do it but this isn't a warzone and identifying whether the dog poses a threat or not should still apply (well it does there as well).

I'm not against the killing of all dogs. There are definitely circumstances where it would be warranted to kill a dog. I don't think those circumstances extend to every scenario in which the dog is not secured in a locked cage in a locked room.

If they're going into a situation where they have reason to believe their suspect is armed and dangerous then I would be reluctantly okay with that, personally. And the militarisation of the police force is a sadly inevitable consequence of the relative ease with which a firearm can be obtained in the US, legally or otherwise. It's hard to blame your cops if they start seeing potential threats when here are none; the first time they don't see a potential threat that is there could be the last.

But legal firearms ownership has been part of the US since the beginning. Until 1986, civilians were still legally permitted to purchase brand-new automatic weapons. Why didn't we see this militarization of the police force earlier in the 20th century?

[Aaron]

I'm not against the killing of all dogs. There are definitely circumstances where it would be warranted to kill a dog. I don't think those circumstances extend to every scenario in which the dog is not secured in a locked cage in a locked room.

I completely agree, officers need to be taught to evaluate whether the animal is a threat or not and how to act accordingly. Even if it is, shooting the animal may not be required.

[Alyeska]

Also there is a possibility that this could be the result of the decades long militerization of the american police. What started in the 1970s with SWAT teams, and continued with the Drug Wars in the 1980s, than there was the 1990s West Hollywood bank Robbery, and since 9-11, the police stating that they are on the front lines of the "War on Terror" has resulted in a change in mindset, as well as equipment. The goals being to opperate with high speed, and to neutralize all threats to the operation as fast as possible. Since the operation depends on suprise and overwhelming the target area, an animal is something that endangers both suprise by having superhuman senses, and could possibly slow down people in light body armour or injure someone without it.

Thats a pretty good summary. Right or wrong, rare or frequent, its a symptom of the very things you talk about.

[Ryan Thunder]

Uraniun apparently doesn't understand anecdotal evidence, either. I guess shock-value reporting is popular for a reason.

What evidence, short of a completed state or federal investigation, would you find acceptable in a discussion as indicative of a given police department's corruption and/or tendency towards the unethical use of force?

If you could find me some statistics from a non-bullshit source, I think that'd cover it.

But other than that, I can't think of anything at the moment, actually.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Did nobody notice DA is just reposting the same damn video as before?

I did, but it does seem like people are treating this as something new. DA even posted in the old thread...

Old Thread, Same Video

Anyway, from the information in the article that Aly linked it seems that they hit the correct house just what they expected to find was not there.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Uraniun apparently doesn't understand anecdotal evidence, either. I guess shock-value reporting is popular for a reason.

What evidence, short of a completed state or federal investigation, would you find acceptable in a discussion as indicative of a given police department's corruption and/or tendency towards the unethical use of force?

If you could find me some statistics from a non-bullshit source, I think that'd cover it.

But other than that, I can't think of anything at the moment, actually.

What evidence would you want to be presented if it were you?

[Ryan Thunder]

What evidence would you want to be presented if it were you?

Are you asking me what evidence I'd want to be presented against some hypothetical officers who shot my hypothetical dog, or what evidence I'd want to be presented to demonstrate that the police force is generally corrupt?

[His Divine Shadow]

But legal firearms ownership has been part of the US since the beginning. Until 1986, civilians were still legally permitted to purchase brand-new automatic weapons. Why didn't we see this militarization of the police force earlier in the 20th century?

In addition, the same trend can be seen in europe as well.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What evidence would you want to be presented if it were you?

Are you asking me what evidence I'd want to be presented against some hypothetical officers who shot my hypothetical dog, or what evidence I'd want to be presented to demonstrate that the police force is generally corrupt?

Sorry, that was actually directed against Uranium. (fighting insomnia right now) All I'm pointing out is that if it were you being accused of being corrupt wouldn't you want something more than hearsay?

[Thanas]

Really? Don't see it in Germany.

[Aaron]

Really? Don't see it in Germany.

I thought you guys had a separate police force for this kind of thing. Gendarmerie, I think is the French term?

[Thanas]

No, we do not, at least not in the french sense of the word.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, we do not, at least not in the french sense of the word.

Your police don't have a tactical unit? Is that what you're saying?

[His Divine Shadow]

I had assumed it was a pretty universal trend amongst western nations but perhaps not, but I am pretty certain most western nations today developed "tactical" forces in the latter 20th century. I thought Germany had their GSG-9.

I know this very subject has been brought up in the media in Sweden before. In 1979 Sweden created the first SWAT analogue force known as "Piketen", a counter terrorist / disaster response unit, then in 1991 they also created a second counter terrorist force called "Nationella Insatsstyrkan". That kind of thing.

[Aaron]

I thought GSG-9 is a counter-terrorism force.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What evidence would you want to be presented if it were you?

Are you asking me what evidence I'd want to be presented against some hypothetical officers who shot my hypothetical dog, or what evidence I'd want to be presented to demonstrate that the police force is generally corrupt?

Sorry, that was actually directed against Uranium. (fighting insomnia right now) All I'm pointing out is that if it were you being accused of being corrupt wouldn't you want something more than hearsay?

The problem is of course "Who is going to collect the data? The people under investigation?" It is the classic "Who Watches the Watchers?" problem. Police departments aggressively defend even those police who engage in egregious wrongdoing, what makes anyone think that they will seriously investigate something like capricious dog killing?

[His Divine Shadow]

I thought GSG-9 is a counter-terrorism force.

I believe they are but I'm afraid I don't see your point? Isn't that a valid use of the phrase 'militarization of the police'? I.E. The creation of paramilitary units? GSG9 is governed by the german federal police.

[Aaron]

I thought GSG-9 is a counter-terrorism force.

I believe they are but I'm afraid I don't see your point? Isn't that a valid use of the phrase 'militarization of the police'? I.E. The creation of paramilitary units? GSG9 is governed by the german federal police.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about units that do house raids. Thats why I asked about the Gendarmerie. But it would fall under "militarization", yeah.

[Thanas]

No, we do not, at least not in the french sense of the word.

Your police don't have a tactical unit? Is that what you're saying?

We have tactical units, but unlike the French Gendarme, they are not viewed separate from the normal police. They are also not that prevalent - usually only one-three for an entire state. They are also typical taken as just another career path instead of "SWAT GUY FOR LIFE".

Aside from the SEK (heavy SWAT) we also have the MEK, which is a SWAT team specifically trained for arrests/undercover work. They work with the element of surprise (like pulling subjects out of a car), whereas the SEK does static work like storming banks etc. Their numbers are also quite low - usually one unit per the entire state.

Arrests in Germany are usually made by standard police, ditto for entering houses etc. Unless people know the subject is armed and dangerous (which is usually not the case in Germany due to strong gun control) typical police will take care of it. Heck, typical police even handles violent situations in Germany, like a few days ago when they shot an armed women who went on a murdering spree.

Generally, the situation is that they are only called in a miniscule percentage of cases. Certainly not for entering the home of a suspect unless they know he is armed.

We also have the Bereitsschaftspolizei, which is a bit swat-like but without usually carrying heavy weapons. These are the guys with riot gear you will see at football games. Again, standard police detached for special duty.

GSG9 is a special case as it is the Federal SWAT team/special unit.


This is certainly not like the french gendarmes, who are both police as well as (theoretically) members of the armed forces and who, in case of war, are expected to fight in their units in battle.


The point is here that it is kinda hard to claim militarization of the police in Germany when the people who are heavily armed are just a very tiny percentage of police members (less than 1% I believe or so) and there are no plans to expand them.

If you want to get technical Germany demilitarized its police because until the 50s, Police forces were organized like military forces and expected to act like one in the case of war. Some of them even had machine guns and armored vehicles as standard issue.

[Thanas]

No, we do not, at least not in the french sense of the word.

Your police don't have a tactical unit? Is that what you're saying?

Only on the state and federal level, not on the level of individual cities. See above for a more detailed explanation.

[Zaune]

Our specialist firearms units usually carry shoulder arms and are trained to something close to SWAT standards, at least as far as marksmanship goes, but the rest of them not only don't carry guns but are mostly dead-set against carrying them. (Northern Ireland is an exception, as well as the only part of the UK where home defence is a valid reason to grant a firearms permit.) Our equivalent of GSG-9 is actually a section of the Special Air Service.

And point taken about gun ownership, but your police have always had access to a lot more firepower than is the Old World norm, not least because of Posse Comitatus; for better or worse, it forces law-enforcement agencies in the US to deal with threats -domestic terrorism incidents like Waco, for example- that many of their European equivalents would hand off to the army.
There are probably cultural factors at work, though. The fallout from Vietnam, the political centre shifting to the right; a lot more people started feeling the need for serious firepower, I guess.

[Thanas]

And point taken about gun ownership, but your police have always had access to a lot more firepower than is the Old World norm, not least because of Posse Comitatus; for better or worse, it forces law-enforcement agencies in the US to deal with threats -domestic terrorism incidents like Waco, for example- that many of their European equivalents would hand off to the army.

Not really, as some constitutions (like Germany's) do not allow the army to interfere in domestic matters.

[Serafina]

Actually, i don't think things like Waco would be handed off to the army. We DO have specialists for these things. If things ever went as bad as that, Germany would call for the GSG 9. They are certainly qualified to handle something like that.
Indeed, using the military for police work is a big no-no around here. They already get into some trouble if they loan their Tornados with IR-cams to search for lost persons. Actually sending them into an armed conflict against civilians within our borders would be a severe violations of (i believe) our constitution (or other laws) and would provoke an immense public outcry.
Besides, these things happen so rarely (even in the USA) that you only need one specialized unit to handle them.

Edit: Eh, Thanas beat me to it. I'm also not too sure about other countries, especially those who blur the border between police and military with their gendarmerie. But in those cases, the gendarmerie would be used, not the actual military - that would just be overkill.

[Ryan Thunder]

Indeed, using the military for police work is a big no-no around here. They already get into some trouble if they loan their Tornados with IR-cams to search for lost persons.

What's the issue with that, if you don't mind my asking?

[Serafina]

Indeed, using the military for police work is a big no-no around here. They already get into some trouble if they loan their Tornados with IR-cams to search for lost persons.

What's the issue with that, if you don't mind my asking?

Umm...hello? GERMANY? Take a look at our history. We've got pretty bad experience with the military being used as a police force.
Thus we established in our constitution that the military should not be used within our borders in such a way.

Also the fact that the military is not trained for police work and it's usage in such a way is unnecessary and dangerous.
Note that this does not apply for, say, building dams during a flood - military engineers are damn handy there and they don't police anyone - the same goes for other natural disasters. It's also not applicable in times of war, obviously. And if there is a threat to the "integrity of democracy" (translation?) the Bundeswehr might also be used, tough that never happened so far.
The Tornados were bordering on being illegal, but since they did not actually interact with any civilians they didn't cross the line. Actually using soldiers to search on the ground would probably cross it. What mattered here is that the latter can be done by the police while the former can't due to a lack of equipment.