Phantasee wrote:Euthanized 115 chickens on the spot? Why do I get the image of 115 chickens run over?
Because they couldn't get to the other side.
Looks like Warlord Arpaio is losing touch with reality. Sending a tank after a cockfighter? What's next, bombing meth labs?
"A word of advice: next time you post, try not to inadvertently reveal why you've had no success with real women." Darth Wong to Bubble Boy
"I see you do not understand objectivity," said Tom Carder, a fundie fucknut to Darth Wong
Eulogy wrote:
Because they couldn't get to the other side.
Looks like Warlord Arpaio is losing touch with reality. Sending a tank after a cockfighter? What's next, bombing meth labs?
In more then one part of the US they already do blow up illegal liquor stills out in the woods rather then go to the trouble of breaking them up and hauling them away.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
I imagine detonatiing meth labs in controlled manner from a distance would be safer for the law enforcement personel than trying to disassemble them. That is of course providing there is no danger to others involved by detonating it.
A meth lab is legally a HAZMAT area, so demolition by burning or explosives could only be a utter last resort rather then just being done for convenience like explode a still that’s just copper and steel and usually outdoors already. That said, cases have existed in which they burned down remote meth labs down because the highly flammable waste had already soaked into the floor and walls too much. But doing this means an evacuation area downwind and similar precautions such as cutting holes in the roof of the building.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
eion wrote:As to the armored car vs. tank debate, it's still overkill regardless.
An armored car won't be considered overkill, without the benefit of hindsight. An armored car is designed to resist rifle-caliber munitions- common enough in the US- and to serve as a ramming vehicle, e.g., breach a barricaded area. The media sensationalism makes me sick.
Think on what a tank is designed to resist. At minimum, it must resist resist the .50 BMG round- which costs $2 per round, and is fired from a gun that costs $10,000, both of which the average criminal cannot acquire without giving up a lot of "bling-bling" and other luxury items- to say nothing about RPGs and other anti-armor weapons. Getting hysterical about the Sheriff Department's "tank" is like calling a police dog a "Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Sidewinder, nobody in this thread is complaining about police forces having armored vehicles. What is the issue here is the matter in which former military vehicles are used.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Exactly. I have zero issue with extreme force being used in extreme situations, but that was not the case here. The guy was alone, unarmed, and without a history of weapons ownership or violent arrests.
And this unscheduled demolition was to serve a search warrant! What happened to knocking on the guy's door, or if you fear he'll flush some drugs down, battering it down while yelling "SEARCH WARRANT!"
How exactly was the accused supposed to dispose of 115 roosters without leaving evidence of them?
It is excessive force on the face of it, and I hope the judge throws out any evidence gained from the search, though I hold little hope of anything beyond a little hand wringing in this case.
