DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Killer Cops

Blaming officers that had a gun pulled on them certainly isn't the issue. What would have made it preventable would have been if Judge Peter Cahill had not have signed a no knock warrant. You instead wish to place the blame on the officers at the scene.

It really is quite simple if you think it through.

The no knock warrant places the police and everyone at the intended subject address at risk.

It is not a smart thing to do if you think about it.

No knock warrant should be reserved for the most dangerous warrants, that pose a threat to the public.

Drug dealers? Wait until the next day and pick them up at the corner.

They usually are. Judges don't just sign every warrant presented to them. My feeling is there was a legitimate reason the warrant was issued.

The warrant was requested because the police had reason to believe that they would be entering a hostile, dangerous environment with the risk of bodily harm. Surprise is the best way to mitigate that risk, right? Upon entering they met a man with a gun.

As Pit eloquently worded, it isn't reasonable for a police officer to wait to be shot at first, which is really what some people seem to be expecting.

the suspect they were looking for was a murder suspect who happened to be the cousin of the guy that was shot. it is an easy assumption that the victim likely knew of his younger cousins legal troubles.

I may be off-base here, but the fact that the no-knock warrant was given in parallel with a regular warrant (allowing the cops to choose which to execute on) tells me that not enough due diligence was done to issue the no-knock. I think if you're going to send in SWAT with a finger already on the trigger (which is essentially what you're doing with that warrant), then the threshold to issue that should be extremely high. You have to be 100% sure of what you're doing. Sending cops in under those circumstances and then expecting them to show all the restraint of a normal warrant is unreasonable.

I think no-knock warrants should be reserved for the most extreme of situations. I had a conversation about this with someone at work, and I really think it's gonna take the police killing some little kid, for lawmakers to maybe explore changing this.

It's such a crappy situation from both sides. The cops see someone grab a gun, and have to protect themselves. The person at home who legally had the gun, has to protect himself. It's beyond dangerous for all involved, and just seems unnecessary.

I don't know. State laws may require a warrant for search and an additional warrant for breaking in the door with little warning.

No-knocks are usually issued as said earlier if they suspect harm might come to the entering officer, or in the case of drugs, rushing the house to take away the time a suspect might have to flush the evidence.

Come to find out they didn't know if the suspect named in the warrant was even there. He wasn't. I think that's playing it a little loose with a no knock warrant. If you're going to go to the extreme of issuing a no knock warrant, at least be sure the person named on the warrant is there. I don't consider that a very high bar.

Teen arrested in connection to 'no-knock' search warrant that led to Amir Locke's death

https://6abc.com/amir-locke-shooting-minneapolis-no-knock-warrant/11548322/

The entire "He's been seen there before" excuse doesn't work for me.

This won't get Republican votes because she put it up.

If she didn't spend her time spouting radical left rhetoric, people would be more inclined to respect her.

It'll die because of that, but also because she seems to want to go too far. She said "restrict and ban" no-knock warrants. Her intention is that nobody dies from executing warrants, ignoring the fact that a big reason for no-knocks are to help the cops involved since you're knowingly sending them into a dangerous situation.

I do think there's a big problem giving those out like candy, but just like blaming the cops involved in the two deaths, this action here is missing a big part of the problem.

Isn't she the one that said the reason for all the crime going on now is because people are stealing baby formula. Maybe it wasn't her it might have been the other genius AOC.

AOC IS WAAAAAAAAY SMARTER THAN YOU WILL EVER BE. And here you are tasking shots at her mentality. Maybe if you understood what she was trying to say, instead of reading or listening to her words with all of your bias and hate in your heart, just watch or listen. Asking questions would help too, somebody that does understand adult conversations about politics might be able to help you. I find it fascinating how GOPers latched on to hating her, trying to make her quit, and she has owned them at every turn. Sure, just like any young person new to a job, she's made mistakes and gaffs aplenty, but she has worked her butt off for dems and progressives, and I respect that all day long.

Shut up.

The same would go for you and your GOPerisms. You sound dead from the neck up most of the time in PP. So you fall back on sassy and snark, every time.

Are you 12?

You just don't like my comment because you lack any credibility for the same reason as those two deranged radical left idiots.

In fact, when you try to sound "serious" you sound like a deranged troll to most normal people. Sad but true. Maybe someday you'll come back to reality.

Yes arch, I am 12. Have a good night arch.

You sound like one of those rednecks that Fox likes to interview. "Dang libtards and their radicals… <insert a mountain of wack-a-doodle>, stupid libs." <- that's you in PP every day. You didn't use to be like this, but recently, since the last election, you act more like them all the time. Doubling down on backing the party of Trump, and all it comes with, has not been a good look for you.

You are a sad person. You make up crap because you have nothing else. Please to share posts where I back Trump. I'll wait. Or you can just admit you have nothing. Because you cant handle truthful criticism.

I said "Doubling down on backing the party of Trump"… that would be the Republican Party. There, now deny that. And you only think I'm sad for calling you out on it.

I fully admit that I lean right. OBVIOUSLY. However, I'm a moderate. You're an extremist. It's why you have no credibility. This is my point. And my point about those two deranged idiots. It's why you all will lose in midterms.

No, I am not an extremist. I might seem like that to you, because you seem like that to me. But I'm a progressive who is simply fresh out of GAF. That's a far cry from extremist. Maybe you missed the Nazi march in Charlottesville, the one your guy said that there were good people on both sides about after the extremists killed a progressive like me. Those were extremists. Or perhaps you think that I'm extremist because I disagree with telling a woman what she does with her body? Possibly it is that I disagree with racism? Or that I think everyone should be able to vote no matter how we have to do it. Oh it has to be that I don't buy into the right wing propaganda and news like Tucker. No, you can't name a single damn thing that makes me radical or extremists as you often call me, but you can run your mouth and pretend you're winning… Just like a guy who used to lead your party.

So keep throwing those insults, and stand by to receive, because if anybody has been radicalized or is becoming an extremist, it's you and the rest of the cult.

You are definitely an extremist. You should read your posts some time.

Again, in your echo chamber, I could see why you think that. The rest of the world doesn't live in GOPer alternate reality. Specifically, point out exactly what makes me extremist and or radical. Let's have a debate about it. I'd like that.

Because you are a commie socialist. You support socialist and marxist groups. You routinely promote violent thinking to get your way. That is not moderate thinking. That is far left radical extremist thinking. But by all means continue with your denial.

Name a commie socialist group I support? And no, democratic socialist are NOT what you are describing, not the Bernie type anyway. But I will give you 'fringe' on the official organization, but I don't support them and never have. I don't even know any Marxist groups, so wrong again. And political action in the form of political disobedience or dissidents is as main stream American as apple pie! Hell, that's how the country started! I suppose the founding fathers were un-American radical extremists too? Wow, you came to a battle of wits armed with a twig and few “pew-pew” sound effects… Try again.

I feel like I have to keep typing the same thing over and over to you again. I don't want to draw it in crayons. Maybe you should do some introspection and consider the values you hold and groups you support. Then go look at the posts you type. It's not moderate. It's extremist.

Maybe you don't feel that way, but it's what you post on here. And no, I'm not digging up your posts. You will just spew more extremist garbage tomorrow. So check yourself if you don't want to be an extremist.

So all you have is empty rhetoric. You call me all this crap all the time, and I mean as far back as the 2016 primaries, so it's no wonder this is what you've come to think of me. You've lied to yourself so many times about me, you don't even see me for me. Now, you have a mental pic of me as just a libtard commie extremist that doesn't buy any of the crap you and your ilk are selling. But don't feel bad, trumpism drove the divides, broke families, ended friendships, and jaded all of us in some way. I used to be much more tolerant of the right. But since the insurrection and attempted coup after four years of Trump, I don't trust anyone promoting the right, or it's talking points.

Check YOURSELF if you don't want to be lumped in with Trumpians. You sound like Tucker most days.

I don't lie to myself about you. I see what you post day in day out. A bunch of toxic extremist garbage, often supporting violence.

I done typing this same thing over to you. Deal with it, because I'm done.

You still haven't given me a specific, but go ahead and run away. I knew it wouldn't be long. I'll come back tomorrow and see if you have anything else, otherwise, you lost.

I don't know if she lost, but she isn't a loser.

To be fair, she spends almost as much time going after her fellow Dems as she does folks on the other side of the aisle. I'm not going to dive too much into your temper tantrum, but she's nowhere near as smart as she (and some others) think she is. She's an ultra-progressive that upset an establishment Dem in an ultra-progressive district. At the end of the day, her ascent isn't all that special. Her story is an interesting one... I believe that she believes in what she's saying/believe it's best for the people (probably her most unique trait among her colleagues).

I'm split on her whining about her job. Having to deal with the likes of Pelosi, McConnell, Cawthorn, etc. would drive anyone to question remaining in this world. But she made the decision to run, followed through, and won. Plenty of opportunities to rethink choices. And as far as 'paying the bills' goes, I challenge you to find another career where expectations are so low while compensation is as high.

TV meteorologist.

If you have not seen her, Gerry Connolly and Rashida Tlaib during the Transdigm hearing, I strongly recommend you watch at least their snippets. If you have two hours to spare, I recommend you watch the whole thing. I had to because it affects my job. You will be sickened afterward though. Fair warning.

This one?


Here's my take (FWIW)... I've never heard of Transdigm, but I have heard of the other companies Tlaib referenced in her corporate pay line of questioning. If a small player like this (I'm assuming Transdigm is relatively small) can play games, isn't that indicative of a system issue? Shouldn't someone from DOD be grilled about being had by a relative upstart?

The issue actually runs far deeper than that. It was a brilliant scheme by them quite honestly. I could write a post that could take up a hundred pages, or we could grab a beer sometime.

If you had a gun to my head to give you a TL:DR though, I would just put it like this: Transdigm is a mother ship company that purchases manufacturers of very low dollar, but high volume parts. The DoD can’t get a full cost breakout for any sole source acquisitions that are under $2 million (TINA threshold). When we do big productions for aircraft or whatever, we focus on a lot of our efforts on the high dollar material and subcontracts. Transdigm went out and purchased the companies that sold us $500 worth of material and then started charging $5,000 for it, after changing part numbers and descriptions. They also don’t do business directly with the government, but with our contractors (Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, etc). Or, they are a second tier supplier (sell to the suppliers or our contractors). So then they make the $500 to $5,000 move that shows up for a part number that has changed on a bill of material that is thousands of lines long that flies under the radar (no pun intended).

Before the IG report, when they were first questioned, they would drag their feet and/or refuse to answer questions, using the TINA statute as their shield. Their leverage on that front is that they knew the DoD wasn’t going to postpone supplying the warfighter over $5,000 worth of material. The prime contractors didn’t care much either because it was a low material cost to them which would be reimbursed as part of the prime contract execution. The problem is TD has over 50 subsidiaries across the board now who all do this in high volume. Finally, somebody blew the whistle.

The other problem too, is that if you listen to what the GOP reps say during that hearing, you’ll notice they actually defend Transdigm with the whole “This is an American company creating American jobs and why are we trying to punish them?” Schtick.

Sorry to hijack the thread. That was my TL:DR believe it or not.

Lol, she gets on my nerves all the time. I don't defend the things she says when it comes to Israel. I don't necessarily agree or disagree either. Not only that, but I just don't like how she goes about it sometimes.

I think she did her job DL05. I agree with oober here. The system is broken, and it will take good people from both sides to fix it. The squad plus Katie Porter all take it to these execs. I'd love to see them in a “untouchables” type role (non-violent), in cleaning up the corruption and corporate greed in this country. They all excel at exposing the blatant wrongs that have been ignored far too long, imho.