Two out of the hundreds of thousands of Swat call outs is minuscule. So because sometimes on rare occasions Swat is misuses we should never use it? Yeah right.
Sorry but a few comes nowhere near the GP's asertion;
and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes.
If this was true one should be able to come up with at least 25,000 such cases a year. Swat may be misused from time to time but nowhere near the extent that the GP alleges.
Depends on what you consider violent. This is just using the police as a proxy to do violence to others. For example, would tampering with rail switches so that a passenger train derails be considered non-violent. All that was done was an inanimate object was modified. That does not seem violent. The issue is that the desired outcome is violent.
SWAT came into prominence in the 1970s, with ~500 SWAT deployments per year. Today, there are more than 50,000 SWAT deployments each year (that's more that 150 deployments every day) and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes.
I call this the fallacy of big numbers. In the '70s there were very few SWAT teams. Only large cites had them. Recently the number of teams has skyrocketed. While 50,000 deployments sounds like a big number it really is not when spread out over the thousands and thousands of Swat teams. Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?
There is no justification for using paramilitary police action on non-violent petty crime.
I agree but I do not agree that all drug busts are non violent. In many drug busts there are three things present, drugs gangs and guns.
There have been dozens of tragic incidents in which innocents have lost their lives due to this excessive use of force.
I have heard of a few but not dozens.
I don't have a solution to this.
Greater minds than us have probably thought long and hard about this. Remember I am talking about swatting here. If they go in slow innocent people may be killed by the perp and the police will be blamed for being slow. If they go in hard and fast they risk killing someone protecting their home and the police will get the blame. If they go in soft and fast they risk innocents and police being killed and the police will be blamed. It is a no win situation.
First most body armor is not bullet proof. The best one can hope for is bullet resistant. There are bullet resistant face shields but they are not perfect. Neck, arms and legs are still vulnerable. An shot that severs a large enough artery can mean death. A shot to a nerve or joint can mean permanent disability.
...SWAT team being called out,...
Swat teams take time to assemble and reach the scene. In that time a lot of damage can be done. In the early days, school shootings had more casualties because they waited for SWAT to arrive. The police were pillared for being too cautious. Now they go in much quicker but with much less protection.
I wish the same standards are followed when people report "someone suspicious
It is all about intent. Swatting is intended to cause someone else problems. Reporting "suspicious activity" is intended to protect people. It does not always work out that way but the intent is there.
Someone hacks one person's computer to hack into other computers, and the police aren't tech savvy... Or someone uses an impressionable kid to work as a mule.
I realize the you have a very low opinion of police but most police departments do have tech resources and will investigate to find the actual source of the issue. Any kid impressionable enough to mule for someone else would also be impressionable enough to tell police who put them up to it.
I also have to mention the reactions of people who encounter police. If your first reaction is to argue or fight there will be problems. I am white and live in a very quiet town in Canada. If a police officer tells me to get on the ground I do it. I don't ask questions until the cop is satisfied we both are safe. If the cop is not justified in what he did I file a complaint. Even when I encounter a cop in day to day events I always keep my hands visible, even in the cold. I don't see the cop as a threat but I don't want to appear to be a threat to the cop.
You have not answered my question. I must therefore conclude that there is no specific right that is being violated.
every single moment of every single day were recorded by numerous devices
A lot of things can be imagined. What is important is what is probably going to happen. That would only happen if one was within range of an RFID reader every minute of every day. Sorry but that is not going to happen any time soon.
You would have no defense against self-incrimination.
If you are talking about the Fifth Amendment, it does not apply. The privilege is defined as follows.
The privilege against compelled self-incrimination is defined as "the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself.... "
Leaving evidence of one's presence is not "answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself".
I have a better idea; How about a hollow snake with a bunch of short legs that work somewhat like a millipede. Put it on the end of a hise and it can snake it's way through debris where even a person can not go. If you can make it somewhat intelligent with a knowledge of the layout of the ship one may just need to launch it.
You are seem to be under the impression at all governments make every decision in the same manner. That is simply not true. While we should look at history and guard against bad things happening in the future that does not mean that we should not to good things now because bad decisions may or may not be made in the future.
To use your flawed logic we should not decide anything now because it may lead to something worse in the future. Why allow a 55mph limit because they could reduce it to 10 mph? Why restrict ingredients in food because they could restrict the ingredients to only GMO ingredients?
but as soon the lobby dollars get the legal right to force folks to inject their kids with stuff,
Actually there is no forcing at all. A parent can decide not to vaccinate their children but are then required to educate them somewhere other than public school.
OK, Here is a real life example. I belong to the SCA. We sometimes have combat practices in public parks. We inform the local police that it is occurring so that any reports of "fighting with swords" can be explained. We sometimes even get police officers coming down to watch.
By the way rapier combat can look like real fighting.
If every time someone sees a box, or a can, or a light bright sitting on the street we're gong to evacuate a city and lock down schools, then lets cut the "freedom and liberty" crap.
Exaggerate much? They closed down one street for a short period of time. Get over it.
Further, the European Union initially demanded that Canada extend the term of copyright in the Canada – EU Trade Agreement, but that too was effectively rebuffed.
The EU wanted the extension too. Maybe the EU alone could not apply enough pressure but it looks like the EU and the US can. The US is such a good target but they are not the only bad actors.
The government does not have the right to sacrifice individuals for the good of the "herd".
True, and requiring a vaccine is in no was sacrificing an individual.
personally stopped vaccinating my kids after having to rush one to the hospital the morning after one vaccination.
Did you stop driving after having an accident? Did you stop allowing your children to play after they injured themselves falling down? You are an example of someone who has no idea what risk analyses is. The risks of getting a vaccine are far smaller than the risks of not getting one. Thanks for making an uninformed decision and putting your own children,people who can not get vaccinated and to a lesser extent even vaccinated children at rink.
And no, the "herd" did not cover the ER bill, or followup costs.
If you cannot find an insurance to uderwrite such coverage of any complications, then your risk assesment is probably spoonfed to you by the company making the vaccine, and completely wrong.
That is why the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. Your lack of use of the program is the problem.
If a graph like this does not convince you then nothing will. Notice that after the first vaccine was licensed the incidence of measles dropped to almost nothing.
Lot's of issues to consider.
What are those issue. Lets talk facts and not innuendo.
Slashdot Mirror
I made a mistake.
Two out of the hundreds of thousands of Swat call outs is minuscule. So because sometimes on rare occasions Swat is misuses we should never use it? Yeah right.
Still nowhere near the 25,000 per year that the GP alleges.
Sorry but a few comes nowhere near the GP's asertion;
and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes.
If this was true one should be able to come up with at least 25,000 such cases a year. Swat may be misused from time to time but nowhere near the extent that the GP alleges.
An action where it is reasonably foreseeable that someone could die, and someone dies as a result, is murder.
It would be criminally negligent manslaughter
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness.
I would consider swtatting to be serious recklessness.
Look up any definition of murder and intent is a big part.
non-violent crimes such as this one.
Depends on what you consider violent. This is just using the police as a proxy to do violence to others. For example, would tampering with rail switches so that a passenger train derails be considered non-violent. All that was done was an inanimate object was modified. That does not seem violent. The issue is that the desired outcome is violent.
SWAT came into prominence in the 1970s, with ~500 SWAT deployments per year. Today, there are more than 50,000 SWAT deployments each year (that's more that 150 deployments every day) and mostly, they are used to round up non-violent people engaging in consensual crimes.
I call this the fallacy of big numbers. In the '70s there were very few SWAT teams. Only large cites had them. Recently the number of teams has skyrocketed. While 50,000 deployments sounds like a big number it really is not when spread out over the thousands and thousands of Swat teams. Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?
There is no justification for using paramilitary police action on non-violent petty crime.
I agree but I do not agree that all drug busts are non violent. In many drug busts there are three things present, drugs gangs and guns.
There have been dozens of tragic incidents in which innocents have lost their lives due to this excessive use of force.
I have heard of a few but not dozens.
I don't have a solution to this.
Greater minds than us have probably thought long and hard about this. Remember I am talking about swatting here. If they go in slow innocent people may be killed by the perp and the police will be blamed for being slow. If they go in hard and fast they risk killing someone protecting their home and the police will get the blame. If they go in soft and fast they risk innocents and police being killed and the police will be blamed. It is a no win situation.
are there no effective bulletproof visors?
First most body armor is not bullet proof. The best one can hope for is bullet resistant. There are bullet resistant face shields but they are not perfect. Neck, arms and legs are still vulnerable. An shot that severs a large enough artery can mean death. A shot to a nerve or joint can mean permanent disability.
...SWAT team being called out,...
Swat teams take time to assemble and reach the scene. In that time a lot of damage can be done. In the early days, school shootings had more casualties because they waited for SWAT to arrive. The police were pillared for being too cautious. Now they go in much quicker but with much less protection.
I wish the same standards are followed when people report "someone suspicious
It is all about intent. Swatting is intended to cause someone else problems. Reporting "suspicious activity" is intended to protect people. It does not always work out that way but the intent is there.
Someone hacks one person's computer to hack into other computers, and the police aren't tech savvy... Or someone uses an impressionable kid to work as a mule.
I realize the you have a very low opinion of police but most police departments do have tech resources and will investigate to find the actual source of the issue. Any kid impressionable enough to mule for someone else would also be impressionable enough to tell police who put them up to it.
I also have to mention the reactions of people who encounter police. If your first reaction is to argue or fight there will be problems. I am white and live in a very quiet town in Canada. If a police officer tells me to get on the ground I do it. I don't ask questions until the cop is satisfied we both are safe. If the cop is not justified in what he did I file a complaint. Even when I encounter a cop in day to day events I always keep my hands visible, even in the cold. I don't see the cop as a threat but I don't want to appear to be a threat to the cop.
The DEA case is different in that they impersonated a real person without her permission.
There is also a universal right to property and the enjoyment of that property. Almost all jurisdictions have noise bylaws which support that right.
You have not answered my question. I must therefore conclude that there is no specific right that is being violated.
every single moment of every single day were recorded by numerous devices
A lot of things can be imagined. What is important is what is probably going to happen. That would only happen if one was within range of an RFID reader every minute of every day. Sorry but that is not going to happen any time soon.
You would have no defense against self-incrimination.
If you are talking about the Fifth Amendment, it does not apply. The privilege is defined as follows.
The privilege against compelled self-incrimination is defined as "the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself. ... "
Leaving evidence of one's presence is not "answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself".
Human rights violating,
What specific human right does it violate? Please give references as "because it is" is not proof or even evidence.
If there are 100 of them pushing in unison probably. That would be much better than two patches of contact which may be contaminated by oil.
I have a better idea;
How about a hollow snake with a bunch of short legs that work somewhat like a millipede. Put it on the end of a hise and it can snake it's way through debris where even a person can not go. If you can make it somewhat intelligent with a knowledge of the layout of the ship one may just need to launch it.
Why does it need to be humanoid? Wouldn't a quadruped with a single arm to control and direct the water be a much more stable platform?
Sorry If I offended. I meant real as in two people actually trying to cause real damage to each other.
It still holds that it is a good idea to tell the local police that you are going to do it in a public place.
You are seem to be under the impression at all governments make every decision in the same manner. That is simply not true. While we should look at history and guard against bad things happening in the future that does not mean that we should not to good things now because bad decisions may or may not be made in the future.
To use your flawed logic we should not decide anything now because it may lead to something worse in the future. Why allow a 55mph limit because they could reduce it to 10 mph? Why restrict ingredients in food because they could restrict the ingredients to only GMO ingredients?
but as soon the lobby dollars get the legal right to force folks to inject their kids with stuff,
Actually there is no forcing at all. A parent can decide not to vaccinate their children but are then required to educate them somewhere other than public school.
OK, Here is a real life example. I belong to the SCA. We sometimes have combat practices in public parks. We inform the local police that it is occurring so that any reports of "fighting with swords" can be explained. We sometimes even get police officers coming down to watch.
By the way rapier combat can look like real fighting.
Get charged with filling false police reports.
Get sued for the costs incurred by those false reports.
There are many scenarios that would be appropriate to notify law enforcement.
Seeing a person in a ski mask going in to a bank.
Seeing a neighbour's house being broken into.
Seeing a person being dragged into a car.
Seeing a car weave all over the road.
Law enforcement is not the enemy.
If every time someone sees a box, or a can, or a light bright sitting on the street we're gong to evacuate a city and lock down schools, then lets cut the "freedom and liberty" crap.
Exaggerate much? They closed down one street for a short period of time. Get over it.
Further, the European Union initially demanded that Canada extend the term of copyright in the Canada – EU Trade Agreement, but that too was effectively rebuffed.
The EU wanted the extension too. Maybe the EU alone could not apply enough pressure but it looks like the EU and the US can. The US is such a good target but they are not the only bad actors.
PS. I am Canadian
The government does not have the right to sacrifice individuals for the good of the "herd".
True, and requiring a vaccine is in no was sacrificing an individual.
personally stopped vaccinating my kids after having to rush one to the hospital the morning after one vaccination.
Did you stop driving after having an accident? Did you stop allowing your children to play after they injured themselves falling down? You are an example of someone who has no idea what risk analyses is. The risks of getting a vaccine are far smaller than the risks of not getting one. Thanks for making an uninformed decision and putting your own children,people who can not get vaccinated and to a lesser extent even vaccinated children at rink.
And no, the "herd" did not cover the ER bill, or followup costs.
Did you make a claim to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
If you cannot find an insurance to uderwrite such coverage of any complications, then your risk assesment is probably spoonfed to you by the company making the vaccine, and completely wrong.
That is why the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was created. Your lack of use of the program is the problem.
If a graph like this does not convince you then nothing will. Notice that after the first vaccine was licensed the incidence of measles dropped to almost nothing.
Lot's of issues to consider.
What are those issue. Lets talk facts and not innuendo.