When you have swat team busting down doors and using shock and awe to kill/disable any threats, everyone is a potential threat. This is the exact opposite of how it should work and every instance needs to be approved by a judge at the very least. If it was not a real situation that warranted the use of force applied, all officers involved in attacks on innocent people need to be prosecuted by the survivors of these kind of terror entries.
Police should never ever be allowed to edit or decide what is or isn't relevant in a cop on civilian death. When they are in charge, surprising evidence goes missing or is never reported in the first place.
I disagree. Terrorism is a warfighting tactic. Swatting is not about warfare. I think purpose and intention matter here. The exact same act can be terrorism in one context but not in another.
But I realize that the term "terrorism" has already been misused so much that I'm fighting a losing battle on this point. It's almost at the point where we can just lump it in with other boogyman words like "communism", "hackers", etc.: devoid of any substantive meaning other than to be frightening to people.
There was a time -- decades ago -- when one tough cop (or maybe one and a partner) could take on nearly anything. But cops have become weak, stupid, and cowardly -- hence the need for an entire squad of wimps in battle armor to deal with one idiot with a shotgun.
These aren't "warriors": warriors fight with honor. These are psychotic, psychopathic little boys who've been given badges and firepower. THEY LIKE KILLING PEOPLE, that's why they're on the SWAT team. They don't want to de-escalate the situation and end it peacefully, they want to shoot people, bomb people, etc. And they don't really care if it's a kid in a crib: they got to hurt someone, so it's a good day for them.
Examine any police squad, find the SWAT team, and you will find the biggest losers, assholes, dummies and cowards.
"Lo ng Gun Registry (recently demised) in Canada. The police could check to see if anyone had firearms in the house..."
This is why registering guns can be very dangerous. The cops do a routine licence plate check before pulling over a car with a burned out tail light or whatever else, see that the person owns a (registered) gun, and then that routine traffic stop gets turned into an armed SWAT raid ... for officer safety, of course.
The police had a report of multiple people wounded by shotgun-wielding attackers, but waited an hour before actually approaching the building.
During that hour they avoided contact to avoid "tipping off" the putative attackers. What was the logic behind that? Because when you are holding hostages, you might think that the police are really there for the hostage situation next door?
The prices quoted for cable probably don't include all the fees, taxes, equipment rental that are not charged on the streaming services. In other words, the price comparisons are bogus.
Other claims in the article are misleading -- the claim that you need Apple TV for HBO Now: but that's only true if you can't wait 3 months for the service. Failing to mention that fact shows (IMHO) an intent to deceive by the author.
I'm am 100% in favor of getting rid of most of the SWAT teams as well as reducing the amount of armament regular cops get to use, but that's a long-haul goal.
In the meantime, I would be happy if cops simply stopped sending SWAT teams as first responders. Send normal police first so they can assess the situation. Let them call SWAT after they've made that determination.
I don't understand why this isn't already the universal policy of the police. It would save lives of both the police and nonpolice, it would save a lot of money, and it would help the police improve their PR problems.
I’d consider an act designed to strike fear into a populace through acts of violence (directly or indirectly) as the purest definition of terrorism.
This particular asshole designed and set into motion a series of events designed to cause at least some form of violent action on the part of police aimed towards a group of innocent people. His reasons for doing so don’t much matter to me.
I don’t refer to SWATting as terrorism with any frivolity. The ‘t-word’ carries a hell of a lot of weight with me, and I wouldn’t use it if I didn’t feel as if SWATting fit the definition. But when someone calls the cops on innocent people for the express purpose of setting up said innocent people for a potentially violent ‘showdown’ with a SWAT team, I call it like I see it.
Is there any truth in rumors that a certain justices car has been seen suspiciously close to areas where drug dealing is taking place? That his bank account and credit cards may have been used for money laundering? Perhaps his access to his car & money should be restricted until he can prove his innocence? Just to be on the safe side, no accusation of wrongdoing implied.
Let's see, authority has toys, boys w/toys want to use them. But doesn't it seem odd that the only likely result of deploying all you military toys is to intensify the violence?
Think it through, we have folks at a game store holding folks hostage w/shotguns. So we have maybe 2-3 "active shooters" .. so we deploy 20 or so officers in battle dress, 10-15 cars, trucks, vans all with sirens and flashing lights, news crews, crime scene management folks, and finally hostage negotiation (1 person?).
How can we honestly expect it get any less violent? Why not default to a bit more restrained response, 4-5 officers, no lights, no sirens, block off traffic. Couple of snipers mainly for backup?
I don't have a problem killing the bad guys - really I don't, until you consider how to ID them.
Take the normal domestic hostage situation of 1 perp and a a couple of innocent hostages. Dangerous for everyone in particular the officers. But if you have one convict with a gun and hostages, why do you need 30-40 officers, multiple SWAT teams with the coolest black "Call of Duty" arms and attitude, helicopters, etc. Let's see if we can inject some more little boy stupidity in the situation why don't we. More cops means more chance a cop get's killed and even greater chance an innocent gets caught in the cross fire.
Officers are supposed to know how to diffuse a situation, turn down the emotions, etc. This very act goes against everything they should have been taught. When has a military response ever been known to defuse a situation. True if kill all the baddies you might actually solve the issue, but that is not the most likely event by a long shot. This does not even consider the hostages in the equation. Basically this might be the least likely to be successful response so of course to government goes with it.
Re: Treaty obligations vs Constitutional Obligations
Taking the exact provisions and questioning the constitutionality is a bit to the noisy side.
Mostly ISDS will be a targeted court for protecting investments against political interference. TRIPS has some protection of fair use and breaking those would also be bad. Besides, these agreements mostly aren't changing laws, so unless existing legislation is un-constitutional, the specifics of the agreement should only be able to lock existing legislation.
There are massive problems with ISDS in areas like legal interpretation, jurisdiction, equality for the law of ISDS rulings and generally standards for ISDS. But willy nilly can sue all they want with outrageous claims, as long as the ISDS tribunals are competent in spite of their deficiencies, they should turn down the unreasonable.
Technically, lying is legal unless you're under oath. There are some corner cases (for example, if you lie to a cop who is investigating a crime, you're "obstructing justice" -- the lying wasn't illegal, but the effect of the lying was.)
However, I've long argued that public officials should be considered "under oath" whenever they are performing their duties (perhaps with an exception for certain things like cops working under cover).
First was a TI-99/4 back in 1980, followed soon after by the TI-99/4A. It was a great little 16 bit, 3 Mhz machine with a speech synthesizer peripheral and a cassette tape drive. But unfortunately since it was originally designed for an 8 bit chip, only 256 bytes of RAM and system ROMs could bypass the 16-to-8-bit multiplexer and thus ran very slowly taking twice the cycles to access and additional 4-cycle wait state to process. Still fun to play with as a kid with lots of time to spare.
I still have the old 99/4 and a couple of 99/4As in storage.
The SWAT team was designed specifically for hostage rescue operations in the late 1960s, before mission creep expanded its use to all kinds of routine police matters. But I have to wonder, what is the ratio of the number of people who have had their lives saved by SWAT teams, compared to the number of people who have had their lives taken by SWAT teams (in non-hostage situations)? Radley Balko has written extensively on this issue, but the information he was able to collect on police-killings might be just the tip of the iceberg.
Have you had so many problems that this is a real concern?
In any case, I don't think the situation is as bad as you fear. In essence, nothing changes in terms of how you get help: you contact the company whose service is failing. The only difference is that you're being serviced by multiple companies.
So, if your internet service goes out, you call your ISP. If your internet service is working, but your Netflix goes out, you contact Netflix. And so forth.
Personally, I just assume that customer support is always awful regardless of the company, and avoid calling them unless I'm desperate anyway, so I can count the number of support calls I've made in my life on both hands. The last time was with Netflix. The Netflix viewer kept telling me the service wasn't reachable. I confirmed I had internet access, checked the various "is it down" sites to see if there was a widespread Netflix outage (there wasn't), then followed the support procedure on the Netflix site. Their tech support had me working again in about five minutes.