Thanks for posting news Tiassa. Livened things up a bit. 
Bothell Bust
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Yeah, the cops should always call first to let everyone know that they're coming to serve an arrest warrant!
Geez, Tiassa, see how biased and hateful you are towards the police?
Think about it ....the cops get an arrest warrant, then call ahead of time so the scumbag might be alerted? Hmm, you'd make a great cop, Tiassa!
By the way, isn't it nice to be the moderator on your own thread? You can just delete any posts you don't like, or you can issue veiled threats or, ...well, most anything you want to do. Nice, huh?
Baron Max
What the hell are you talking about, Max?
What the hell are you talking about, Max? Here, try it this way:
I believe her point was, in the first place, that the property management company would have been willing to help. At the point in question, the suspects already knew the police were there.
See above.
What the hell are you talking about, Max? No, you know what? It would probably be better if you file your complaint with Plazma. Easy enough? Good.
Baron Max said:
What the hell are you talking about, Max? Here, try it this way:
You arrive to serve a warrant, knowing the suspect's location. You knock on the door, but the occupants do not answer. Possible courses of action include:
(A) Check the back door
(B) Call property management, obtain key to unit or other assistance entering
(C) Break down door
(B) Call property management, obtain key to unit or other assistance entering
(C) Break down door
I believe her point was, in the first place, that the property management company would have been willing to help. At the point in question, the suspects already knew the police were there.
See above.
What the hell are you talking about, Max? No, you know what? It would probably be better if you file your complaint with Plazma. Easy enough? Good.
Giving the suspect more and more time to get his guns and get ready for the assault? And endanger more police officers as well as civilians?
Besides, the cops were already watching the backdoor for the suspect's possible attempt at escape. But it's standard police procedure to serve the warrants via the front door, not the back!
And thus put an innocent civilian in danger if the suspect begins blasting away with his machine guns and torpedoes and howitzers?
Yep, it's standard police procedure in serving arrest and/or search warrants.
And involve innocent civilians in police work?
The suspect might have been asleep ...a sound sleeper? Besides, how did you know that .....UNTIL AFTER everything else happened? Hindsight, huh, Tiassa?
Why haven't you banned me yet? I mean, I disagree with everything you've ever written on this site, and you're a moderator. Hell, if I was a mod, and you did the same shit to me, I'd ban you in a heartbeat!
Baron Max
You could always try paying attention for a change, Max
Okay, work with me here, Max:
Now then, do you think it possible that, when they knocked on the door, the suspect figured out that the police were there?
Is it possible that, in waiting for another six units at least to arrive at the location, the suspect might be getting whatever guns ready for the assault?
If guns were a tremendous concern to the deputies, do you think maybe, just maybe, more than a quarter of the team should be armored?
Are you asserting that in the whole history of police serving warrants, none have ever, when refused voluntary access by the occupants, actually entered through the back door?
How does handing a key to the police put an innocent civilian in danger?
As to "machine guns and torpedoes and howitzers", see above point about body armor. For all your vitriol about how I regard the police, you seem to be presuming that these particular deputies were complete morons.
Once again you disparage the police. Despite the COPS television show and striking images from the Drug War, law enforcement tends to escalate according to a process unless immediate circumstance—e.g. shooting, flight of suspect—demands otherwise.
This notion is what the site manager's question pertained to.
Baron Max said:
Okay, work with me here, Max:
You arrive to serve a warrant, knowing the suspect's location. You knock on the door, but the occupants do not answer.
Now then, do you think it possible that, when they knocked on the door, the suspect figured out that the police were there?
Upon being refused even the courtesy of an answer, they called for backup, and eventually broke the door to execute the arrest.
Is it possible that, in waiting for another six units at least to arrive at the location, the suspect might be getting whatever guns ready for the assault?
... the fact of only two of the deputies wearing any visible body armor ....
If guns were a tremendous concern to the deputies, do you think maybe, just maybe, more than a quarter of the team should be armored?
Are you asserting that in the whole history of police serving warrants, none have ever, when refused voluntary access by the occupants, actually entered through the back door?
How does handing a key to the police put an innocent civilian in danger?
As to "machine guns and torpedoes and howitzers", see above point about body armor. For all your vitriol about how I regard the police, you seem to be presuming that these particular deputies were complete morons.
Once again you disparage the police. Despite the COPS television show and striking images from the Drug War, law enforcement tends to escalate according to a process unless immediate circumstance—e.g. shooting, flight of suspect—demands otherwise.
This notion is what the site manager's question pertained to.
Mod Hat - Response
Mod Hat — Response
Well, in the first place, I think it should be quite obvious that I'm not you.
More generally, there was once a time when you certainly would have been banned for your conduct, but the last couple of years have seen policy inching toward accommodation, to the point that there is a question how problematic calculated dishonesty and deliberate antagonism actually are.
To the other, if you're willing to tip your hand as such, you only help make the case against yourself.
Mod Hat — Response
Baron Max said:
Well, in the first place, I think it should be quite obvious that I'm not you.
More generally, there was once a time when you certainly would have been banned for your conduct, but the last couple of years have seen policy inching toward accommodation, to the point that there is a question how problematic calculated dishonesty and deliberate antagonism actually are.
To the other, if you're willing to tip your hand as such, you only help make the case against yourself.
I've already explained it all to you, Tiassa, in the earlier post. That you try to re-invent it all just to try to prove some biased point against the police is nothing more than proving once again your extreme bias against the police.
Baron Max
(chortle!)
What did you explain in which post, Max? Your inquisition is based, as I explained, on statements not on record.
The laughable part of that is the phrase, "That you try to re-invent it". Looking back at earlier posts, the nearest I can tell is that you're inventing some phantom scenario in your head and basing your argument on that instead.
I mean, seriously, are you actually incapable of answering a simple question like, "How does handing a key to the police put an innocent civilian in danger?"
Or are you simply unwilling?
Baron Max said:
What did you explain in which post, Max? Your inquisition is based, as I explained, on statements not on record.
The laughable part of that is the phrase, "That you try to re-invent it". Looking back at earlier posts, the nearest I can tell is that you're inventing some phantom scenario in your head and basing your argument on that instead.
I mean, seriously, are you actually incapable of answering a simple question like, "How does handing a key to the police put an innocent civilian in danger?"
Or are you simply unwilling?
Tiassa, I've finally decided that you're absolutely correct in this thread and in everything that you've said on any other thread that's ever been posted on this site. I'm sorry that I ever disagreed with any of it and I won't disagree with you ever again.
Baron Max
Baron Max
Any further developments?
Nada
Unfortunately, nothing. Used to be newspapers ran "police blotters", but the Everett Herald doesn't seem to. The Seattle papers don't usually cover small arrests up here. There are a couple of really small local rags that used to show up every month, but I don't know if they've gone under, or if they've been banished from the complex by property management; I haven't seen them in a while.
Which is a shame, because those had police blotters in them.
I'm actually curious what the warrant was for. I'm probably just looking in the wrong places.
Unfortunately, nothing. Used to be newspapers ran "police blotters", but the Everett Herald doesn't seem to. The Seattle papers don't usually cover small arrests up here. There are a couple of really small local rags that used to show up every month, but I don't know if they've gone under, or if they've been banished from the complex by property management; I haven't seen them in a while.
Which is a shame, because those had police blotters in them.
I'm actually curious what the warrant was for. I'm probably just looking in the wrong places.