Man shot in "no-knock" raid prepares to defend himself

[LadyRaven]

You know Speckles...there are "bad" people out there...and every once in a while a police officer will do something inappropriate or illegal. The problem is...most of the time BTS posts items that are simply untrue, written by alleged reporters, who have a goal of making authority figures look bad. The vast majority of her so-called news pieces are so full of holes that ALL IT TAKES is a simple Google search to find a more thorough and truthful article. Articles that BTS REFUSES to post or acknowledge for reasons that can only be described as profoundly biased against truth.

That information is out there floating about the net and yes sometimes it is not true. However, people are reading and believing it even if it isn't done here. You would rather she believed it but didn't post it for you or others like you to provide evidence to the contrary?

It may or may not be her aim for you to do this, however the opportunity is there for you to find the truth and post it should you feel led to do so. Which is a good thing. I believe all of what speckles said. I also believe that in a free society, one must seek the truth.

Take for instance my opinion of Sheriff Lott (the guy with the APC in SC). I still think he's a duffus, however speckles rightly pointed out that most of the abuses I'd seen on the news were not even related to him. Because he's in the news so much, I pinned it all on him, it's easy to do when you dont pay close attention.

If BTS hadn't posted the article about the APC, I would not have realised that the troopers running over suspects with their cruisers and joking about it were not his. Refuting gossip and slander are also the work of a free people, dontcha think? I dont know whether she intends the articles to be used for that purpose (I dont know here, cant read her mind), but they can be just the same.

The other issue is that many people don't understand BASIC law enforcement. They post these outrageous articles without any understanding (or care) about the good men and women they are dragging through the mud for no good reason. Then when someone like me comes along...who is familiar with the topic...and gives a rational thought out explanation of how things work I am insulted and considered like another "bad cop."

You are correct that most of us do not understand law enforcement completely, some of us even less than this. Some of what police have to do will offend our sensibilities.

That being said, I do believe that, as we should with anyone in power over us, not just law enforcement, we should always question the why of things. We may not end up in disagreement with those in authority, but human nature is fallen and men seek power, that is how it is. The whole concept of checks and balances in government exists as a means to keep that to a minimum. A tyrant executive cant unleash his army against the people without the consent of the people's representatives in the congress, for example.

When it comes to the local issues though, the best check and balance is a people who refuse to be abused for any reason, even if it's in our 'best interest.' So when people fail, we need to know why, we need to know how, and we need to know if it was something the system approved of or looked over or if it's something the failed individual regrets. And when something looks abusive, if it's not we deserve to have the explained as well.

(For example, in the case of the troopers running over suspects who were fleeing the scene of a crime. When I was coming up, police would shoot individuals like this in the leg. I have no idea which is worse really, being shot or being hit with a patrol car. But the issue here in SC isn't just the fact that they are being bumped around, but that the guys doing it are whooping it up and using racial slurs. I have a firm belief, Axx, that if it were you that felt the need to bump someone with a cruiser to prevent a flight, you would not do that, you would feel at least a supreme sense of how serious the act is, that it's not a joke. Am I right?)

I have a record ON THESE FORUMS of speaking out when I see "bad cops" and bad examples in law enforcement. BTS will ONLY post negative anti-law enforcement diatribes and is biased in the extreme. I think Ovedya's questions deserve HONEST answers.

Well, to be honest, even reputable newspapers rarely print good cops doing good things unless they die in the line of duty. News tends to always be bad news. Even the good stuff related to what happened in the wake of 9/11 with the cops and fire-fighters was in the shadow of great loss.

I honestly do not follow people around on the boards keeping track of what they are posting regularly, I try to deal with the issue as it is presented, when it is presented. And when I am not in the mood to be alarmed or angry I dont read it. I believe that these types of topics tend to be emotive and when the sources are questionable it can be frustrating, however, they need to be discussed even if the information is wrong, just so the wrongness is pointed out.

Think of it like a discussion over heresy or other political stuff. It is important.

Perhaps she really wants to believe that this stuff is just odd. Maybe she just wants to have a discussion about what is and is not appropriate. I have been gone for several years before I came back a few months ago, I do not remember BTS from before. However, since she has a habit of posting these sorts of things, perhaps she has explained it before and we haven't seen it.

[Axxman]

Lady Raven...first I want to thank you for a well thought out, rational reply. You made some good points, and some other points I'd like to respond to.

That information is out there floating about the net and yes sometimes it is not true. However, people are reading and believing it even if it isn't done here. You would rather she believed it but didn't post it for you or others like you to provide evidence to the contrary?

I have NO PROBLEM with ANYONE posting ANY news story. In this case the stories often come from unreliable or incomplete sources when FAR MORE reliable and detailed sources are available. BTS will bypass a full length detailed story and post a two paragraph clipping instead....especially if the short clip is anti-cop or anti-gov't. When somebody posts a news story it should be as reliable as possible.

Take for instance my opinion of Sheriff Lott (the guy with the APC in SC). I still think he's a duffus, however speckles rightly pointed out that most of the abuses I'd seen on the news were not even related to him. Because he's in the news so much, I pinned it all on him, it's easy to do when you dont pay close attention.

Obviously, there are times when we don't know all the facts and proper checking reveals more info. In the case of the MAJORITY of BTS's threads the "more info" is not that hard to determine. If this was just a "once in a blue moon" thing it would be different. Its not. It is the vast majority of her threads are anti-gov't/anti-police based on unreliable and incomplete sources. Thats why people are asking her what the deal is.

That being said, I do believe that, as we should with anyone in power over us, not just law enforcement, we should always question the why of things.

When it comes to the local issues though, the best check and balance is a people who refuse to be abused for any reason, even if it's in our 'best interest.' So when people fail, we need to know why, we need to know how, and we need to know if it was something the system approved of or looked over or if it's something the failed individual regrets. And when something looks abusive, if it's not we deserve to have the explained as well.

Let me say that I have NO PROBLEM with any of that. I totally agree that we should ask why. The people deserve an explanation. Everything I do in my job...I have to be ready to give account for my actions...EVERYTHING! However...when an explanation is given...I don't deserve to be insulted just because I happen to have insight into how things work.

(For example, in the case of the troopers running over suspects who were fleeing the scene of a crime. When I was coming up, police would shoot individuals like this in the leg. I have no idea which is worse really, being shot or being hit with a patrol car. But the issue here in SC isn't just the fact that they are being bumped around, but that the guys doing it are whooping it up and using racial slurs. I have a firm belief, Axx, that if it were you that felt the need to bump someone with a cruiser to prevent a flight, you would not do that, you would feel at least a supreme sense of how serious the act is, that it's not a joke. Am I right?)

There are a couple of issues here. High risk takedowns are a "use of force (UOF)." There are TWO primary guidelines for the UOF. I don't know which guideline SC uses...but the rules are generally the same. Force must be generated at the SAME level as the threat. I cannot use deadly force unless it is warranted. If I see a guy wanted for murder, and he poses a danger to the community...I would stop him with the car. If I see a kid wanted for a marijuana warrant...obviously not. Most of the time, in most states, High Risk takedowns need prior approval. You can't do a "pit" maneuver (spin out a car) without prior approval. Its dangerous and somebody, including the officer, could get seriously injured. Bottom line...if I needed to...and the force was warranted I'd do it.

If people are making racist comments...thats unacceptable...PERIOD!

[LadyRaven]

Lady Raven...first I want to thank you for a well thought out, rational reply. You made some good points, and some other points I'd like to respond to.

<snip>

I have NO PROBLEM with ANYONE posting ANY news story. In this case the stories often come from unreliable or incomplete sources when FAR MORE reliable and detailed sources are available. BTS will bypass a full length detailed story and post a two paragraph clipping instead....especially if the short clip is anti-cop or anti-gov't. When somebody posts a news story it should be as reliable as possible.

This brings up plenty of questions. One of them would be, are the apparently reliable news sources unaware of the story?

Have they buried it?

Or is the story distorted and therefore the apparently reliable source reports it differently.

I dont make a habit out of linking to news stories. I have a few times, not often. Thing is, some things which I think might be reliable might not seem so to you. Every rag, even the well known ones had a bias. It's impossible to report news without one, actually, as we are human beings. Even attempting to take the bias out of a story gives it a certain spin. I certainly would be nice to see several sources from different biases when these sorts of things are posted, but, should she? That depends largely on what her motive is. If she wants us to verify or take the article apart, then she wouldn't post multiple accounts. And, I would not post an article from someone i did not trust. So, well, here again, if she does not trust the apparently reliable sources (like the Times?) then why would she use it?

Obviously, there are times when we don't know all the facts and proper checking reveals more info. In the case of the MAJORITY of BTS's threads the "more info" is not that hard to determine. If this was just a "once in a blue moon" thing it would be different. Its not. It is the vast majority of her threads are anti-gov't/anti-police based on unreliable and incomplete sources. Thats why people are asking her what the deal is.

It could very well be that alledged abuses of power are her hot button issue, just like heresy and courtship are mine. When I post something revealing the work of a heretic, I'm not going to post links to pages where other heretics validate the work of the heretic I'm exposing. In the case of many heretics, I still have access to first hand accounts (I sat under some) and so it's pretty reliable. And still I get accused of being hateful, gossipy or various other things. But, I dont care because heresy is my hot button thing.

Though it does seem that she has more time than I do, as she opens more threads than me by a long shot

<snip my rant about checks and balances>

Let me say that I have NO PROBLEM with any of that. I totally agree that we should ask why. The people deserve an explanation. Everything I do in my job...I have to be ready to give account for my actions...EVERYTHING! However...when an explanation is given...I don't deserve to be insulted just because I happen to have insight into how things work.

Nobody here deserves to be insulted

<snip my references to local dash cam footage of cops bumping suspects with cruisers>

There are a couple of issues here. High risk takedowns are a "use of force (UOF)." There are TWO primary guidelines for the UOF. I don't know which guideline SC uses...but the rules are generally the same. Force must be generated at the SAME level as the threat. I cannot use deadly force unless it is warranted. If I see a guy wanted for murder, and he poses a danger to the community...I would stop him with the car. If I see a kid wanted for a marijuana warrant...obviously not. Most of the time, in most states, High Risk takedowns need prior approval. You can't do a "pit" maneuver (spin out a car) without prior approval. Its dangerous and somebody, including the officer, could get seriously injured. Bottom line...if I needed to...and the force was warranted I'd do it.

There seems to be several issues here locally. First off, it's under investigation by the state, the feds and the governor is ticked, etc. but to my knowledge no one has said whether the take down with the cruiser was authorized beforehand. These are all suspects fleeing, but so far i have no idea what they were wanted for, just that they were taken down with the cruiser.

In at least one incident, civilians who were not involved, were close by and had to run for cover. One dash cam shows the pursuit through a housing development, across the lawn. In one the officer sounds happy, as if he'd been duck hunting (even if it were Jeffery Dahmer or the Unibomber, it's still the wrong attitude) and in another racial slurs were used in reference to the suspect.

Which brings me to the other point which you made for me...

If people are making racist comments...thats unacceptable...PERIOD!

here is an article by someone you probably consider reputable about two of the incidents, there have been more, but these two seem to be the ones that everyone goes back to.

[buckthesystem]

You know Speckles...there are "bad" people out there...and every once in a while a police officer will do something inappropriate or illegal. The problem is...most of the time BTS posts items that are simply untrue, written by alleged reporters, who have a goal of making authority figures look bad. The vast majority of her so-called news pieces are so full of holes that ALL IT TAKES is a simple Google search to find a more thorough and truthful article. Articles that BTS REFUSES to post or acknowledge for reasons that can only be described as profoundly biased against truth.

The other issue is that many people don't understand BASIC law enforcement. They post these outrageous articles without any understanding (or care) about the good men and women they are dragging through the mud for no good reason. Then when someone like me comes along...who is familiar with the topic...and gives a rational thought out explanation of how things work I am insulted and considered like another "bad cop."

I have a record ON THESE FORUMS of speaking out when I see "bad cops" and bad examples in law enforcement. BTS will ONLY post negative anti-law enforcement diatribes and is biased in the extreme. I think Ovedya's questions deserve HONEST answers.

Gee Axxman, I've seen a lot of personal attacks on a lot of other message boards, but I must say that this one "takes the cake"!

You've made a lot of accusations here too, I just hope you are prepared to back them up with evidence - that would be absolutely irrefutable evidence.

For instance what evidence do you have that:

1. "most of the time BTS posts items that are simply untrue"?

2. "The vast majority of her so-called news pieces are so full of holes that ALL IT TAKES is a simple Google search to find a more thorough and truthful article"?

3. "..Articles that BTS REFUSES to post or acknowledge for reasons that can only be described as profoundly biased against truth"?

4. "BTS will ONLY post negative anti-law enforcement diatribes and is biased in the extreme"?

5. I have ever "insulted" you? (Apart from mistaking your occupation for that of "parking warden", which for some reason you considered an "insult" but I really did read you that way).

Now consider that if I really do have a penchent for posting "negative" articles, than you really should start attacking WorthyNews because that news service really does print the most outrageous stuff, and then so many of you get really "hot under the collar" while posting items to do with the political candidate that you support. I remember a thread not so long ago accusing Democrats of being mentally deficient, I couldn't believe that no one objected to that one.

It seems that anytthing is acceptable on these boards as long as you praise GW Bush or the GOP once in a while.

The entire attitude of some of the posts here is the politically correct blurring of the line between truth and falsehood, I think the motto of some of you should be "the truth is what I want it to be". That was evident in the recent threads about the "Anthrax poisonings", so many truths "stuck out like a sore thumb" and yet so many people just refused to acknowledge it, instead believing the most preposterous stories. Well, you know what? "The emperor really has got no clothes on!!!"

No, Axxman, I am not the one with biases with regard to almost everything. I just don't like evil and feel I should point it out.

Have a go at answering the questions at least, will you?

[Axxman]

No, Axxman, I am not the one with biases with regard to almost everything. I just don't like evil and feel I should point it out.

Have a go at answering the questions at least, will you?

HA! Now you want to play the victim? After months of attacking me (my job), and my gov't on an almost daily basis, you want me to document every ridiculous, biased thing you've ever written? No thanks! You can try to justify your actions but the truth is...I'm not the only one taking notice anymore.

I will agree with you on one thing though...You are not the only person that has ever posted an inflammatory, or biased article. Heck, I've probably done it myself a time or two. The difference is that nobody (that I've noticed) makes it a point to do it on a daily basis like you do. Almost all of your posts are the same half-informed, conspiracy theory, anti-authority blogs using the most vague and biased source you can find. If this was an every once in a while thing...nobody would have noticed.

Here is a perfect example of YOU at work to promote your anti-police bias:

This is what you said to start the thread rolling: Well I guess we all know what a dangerous, radical religious extremist cult the Amish are, and the school ma'am was probably heavily armed and maybe had instructed the book monitors to "resist", so the police were only "keeping themselves safe".

And you provide this VERY in-depth source to back up your story/bias ... seriously...you expect people to believe that TMZ was the ONLY source you could find for this story???

I Googled three words..."amish, swat, raid" and within seconds found a better source than TMZ.

This is the source you should have used... Oh...but it gave details that didn't fit in with the bias you were trying to promote did it?

Worse yet...when somebody brings the truth to the surface you STILL attack the police. It makes it appear that truth has no value to you.