Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Meaningful thread titles please.

And can you perhaps explain what the point of this thread is? Where's the bunk?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Maybe this is 'bunk'... 'Its a conspiracy to turn America into a terrorised nation afraid of its police force and government'... how about that? ;)

From their map, I count around 60 deaths of innocents, (blue), due to these raids... OMGA better lock down America :eek: Call out the National Guard!!!

http://store.cato.org/reports/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america


 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy, it's just short-sightedness on the part of politicians.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy, it's just short-sightedness on the part of politicians.
It is the militarization of the police and overkill to the nth degree... 10 or so 'para military' with essentially a tank and military grade weapons busting down peoples doors to issue a warrant on some teenager, (and that's if they get the right house)... who actually wants to live in such a society? It is insane.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is the militarization of the police and overkill to the nth degree... 10 or so 'para military' with essentially a tank and military grade weapons busting down peoples doors to issue a warrant on some teenager, (and that's if they get the right house)... who actually wants to live in such a society? It is insane.

But is it a conspiracy, a slippery slope to fascism, or just a bit messed up?

More from that author (Radley Balko)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radle...zation-use-of-force-swat-raids_b_1123848.html
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
But is it a conspiracy, a slippery slope to fascism, or just a bit messed up?

I think 'a bit messed up' is an incredible understatement.

'conspiracy, a slippery slope to fascism', is my interpretation and I justify that in that mostly these 'actions' are either tacitly or explicitly endorsed, condoned and there is most often no or very little official recrimination let alone appropriate prosecution and punishment.

Authorization appears to 'come from the top', much in the same way that killings in Iraq etc and rendition and torture 'come from the top'.

My view is, that the police would not do it if they faced proper accountability.

This is I think a good example of the way the police are out of control in America. The fact he is exonerated and is still serving demonstrates higher culpability and is therefore a conspiracy. The actions are fascistic.

The cop is obviously waiting for him and moves in straight away and calls him by name "Ernie". Perhaps there was bad blood beforehand I don't know...


From description:

From comments:

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps you are just hearing more about this type of thing because there are a lot more video cameras now?

You can't extrapolate from individual events like this. The cop made a bad call. That does not seem like evidence of a conspiracy. How would authorization come from the top. Do they get a memo says "just shoot the bad guys if you feel like it, we'll get you off any charges".

And why do they have dash cams?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Perhaps you are just hearing more about this type of thing because there are a lot more video cameras now?
And why do they have dash cams?

Quite, it is a dual edge sword, video provides evidence for the police ... but also against them.


You can't extrapolate from individual events like this. The cop made a bad call. That does not seem like evidence of a conspiracy. How would authorization come from the top. Do they get a memo says "just shoot the bad guys if you feel like it, we'll get you off any charges".

Pretty much seems that way.

OP
I guess sometimes, the plural of anecdote really IS data

I make the same analogy as the torture and rendition... it came from the top... Where evidence was so compelling and made public, some 'low level' people had to be sacrificed and were then prosecuted and received minimal sentences. Most went completely unpunished, (provided documented evidence was kept out of the media) i.e. no one was dumb enough to post on FB/YT.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There are 800,000 cops/LEOs in the US. I hate to be cliched, but why has nobody talked? Even if it's just subtle encouragement, you'd think someone would have noticed.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There are 800,000 cops/LEOs in the US. I hate to be cliched, but why has nobody talked? Even if it's just subtle encouragement, you'd think someone would have noticed.
Like with Abu Ghraib etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#AP.27s_early_report

On November 1, 2003, The Associated Press published a lengthy report [14] on inhumane treatment, beatings and deaths at Abu Ghraib and other American prisons in Iraq, based on interviews with released detainees, who told journalist Charles J. Hanley of inmates attacked by dogs, made to wear hoods and humiliated in other ways. [15] The article gained little notice. [16]”I wish somebody could go and take a picture” of what was happening, one freed man said.[15]
When the U.S. military first reported abuse in early 2004, much of the U.S. media again showed little initial interest. On January 16, 2004, United States Central Command informed the media that an official investigation had begun involving abuse and humiliation of Iraqi detainees by a group of US soldiers. On February 24, it was reported that 17 soldiers had been suspended. The military announced on March 21, 2004, that the first charges had been filed against six soldiers.[17][18]
[/ex]


Leakers are the lifeblood of these stories. Leakers are more likely to be hunted and punished than the people who they have leaked about. They are therefore very rare.
Serpico had to worry about being 'killed on the job by lack of backup or a 'stray friendly fire''.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, not like Abu Ghraib. That was a relatively small number of people, and it still leaked.

Lots of different type of people are cops, or ex-cops, or know cops.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No, not like Abu Ghraib. That was a relatively small number of people, and it still leaked.

Lots of different type of people are cops, or ex-cops, or know cops.
But Abu Ghraib is/was a small detention centre but one of a much larger complex and history tells us that Abu Ghraib is simply an example of the much wider and systemic problem.
The problem is also recognised in Canada but I suggest it is far less prevalent there than in the U.S

http://uppingtheanti.org/journal/ar...able-with-ex-cops-on-resisting-police-repres/

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This type of thing is a good example of how conspiracy theories are sometimes harmful. There's a very real problem here with badly trained cops killing dogs and raiding friendly poker parties. There's also a problem with institutional corruption, to some degree. But if the criticism of this is phrased as if it's a deliberate policy, a conspiracy on the road to fascism, then it's easy to dismiss that criticism as "just" a conspiracy theory, and ignore it.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Perhaps you are just hearing more about this type of thing because there are a lot more video cameras now?

You can't extrapolate from individual events like this.

That's what I was curious about. When can you extrapolate? That was the point of my original title, "I guess sometimes, the plural of anecdote really IS data."

I thought it was pretty meaningful, since goes straight to the core issue of the thread:

It was spurred by the link:

An Epidemic of "Isolated Incidents"

"If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."
—Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.


At what point does an "epidemic of isolated events" become a "reason for grave concern?"

Is there a rubric or something or some accepted means of determining such or is it just left to the individual to decide for themselves?

I know it's not rigorous science, but as I am unaware of the parameters of whatever data tools are used to determine such, I went with a more informal approach:

When your map of "isolated" incidents of botched paramilitary raids looks pretty much the same as what you get when you pull up Starbucks locations, it just may a cause for concern.

The issue is not SWAT raids, per se, although that's certainly a critical issue in and of itself.

The issue here, however, is at what point does the plural of anecdote become data? Is there one and how is it determined?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The issue here, however, is at what point does the plural of anecdote become data? Is there one and how is it determined?


That's a meaningless question, because it depends on your definition of "anecdote" and "data". It's arguing over the meaning of words.

What's the real question here?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy, it's just short-sightedness on the part of politicians.

Seems a little charitable to characterize politicians as 'short-sighted', 'corrupt', surely? - 'oh, those poor myopicists haven't a clue, ha ha ha' etc etc. So short-sighted they can't even see their future bank balances? Or perhaps it's a 'myopicist theory'? (Dunno what it means, but we can think of something later).
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

So there's a synopsis of sorts on an issue being raised right here on this site at the moment; not the first time, though. Mostly in another thread. The stating of an absolute opinion as fact (and in short order, too). That politicians are merely incompetent rather than complicit. There is no conspiracy (whatever that means). That analysis seems overly naive for a skeptic.

Mick, when someone's banned, like I've been for the last week, I think you should have some indication on the avatar, or summat? I suggest a skull with a dagger through one eye overlaid on the avatar - and maybe dripping red letters stamped over that, saying 'BANNED'? And....sorry, know it's a drag, but what about a countdown clock for when they get released from the MB Gulag? I know you can do it!
Also, I'm totally confused about the 'politeness policy', because I got a week ban for inferring that someone was 'thick' - and yet (irony?) that same person inferred (very clearly) that another contributor was a liar - and that they 'pull stuff out of their arse'. I can't help feeling that my reading of the policy is wrong - as hard as I've tried to never exceed the rudeness 'boundary' implied by everyone else posting here....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The one I asked in response to your assertion that "you can't extrapolate from individual events like this."

When can you extrapolate from individual events?


Immediately. The question is how do you determine the accuracy of the extrapolation?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems a little charitable to characterize politicians as 'short-sighted', 'corrupt', surely? - 'oh, those poor myopicists haven't a clue, ha ha ha' etc etc. So short-sighted they can't even see their future bank balances? Or perhaps it's a 'myopicist theory'? (Dunno what it means, but we can think of something later).
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

So there's a synopsis of sorts on an issue being raised right here on this site at the moment; not the first time, though. Mostly in another thread. The stating of an absolute opinion as fact (and in short order, too). That politicians are merely incompetent rather than complicit. There is no conspiracy (whatever that means). That analysis seems overly naive for a skeptic.
There's certainly corruption. Saying "short sighted" was admittedly rather an oversimplification. I meant they were focussed on short term goals (often for themselves) rather than long term goals (for the country). But even when they are genuinely trying to make things better, some of them are just rather stupid about it - thinking that putting more people in jail will bring down crime. I does in the short run, but then just builds a divided culture of incarceration.

Mick, when someone's banned, like I've been for the last week, I think you should have some indication on the avatar, or summat? I suggest a skull with a dagger through one eye overlaid on the avatar - and maybe dripping red letters stamped over that, saying 'BANNED'? And....sorry, know it's a drag, but what about a countdown clock for when they get released from the MB Gulag? I know you can do it!
Yes, I was surprised that was lacking. I'll add it to the list - at least the indicator.

Also, I'm totally confused about the 'politeness policy', because I got a week ban for inferring that someone was 'thick' - and yet (irony?) that same person inferred (very clearly) that another contributor was a liar - and that they 'pull stuff out of their arse'. I can't help feeling that my reading of the policy is wrong - as hard as I've tried to never exceed the rudeness 'boundary' implied by everyone else posting here....

If you feel a quote goes of the line, then please report it. How things are dealt with are partly based on cumulative behavior, sorry.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Surely anecdotes are data. Observation, empiricism etc. Ooh...me paradoleia's playing up again.

Missed a bit -
Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

And another -
There is no conspiracy (whatever that means). That analysis seems overly naive for a skeptic.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Surely anecdotes are data. Observation, empiricism etc. Ooh...me paradoleia's playing up again.
Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.

Missed a bit -

And another -


Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition. You can always frame the description of anything as a conspiracy. The questions you should be asking are just how hidden the conspiracy is, is it illegal, and what is the intent?

What was the intent of the War on Drugs? Just to put people in jail? Bring about a New World Order? Seem tough on crime so they get re-elected? Something that just happened because nobody stopped it?
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Immediately. The question is how do you determine the accuracy of the extrapolation?

That's a meaningless answer unless you explain what you mean within the context of what I am asking.

If you start with the position that something is an isolated incident until there is evidence to the contrary, fine. That's sound reasoning. But staying there after contrary evidence is presented is not sound reasoning.

So what would constitute evidence to the contrary? How it is determined?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition. You can always frame the description of anything as a conspiracy. The questions you should be asking are just how hidden the conspiracy is, is it illegal, and what is the intent?

What was the intent of the War on Drugs? Just to put people in jail? Bring about a New World Order? Seem tough on crime so they get re-elected? Something that just happened because nobody stopped it?

Anecdotes are observations. Generally though they are not very good ones. It depends.

Good enough for the courts; eyewitness testimony, they call it.

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

I'm only familiar with the dictionary def., is there another definitive source for definitions of words? (that's definitively an oxymoron, in there). Given that it's how we impart meaning to one another, I think it best if we all use the same book? Otherwise spark plugs might as well be monkfish.

You can always frame the description of anything as a conspiracy

Anything? I had a shower when I came in today. ...over....

The questions you should be asking are just how hidden the conspiracy is, is it illegal, and what is the intent?

Sounds like a trick 'question' in a fourteen year old's exam. I should ask 'just how hidden the conspiracy is'? If I want to chase my tail, sure. Illegal? Who cares? Wrongful and subversive seem to be more to the fore. Intent? Come off it!

What was the intent of the War on Drugs? Just to put people in jail? Bring about a New World Order? Seem tough on crime so they get re-elected? Something that just happened because nobody stopped it?

I reckon anyone with a snout can make their own answers for that bunch. It's almost like a competition to see how much straw could be woven in how short a time.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
(I've been meaning to mention Oswald, your avatar is a macabre work of genius.
Your posts still read like the rhetoric of a really snarky lawyer however :p )
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I was referring to you saying "Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?". Sure you can't reasonably frame your decision to take a shower as a conspiracy, but you can certainly frame anything that government or any organizations does as a conspiracy

You say you are only familiar with the dictionary definition, but which one?

Does your usage here require illegal acts, evil, or simply people acting in harmony?

Why even bother with the word? Why not get to the actual issues? Is there evidence of something illegal and/or evil going on with these raids?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
(I've been meaning to mention Oswald, your avatar is a macabre work of genius.
Your posts still read like the rhetoric of a really snarky lawyer however :p )

Ouch! Lawyer! Just wait till Zorp gets here! If you knew me, you'd laugh at that!....though I have whipped a couple of barristers as litigant in person - maybe I spent too long immersed in all their effluence....So help me Cod! I'll take that as a compliment, though - even if it's supposed to be an insult. Lots of things a bit inverted here.

Cheers!
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I was referring to you saying "Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?". Sure you can't reasonably frame your decision to take a shower as a conspiracy, but you can certainly frame anything that government or any organizations does as a conspiracy

You say you are only familiar with the dictionary definition, but which one?



Why even both with the word? Why not get to the actual issues? Is there evidence of something illegal and/or evil going on with these raids?

I find it hard to fathom why someone that has heard me lament the incorrect use of that very word time and again might think that I'm not fully up to speed with all the definitions of said word. It's perfectly normal for words to have more than one meaning - it's demonstrated to anyone using a dictionary. All dictionaries have slightly different wordings, but it's basically the same- but not all dictionaries are based on the same principles, and that is an important distinction. Postin g a cut and paste of a dictionary definition (abridged, by the look of it - certainly incomplete, by all other definitions) is to signify what? Go back to what was said and ask if this is really a valid response.

Does your usage here require illegal acts, evil, or simply people acting in harmony?

Pardon? The 'usage' can't be attributed here (latterly), or please show it if I missed it. [Edit: this is what I'm talking about]

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition


Why even both[er] with the word? Why not get to the actual issues? Is there evidence of something illegal and/or evil going on with these raids?

I wasn't bothering with the word until someone implied that there was another way of defining words that wasn't from a dictionary! The conversation went something like this:
'Well, if you're going to use the dictionary definition'
'Well, yeah - it's the only one I know'
'Which definition do you mean?'
'Huh?'

Is the ending of such posts with a volley of questions that really should be answered/dismissed internally, easily, by the asker, before being voiced out loud, a technique, or just a schtick? Could just be a trend, I suppose.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you just explain what you meant by this:
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Why don't you just explain what you meant by this:


lee h oswald said:
There's sloppy language here - a lot of it around the word 'conspiracy'. Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?​
Ok, but I thought we'd already agreed that, with the reply

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

where it appears we are in agreement that it is a conspiracy, if we 'go by the dictionary definition'. I don't think it's a case of 'wanting' to go by the dictionary definition, it's that dictionaries are where definitions are found - so we all have a common language. It's definitive!

And the conversation moved on - when I wondered what other definitions there could be? Obviously, there can't be, so it's a done deal on that score. All communication is rhetorical to a degree, and probably more so in an environment such as this. Omissions and angles and focus all show up on the page, painting a quite detailed psychological picture in the process. As far as the question goes, it's clearly rhetorical, because no one in their right mind could say that The War on Drugs isn't a huge conspiracy with many levels and many participants - just because they don't recognise it as a conspiracy doesn't change the fact. There could hardly be a better example of what a conspiracy is. But, right here on this page I see

Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy

So we go from 'not a conspiracy', to 'yes, if we go by the dictionary definition', in the space of a few posts. Hopefully it's obvious where my objection arose.

As far as 'sloppy language', I think that's been covered. Perhaps I might be treated to a meaningful, genuine reply to explain the contradiction rather than another volley of apparently novice 'questions' or instructions on 'what I need to look at', or some such.

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
When I said the War on Drugs was not a "conspiracy", I meant it in the sense that's usually understood around here, and is one of the dictionary definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiring
You seemed to be suggesting it was a more general "conspiracy", as in the second definition:
Hence I'm trying to figure out what you mean. What do you mean?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
When I said the War on Drugs was not a "conspiracy", I meant it in the sense that's usually understood around here, and is one of the dictionary definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiring
You seemed to be suggesting it was a more general "conspiracy", as in the second definition:
Hence I'm trying to figure out what you mean. What do you mean?

Hence? Amazing! Plumb away; there's always somewhere deeper.

Don't understand what I mean? I don't believe it. And please stop quoting selected dictionary definitions at me, it's embarrassing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hence? Amazing! Plumb away; there's always somewhere deeper.

Don't understand what I mean? I don't believe it. And please stop quoting selected dictionary definitions at me, it's embarrassing.
I quoted both of them, so you could say which you were referring to.

I'd much rather you explain what you mean though.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I quoted both of them, so you could say which you were referring to.

I'd much rather you explain what you mean though.

Well, let's take it from the top, then. This is how it goes, verbatim:

Sounds more like a consequence of the failed "War on Drugs". And that's not a conspiracy

I responded

Can it be explained how 'The War on Drugs' is not a conspiracy (preferably taking into account the actual meaning of the word)?

Reply

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

LHO

[Then] it appears we are in agreement that it is a conspiracy, if we 'go by the dictionary definition'

Reply


When I said the War on Drugs was not a "conspiracy", I meant it in the sense that's usually understood around here, and is one of the dictionary definitions [usually understood around here?]... Hence I'm trying to figure out what you mean. What do you mean?

But rewind

Sure, if you want to go by the dictionary definition

Presumably that would be the dictionary definition

that's usually understood around here

So many definitions, so little time. I'd prefer not to waste any more - I don't get paid for this.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Zip-Tie Guy and Other Paramilitary-Style Occupiers of the Capitol Election 2020 35
Mendel Capitol Police activity on Jan 6th Election 2020 2
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Martin Gugino Was Using a "Police Tracker." Conspiracy Theories 44
MikeG Police Don't Need HS Diploma General Discussion 1
johnnypowers UFO over Bristol Channel captured by Police helicopter Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 36
MikeC Claim: FAA conspiring with Police to limit news access to Black Rock General Discussion 3
deirdre Debunked: Police took photos before attending to wounded Sandy Hook 1
MikeG Debunked: 1,433 Deaths Caused by New Zealand Police Since 1990 General Discussion 37
Keith Johnson CLAIM: Dispatch Log Shows CT State Police Were at Sandy Hook School Hours Before the Shooting Sandy Hook 1
BuffaloCub Debunked: Sandra Bland dead in mugshot General Discussion 7
J Debunked : SWAT Police Caught Setting Fires In Ferguson [Examining items by flashlight] General Discussion 19
Mackdog Ghost at police station UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
CapnPegleg Vegas Police Officers Shot - False Flag claims coming? Conspiracy Theories 32
deirdre Searchable State Police Report and OFFICIAL reports/press releases Sandy Hook 3
deirdre Conspiracy Theorist Mark S. Mann claims of being a Ct. Police Officer and Firearms Industry Executiv Sandy Hook 4
Mick West James Randi, The Amazing Meeting, and The Bullshit Police Practical Debunking 1
Grieves The 'Cop' mentality: when police conspire against the public good General Discussion 17
BlueCollarCritic Police State Prep - Cops Not Breaking The Law While Breaking The Law Conspiracy Theories 5
BlueCollarCritic Police State Push - Whitehouse Defends Gun to Head of 11 Year Old Conspiracy Theories 1

Related Articles

Top