Comments on: Police raid Maryland mayor’s home, shoot two dogs

By: Lynne

Lynne — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:57:14 +0000

What the heck? We have several dogs who wouldn’t hurt anyone - unless they thought the people posed a threat to our kids.

And someone breaking into the house, us screaming, shouting, etc. well, the dogs would react. That’s one reason we have them. If I’m not outside and someone drives up, I want the dogs to get between the strangers and my kids until I get there to see what’s going on.

I think we can all feel secure without having to live in a police state where armed men can invade your home without notice just because you receive a damn package. God help us all the next time we order from Amazon.

By: mooncat

mooncat — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:00:33 +0000

Brian,

Call the papers. I agree with you 100%.

It’s not the first time this sort of thing has happened and it probably won’t be the last. This was illegal and if they can do it to the Mayor and get away with it, how far will they go with the average citizen? Shooting the people too, that’s how far. The Mayor and his mother-in-law were extremely lucky to come out unscathed.

Shooting dogs seems to be rather common:
Tennesee
Police shoot police dog
Dog shot under coffee table
They always shoot the dog.

By: Jeff Barnett

Jeff Barnett — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:57:42 +0000

Good commentary, Political Junkie. There is a fine line to walk between ensuring you come home and not needlessly endangering/harming innocents. It’s difficult in Iraq, and it should be even more difficult in suburban America. These officers chose to make it easier than it should have been. That’s not what they get paid for, and that’s not consistent with their oath.

The scream excuse is totally asinine. They were raiding over a box of marijuana. What did they think she was screaming about–elation over the huge quantity of marijuana in the box?

Unfortunately, we will likely see little accountability for this.

By: Art Kling

Art Kling — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:52:23 +0000

Maryland does not even recognize/issue no-knock warrants. Here is a link for a blog with further info…http://reason.com/blog/show/128002.html

By: redeye

redeye — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:30:14 +0000

Here are some links to some other blotched drug wars.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/policeraids/botched_swat_raid_compilation

By: Loretta Nall

Loretta Nall — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:40:52 +0000

Amen Art Kling.

And I echo your sentiments Brian. Radley Balko over at the Agitator has and exhaustive list of incidents where the cops break in and kill the family pets….many times (such as this one) the dogs are posing no threat whatsoever. I don’t think it has much to do with an officer feeling threatened but everything to do with establishing control and instilling outright terror in whoever is being victimized by these retarded drug laws. Not that there aren’t instances where agressive breeds (pit bulls..German Shepherds ect..) charge into battle….but hell isn’t that what they are supposed to do…protect their families? The cops shouldn’t be breaking into people’s homes over what they choose to ingest in the first place.

I have a German Shepherd…a really big one who is very well trained and all I have to say is should they ever come here looking for trouble they better be a damn good shot because my dog will stop at nothing short of a bullet to protect his family.

I can put him on an ass….but truthfully I have spent zero time working out a signal to get him off.

By: Art Kling

Art Kling — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:36:25 +0000

The scream excuse was made up after the fact. Bet on it. The war on drugs is a dismal failure. After 25 odd years, the price of drugs is lower, the quality is higher and the effort and tax money invested is huge, increasing and wasted.

By: Political Junkie

Political Junkie — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:10:41 +0000

Contacting local law enforcement is a matter of courtesy, not law. As the article points out, the police said they heard the scream which is why they entered the house “hard.” This means that they were entering the house under the auspices of reasonable basis to prevent imminent harm, which is allowed under law, rather then under the authority of their search warrant (which as you point out was not a “no-knock” warrant).
This goes back to my original comment: the officers on the ground followed the law but ran into complications arising from the poor decision making and planning of their superiors.

By: Art Kling

Art Kling — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:06:07 +0000

The police are completely, totally, culpable for NOT BEING ABLE TO FOLLOW THE LAW. They did not have a no-knock warrant. They did not contact local law enforcement. They endangered innocent citizens by firing at the dogs, which may or may not have been a threat. This is reminiscent of the HPD chase, using unmarked cars, over a personal use quantity of drugs, of people know to the drug task force officers from previous arrets.

By: Political Junkie

Political Junkie — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:51:43 +0000

To be honest Brian, I don’t fault the officers here. The closest I’ve ever come to close-quarters-combat is paintball, but even under that minuscule pressure I made poor choices. The officers were faced with a split-second decision on what to do with a large dog bounding toward them. I don’t think anyone can say they weren’t within their rights to make that judgement call. (I know that the other dog was supposed to be running away, but in the chaos who knows what the officers saw or if the dog was running away from one officer and toward another.)
Having said that, I have a colossal problem with the police bureaucrats that made the decision to raid the house. They unnecessarily put those officers in the position of having to make very tough choices. That was extraordinarily stupid. Incomprehensible. It is the mayor of the town. My God, what have we come to in this country? (I mean that with no sacrilege because I really do cry out to the Lord when I consider the situation in this country.)
That intellectually and morally deficient judgement is exactly how we ended up in the Waco stand-off. David Koresh went jogging every day on the same route (like the Mayor who walked the dogs). Officers could have apprehended either man quickly and harmlessly. Instead, we get these big overblown, unnecessary raids. The Branch-Davidian stand-off cost the lives of law enforcement personell and innocent children.
I’m not opposed to SWAT raids as a rule. In fact, I think considering the armed and aggressive nature of the drug community that it is usually justified. However, this investigation was predicated upon the fact that ORDINARY people were being used UNKNOWINGLY. Ordinary people, unaware of any crime are going to react in one of two ways to a raid: meek submission or justified self-defense. Either scenario dictates that a non-confrontational approach is more conducive to a positive outcome.
Most people are very troubled by the increasing militarization of our law enforcement community, a concern I share. However, there is one area where I wish our law enforcement would become more like our military. Over and over again our military choses to do things the hard way, the risky way, to ensure that their lives are endagered before innoncent lives are lost. When our soldiers are ambushed they identify targets before firing back blindly. They take more casualties, but don’t shoot innocents. That is honorable and admirable. In my opinion, it’s why the surge worked. The people of Iraq saw that unlike the cowards of AQI, our men were willing to protect the lives of ordinary people at the cost of their own. That is the Christian, and American, way of doing things. I feel that the leadership of our nation’s law enforcement agencies have lost that perspective. You hear all the time in press conferences about “protecting my officers.” That is a valid concern, and a goal of any effective leader. However, I think it should be subordinate to the goal of protecting civilian life. Not because an officer’s life is less important than mine, but because an officer signed up for that job. And praise God for them. They accepted that risk, in order to serve and protect and give us the freedom we enjoy domestically.