Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/12/2002 9:12:25 AM EDT
Jacqueline Paasch will receive $700,000 from the Village of West Milwaukee, in compensation for being shot in the leg during a marijuana raid. West Milwaukee police asked the tactical unit of the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department to raid her home after receiving an "anonymous tip" about "possible drug activity," and then finding some pot seeds in a garbage can near her house. At 6:30am, April 7, 2000, Paasch heard a noise in her home. She got out of bed, and was walking downstairs when she was shot by Deputy Scott Mathis, who said he thought she had a weapon and that he was in "imminent danger." No weapon was found, and although a 16-year old boy was arrested on suspicion of possessing marijuana, no charges were ever laid. The district attorney's office ruled the shooting was "justified," and no disciplinary action was taken against the Deputy Mathis. -------------------------------------------- Another reason why the War on Drugs should be stopped. Justified shooting my ass. Can I go around breaking into peoples houses and shoot them because they might have a gun? Now what would happen if Deputy Fife had broken into my home and pointed a gun at me? His ass would be dead because I really do have guns and I take offense to anyone breaking into my home. Also seeing a armed intruder in my house at 6:30 am, I would feel in "imminent danger" and would dispath said criminal, sorry didn't see the badge, just saw a gun pointed at me. I doubt the DA would see my shooting as "justified". Makes me sick. And how the hell do you arrest someone for suspicion of marijuana possession, either they posess it or not. I don't think the victimn got enough money in this case.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 9:18:37 AM EDT
YOU LE BASHER! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO KISS YOUR WIFE AND KIDS GOODBYE EVERY DAY AND NEVER KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THEM AGAIN! IF YOU HAVE TO KILL AN UNARMED PERSON AND TRUMP UP A DRUG CHARGE TO MAKE SURE YOU GO HOME AT THE END OF THE SHIFT, THEN YOU DO IT! WHY DON'T YOU COME TRY MY JOB FOR A DAY, YOU CAKE-EATING CIVILIAN! Did I hit just about everything that is going to be said? I'm trying to learn the lingo. QS
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 9:33:38 AM EDT
QS, Yeah, I think you got it mostly down. . . Needs a dash more flame though. . . . I have often wondered what the outsome would be if cops brake into my house with guns. If anyone breaks into my house, I'll shoot them. Oregon state law specifically justifies shooting anyone who has broken and entered into your house. If they have forced thier way in a locked residence, and you shoot them, WHILE THEY ARE INSIDE, that's fine. Self defence, defense of your property. I Wonder what they'd to if they were cops/swat I shot? I mean, if they want in, come to my door WITH A WARRANT and I'll let you in. Otherwise, your SOL. I imagine I'd get life w/bubba for being a cop killer, even though what I was doing was specifically proteted by state law. Also, I don't hate cops. I drive though the police station parking lot every day on my way to work, and wave to them, say hi, chat abuot the guns they are carrying, etc. I DO HATE unconstitutional laws, lawyers, and judges who uphold unconsitutional laws, and the act of violating my rights. Oh, QS, you missed the part about how an LE's life is more important than a "civvies", and how no "civvy" could have a job as important and meaningful as an LE:D. -Justin
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 9:36:04 AM EDT
I don't either. But I can't stand it when someone defends this sort of shyte. And someone will. QS
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 9:49:20 AM EDT
QS, I know you don't hate 'em either, but for some reason you always gotta specify that 'round here [peep] -Justin
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:09:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JTR: I Wonder what they'd to if they were cops/swat I shot? I mean, if they want in, come to my door WITH A WARRANT and I'll let you in. Otherwise, your SOL. I imagine I'd get life w/bubba for being a cop killer, even though what I was doing was specifically proteted by state law.
View Quote
As I recall, something similar to this happened. Police no-knocked the wrong house, and the man armed himself and shot back. Of course, the man was killed, and the police maintained they knocked and identified themselves several times. More than likely the same would happen....remember the 'victor' gets to write the history, and you more than likely won't be around to refute it....or if you are it'd just be the ravings of a right wing militia gun nut....
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:24:31 AM EDT
Sure be a shame if there was a hidden video camera to refute that - with prepositioned instructions to your attorney where to find the recording device. Q(Reaching from beyond the grave to spank some ass)S
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:35:04 AM EDT
LOL, thing is, I don't hate cops either having a few friends on the force with whom I served in the Corps. It's just the double standard of what is a "justified shooting" and what we allow police officers to get away with because of the war on drugs.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 11:00:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 11:01:46 AM EDT by Coz_45-age-caliber]
It's a sad event. We all make mistakes, but our work mistakes rarely result in life changing maiming or death. A policeman once told me that if an accidental raid happens and you start shooting and halfway through they i.d. themselves as ATF, FBI, DEA, county mounties or whatever, that you're dead meat even if you stop shooting. They stick together and will swear that they identified themselves immediately and you'll get beaten, tortured and then sit in prison awaiting the inevitable injection (in Tx). He says, once you've taken out one or two, you might as well take em all if your conscience can handle it because it's gonna be your word against theirs and they will win. Just be careful when you aim and shoot. If you see a badge on the first bead you draw on them, don't use it as target. just my two cents....
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 12:54:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Coz_45-age-caliber: It's a sad event. We all make mistakes, but our work mistakes rarely result in life changing maiming or death. A policeman once told me that if an accidental raid happens and you start shooting and halfway through they i.d. themselves as ATF, FBI, DEA, county mounties or whatever, that you're dead meat even if you stop shooting. They stick together and will swear that they identified themselves immediately and you'll get beaten, tortured and then sit in prison awaiting the inevitable injection (in Tx). He says, once you've taken out one or two, you might as well take em all if your conscience can handle it because it's gonna be your word against theirs and they will win.
View Quote
Your friend is right, I'm sure. LEOs, before you start sputtering, think about it for a minute. You aren't going to admit that a raid was carried out improperly and take the chance of getting fired/sued/jailed. No one would, under those circumstances. That's why it behooves you to make sure of your target before you squeeze the trigger...and that includes recon and planning. QS
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 12:57:19 PM EDT
Hellraiser demostrates another common misunderstanding about deadly force law. It's the perception of the situation, not the reality of the situation that matters. The question is would a reasonable person, having the same training & experiance, knowing what the deputy knew at the time, have believed his life was in danger. If the answer is Yes it's a good shoot. If the answers No, it's a bad shoot, period. Ps.. I doubt the search warrent was based on an anonymous tip. A Confidential informant more likely. But I dont expect the media to understand the difference.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:03:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan: Hellraiser demostrates another common misunderstanding about deadly force law. It's the perception of the situation, not the reality of the situation that matters. The question is would a reasonable person, having the same training & experiance, knowing what the deputy knew at the time, have believed his life was in danger. If the answer is Yes it's a good shoot. If the answers No, it's a bad shoot, period. Ps.. I doubt the search warrent was based on an anonymous tip. A Confidential informant more likely. But I dont expect the media to understand the difference.
View Quote
Yeah...but I think what Hellraiser, and myself, are sort of annoyed with is the fact that using that doctrine, a person coming up on an armed intruder in their domicile would be perfectly within their rights to shoot. And if a cop can mistake an empty hand for a weapon, a homeowner certainly might not see a badge. The difference is, if the homeowner were quicker on the draw, he'd be laid out on a slab from the cop's buddies or in jail waiting for the needle for the SAME action the cop in this case took and got away with.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:08:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan: Hellraiser demostrates another common misunderstanding about deadly force law. It's the perception of the situation, not the reality of the situation that matters. The question is would a reasonable person, having the same training & experiance, knowing what the deputy knew at the time, have believed his life was in danger. If the answer is Yes it's a good shoot. If the answers No, it's a bad shoot, period. Ps.. I doubt the search warrent was based on an anonymous tip. A Confidential informant more likely. But I dont expect the media to understand the difference.
View Quote
First, what he is talking about is the difference in how you or I would be treated and how an LEO is treated. We don't seem to have the 'reasonable person' rule applied to us. He's talking about the double standard. I usually take up for cops, but this is a bogus shoot. As for the anonymous tip, in the 'war on drugs', warrants are issued frequently on anonymous tips. You see them advertise on TV that you can call in 'drug activity' anonymously. Another example of rights lost because of the 'war on drugs'. You don't get to face your anonymous accuser and there is no probable cause based on pre-'war on drugs' times.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:16:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 1:19:11 PM EDT by AR15fan]
Originally Posted By LARRYG: As for the anonymous tip, in the 'war on drugs', warrants are issued frequently on anonymous tips.
View Quote
I've been a cop for 9 years. No judge in my jurisdiction will issue a warrant based on an anonymous tip. In fact the supreme court recently ruled an anonymous tip, in this case a telephoned report than a black male, wearing certain clothing, at a specific location was carrying a gun, did not give the police probuble cause to search the subject. When the media says anonymous tip, they are usually referring to a confidential informant. A CI is someone who provides verifiable information, usually over a long period of time. To get a warrant based on a CI's information I need to be able to go to the judge and tell him how I have known the CI for X number of years, his information proves reliable X % of the time, and has resulted in X number of arrests. If you live somewhere where a judge will issue a warrant based on anonymous information, I suggest you move.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:24:16 PM EDT
I think, the solution is that there should be NO (armed or not) raids, unless their is significant reason to belive physical harm to person or great physical harm to property WILL be (directly) prevented by it. I do not think there is ANY other reason why police would EVER need to break into a private residance, etc. in NO other circumstance will that protect ANYTHING. I don't feel any possibility of catching drug dealers in the at is worth one raid on an innocent persons home, or taking one bullet, or killing any cops. They should have knocked on the fing door, and if they weren't let in, they can go get a warrent, and come back w/out guns drawn (I don't see why they can't have them jsut in case though), with a lock pick, and knock again, then pick the lock. Untill someones life is in danger. . . no raid. I know that'll never fly. -I won't waste your time writing the rest of what I think. -Justin
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:25:04 PM EDT
"Suspicion of Possession" jsut sounds [b]WRONG![/b] to me. Either you possess, or you don't possess.... Scott
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:47:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 1:50:41 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By LARRYG: As for the anonymous tip, in the 'war on drugs', warrants are issued frequently on anonymous tips.
View Quote
I've been a cop for 9 years. No judge in my jurisdiction will issue a warrant based on an anonymous tip. In fact the supreme court recently ruled an anonymous tip, in this case a telephoned report than a black male, wearing certain clothing, at a specific location was carrying a gun, did not give the police probuble cause to search the subject. When the media says anonymous tip, they are usually referring to a confidential informant. A CI is someone who provides verifiable information, usually over a long period of time. To get a warrant based on a CI's information I need to be able to go to the judge and tell him how I have known the CI for X number of years, his information proves reliable X % of the time, and has resulted in X number of arrests. If you live somewhere where a judge will issue a warrant based on anonymous information, I suggest you move.
View Quote
Then why do they advertise for folks to call in tips anonymously? The 'war on drugs' is a joke and PD's make money on it, that's why they don't want to stop it. Regardless of what you say, the Feds get warrants issued based on anonymous tips. What jurisdiction are you in, since you don't put your state on your profile?
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 2:12:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By LARRYG: As for the anonymous tip, in the 'war on drugs', warrants are issued frequently on anonymous tips.
View Quote
I've been a cop for 9 years. No judge in my jurisdiction will issue a warrant based on an anonymous tip. In fact the supreme court recently ruled an anonymous tip, in this case a telephoned report than a black male, wearing certain clothing, at a specific location was carrying a gun, did not give the police probuble cause to search the subject. When the media says anonymous tip, they are usually referring to a confidential informant. A CI is someone who provides verifiable information, usually over a long period of time. To get a warrant based on a CI's information I need to be able to go to the judge and tell him how I have known the CI for X number of years, his information proves reliable X % of the time, and has resulted in X number of arrests. If you live somewhere where a judge will issue a warrant based on anonymous information, I suggest you move.
View Quote
Then why do they advertise for folks to call in tips anonymously? The 'war on drugs' is a joke and PD's make money on it, that's why they don't want to stop it. Regardless of what you say, the Feds get warrants issued based on anonymous tips. What jurisdiction are you in, since you don't put your state on your profile?
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 2:18:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By LARRYG: As for the anonymous tip, in the 'war on drugs', warrants are issued frequently on anonymous tips.
View Quote
I've been a cop for 9 years. No judge in my jurisdiction will issue a warrant based on an anonymous tip. In fact the supreme court recently ruled an anonymous tip, in this case a telephoned report than a black male, wearing certain clothing, at a specific location was carrying a gun, did not give the police probuble cause to search the subject. When the media says anonymous tip, they are usually referring to a confidential informant. A CI is someone who provides verifiable information, usually over a long period of time. To get a warrant based on a CI's information I need to be able to go to the judge and tell him how I have known the CI for X number of years, his information proves reliable X % of the time, and has resulted in X number of arrests. If you live somewhere where a judge will issue a warrant based on anonymous information, I suggest you move.
View Quote
Then why do they advertise for folks to call in tips anonymously? The 'war on drugs' is a joke and PD's make money on it, that's why they don't want to stop it. Regardless of what you say, the Feds get warrants issued based on anonymous tips. What jurisdiction are you in, since you don't put your state on your profile?
View Quote
Uh, no offense man, but I'm taking a class on American Drug policy and the "war on drugs", and you sound like a flaming liberal on this issue. Maybe I just figured most on this sight where conservative. I have no mercy for drug users, dealers, or suppliers. Your right that PDs have received major increases in money and man power for the "war", but if the drug problem could be eradicated today, no cops would be complaining of the cutbacks, etc.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 2:25:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 3:02:11 PM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By MP906: Uh, no offense man, but I'm taking a class on American Drug policy and the "war on drugs", and you sound like a flaming liberal on this issue. Maybe I just figured most on this sight where conservative. I have no mercy for drug users, dealers, or suppliers. Your right that PDs have received major increases in money and man power for the "war", but if the drug problem could be eradicated today, no cops would be complaining of the cutbacks, etc.
View Quote
Well, I do take offense at being called a 'flaming liberal'. Everyone here is not a conservative, my beliefs tend to be more libertarian, though I have no use for the party as it is constructed right now. Prohibition didn't work and all it did, just like the 'war on drugs', was make some bad people very rich and put a lot of otherwise law abiding people in jail who shouldn't be there. I am talking about the PD's making money off consficated property, some of which is consficated with no charges being filed. See this thread [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=123051[/url]. Within that thread are links to this very thing [url]Forfeiture Endangers American Rights.org[/url] and [url]www.kcstar.com/projects/drugforfeit/ [/url]. If you don't believe that all of us have lost many rights over 'the war on drugs', you need to wake up and stop buying the propaganda. Apparently, I am not the only 'flaming liberal' on here. You don't think that the average American doesn't lose rights due to the 'war on drugs'? This is from the above linked KCStar story.
Americans don't realize that forfeitures often occur to "ordinary people who happen to find themselves in a situation in which they are simply suspected of having been somehow involved in criminal activity, whether those suspicions ever prove out or not," said Roger Pilon, a vice president at the Cato Institute
View Quote
This is from the same link. This person lost their money with no charges being filed and he never got his money back. Again, no charges filed.
In June a Georgia trooper stopped a 1996 Monte Carlo for speeding on I-95. After the driver and passengers gave conflicting stories, the trooper searched the car and found a hidden compartment containing $7,000, which the driver said was from savings. The patrol turned over the money to the DEA, which in January returned $5,440 to the patrol. Under Georgia law forfeited money should go to the state's general fund.
View Quote
If you believe that pot should be illegal, then you have been brainwashed with the 'gateway drug' and 'it is addictive' crap. I have had cops tell me that they have never had to break up a fight between two persons that were stoned but have had to break up countless fights between drunks. Most cops that I personally know think it's a joke too and many won't arrest someone for pot. Oh, and where are you taking this class? It's really not even about the drugs, it's about more losses of our rights. Do you only support the retention of some rights? If so, you are as bad as the antis and the ones you accuse me of being, the 'flaming liberals'.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 3:25:43 PM EDT
I have a four letter word that I would use to describe Deputy Scott Mathis: H-E-R-O. The brave and unappreciated tactical unit would not have raided that woman's house if she wasn't presently or sometime in the future a perpetrator of a violent felony. I thank the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department for their service to the community and Constitution.
Top Top