SWAT Team Endangers Child, Parents Charged With Child Endangerment

SWAT team breaks into home, fires seven rounds at family's pit bull and corgi (?!) as a seven-year-old looks on.

They found a "small amount" of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

So smoking pot = "child endangerment." Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone's safety.

Just so we're clear.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SWAT Guy||

    Oh, and have a nice Saturday. What, Balko forget to say that? See how nice I am . . .

  • The Queen loves Corgis||

    They should be charged with stupidity for having a pit bull.

  • Prince||

    A glooming peace this morning with it brings; The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head: Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things; Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished: For never was a story of more woe Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.

  • Arthur Brooke ||

    Shakespeare, I want my poem back.

  • ||

    People who believe Pit Bulls are anything but intelligent, loving, protective dogs should be charged with stupidity. The SWAT team SHOULD be charged with animal cruelty at minimum. There was no sense in shooting those two animals, particularly in front of a child--over a small amount of pot?! Please. Losing faith in people.

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    Pit bulls are crazy dogs and as such have a magnetic attraction to unstable owners. I don't give a fuck that you can think you have trained that sweet dog. It is its nature to be violent and that will triumph.

  • AxsDeny||

    You have apparently only ever seen the media hype about the nature of certain dog breeds.

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    I love my dog and I certainly don't want any animal abused but they are not family friendly pets. "Pit bulls cause one-third of dog-bite related fatalities while only make up less than 2% of the dog population". http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/pgs/stats.html

  • ||

    You are a f**king idiot

  • ||

    mikey makes his argument as if he were a Democrat

  • ||

    You are a f**ing idiot, too. There is no such thing as a dangerous breed. In fact, pit bulls were bred to BE family dogs, and only turned into fighters by those who fight dogs. In fact, the reason they use pit pulls is that even in the midst of a pit fight, they will obey their trainer and stop fighting when commanded.

  • ||

    Pit bulls were originally bred as fighting dogs. They will not obey their owners and often kill their own owners.

    Nice try though.

  • ||

    No way! They're called "Pit Bulls" cause they were bred way back when everyone lived in pits!

    Yes, that was sarcasm!

  • MJ||

    Will stipulate that orginally pit bulls were bred to be a better tempered breed than their reputation says. On the other hand, for what traits have pit bulls been bred for lately? I think it beyond argument that a significant segment of pit bull owners have an interest to up the vicious factor.

  • ||

    Saying pit bulls were bred to be family dogs is inaccurate. Pit bulls were bred to catch bulls. No shit! Grab that ring they stick through the bull's nose and not let go, which is why pit bulls have such a fearsome reputation.

    That aside, any dog is usually a reflection of its owner. I know a few pit bull owners who swear by them. I think they're ugly as hell, but I digress. The problem isn't the dog but ghetto trash that want to breed fighting dogs. Sadly, the pit bull is on the top of the list.

  • ||

    Dogs are individuals, just as are people. I have to have a pit/lab mix and I have never seen a gentler, more trustworth animal. All breeds have the potential to be dangerous and it may well be that the breeding of certain breeds leads to a greater inclination to be aggressive in that breed. That really has no implications for the individual dog. Some say there are not bad dogs, only bad owners. Well, that is as silly as saying all dogs of a certain breed are suspect. Dogs are individuals. Some are aggressive/dangerous, some are not.

  • ||

    that's funny, however, bill o'reilly is also guilty of this.

  • ||

    If ignorance is bliss you must be happy. I had a wonderful Staffordshire Bull Terrier for the 12 years he lived. Never had a sweeter dog. He was a proud member of one of only two breeds certified as "nanny dogs" because they are so good with infants and children.

  • Mango Punch||

    Pittbulls aren't an actual breed but rather a cross between terriers and bull dogs. I'm sure some types are better or worse tempered than others, there are more than 1 breed of terrier and bull dog, and more than one lineage in each.

    From the right breeder pit bulls are great, from the wrong breader and environment they're dangerous.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    Like dogs as a species, you can't generalize all pit bulls. Some are dangerous, some are appropriately dangerous, and some are harmless. Wire haired fox terriers however...

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    Like bears as a species, you can't generalize all polar bears. Some are dangerous, some are appropriately dangerous, and some are harmless.

    Like tigers as a species, you can't generalize all bengal tigers. Some are dangerous, some are appropriately dangerous, and some are harmless.

  • Les||

    That is as bad an analogy as you could possibly come up with, and indicates a profound ignorance of animal behavior. Bears and tigers have never been domesticated. Try again, please.

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    Les, when you're right , you're right:

    Like man as a species, you can't generalize all men. Some are dangerous, some are appropriately dangerous, and some are harmless.

  • ||

    Yet its illegal for me to put down the really dangerous humans, WTF?

    Its ok for dogs though, oh i see. Racists. errr.....Specists?

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    Wylie, I have not argued for euthanizing dogs and this was a humorous analogy about the nature of pit bulls.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    Your analogy implies you believe polar bears and bengal tigers would be unsuitable as family pets, but would be okay with any other bear or tiger.

    Was that intentional?

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    The intention of my analogy was to reiterate my opinion than some animals or breeds are not suitable to be family pets.
    http://www.bigcatrescue.org/la.....igcats.htm
    In the interest of elucidation, I don't recommend men be kept as pets either but for those that are either "dangerous or appropriately dangerous" should certainly be kept on short leashes.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    By condemning an entire breed without condemning the species you are claiming there is less variance in behavior WITHIN the breed than there is variance BETWEEN breeds within the species.

    I haven't read any studies on this particular example so I can't say you're wrong. I CAN say that variance between individuals of a species subgroup is almost always greater than variance between subgroups. It seems extremely unlikely that pit bulls would be an exception.

    Despite your intentions your analogy only expanded your implicit variance claim to tigers and bears. Which is why I had to ask just what you meant by it.

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    You are worse than a stubborn dog. Phryxian houndmaster, stop analyzing everything to death. There are dogs that are know to have problems and it is recommended that they should not be with families. Alternatively, there are easy to train breeds and they most often do very well with families. Either types of dog can lead to a problem, any animal needs proper training and supervision but the difference is that my little Bichon Frise is more likely to run away than to bite another dog or child.
    Btw, you need study your sense of humor.

  • phryxian houndmaster||

    Can't disagree with you here. Now was that so hard?

    Btw, my sense of humor has already been thoroughly studied. It was deemed too important to risk subjecting it to current stressors and given over to Alcor for cryogenic preservation. When the need of humanity is great enough it shall be thawed.

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    I don't know what's more scary: that I knew what Alcor was or that we agree.;-)

  • Jeremy||

    anyone who calls it a pit bull does not truely understand the breed. the breed is the american staffordshire terrior. it gets the name pit bull from being used in pit fighting.

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    I hope this helps clarify the breed of your dog.
    http://answers.yahoo.com/quest.....705AANDqcp

  • Bill||

    I'm just curious - do you have any particular expertise in the matter? I've come across many Dog Trainers who are very pro-pitbull. They'll agree many have been bred to be aggressive, but that's not in any way a statement on the breed as a whole.

    Cesar Milan is very pro-pitbull and while he's certainly not infallible, I'm much more inclined to take his word for something dog related than an anonymous poster on a blog. If you have any particular expertise other than reading news reports, I'll certainly be willing to change my tune - I'm sure you couldn't care less though but I throw it out there anyway.

    And no matter what you think of pittbulls, this family didn't deserve this BS. Period

  • ||

    Haven't you heard, Bill?

    EVERYONE who has ever gotten a pitbull is an idiot scumbag who probably deserved to be jackbooted anyway. It was on the internet, so it must be true.

    (disclosure: idiot with 3 kids...i mean pits)

  • not that iI would be cruel but||

    Bill, "And no matter what you think of pittbulls, this family didn't deserve this BS. Period" Of course not. The type of dog you should get depends on your family situation but I have always preferred a rescue dog. Cesar Milan will probably not be coming over to train your dog and I suggest you should be comfortable with the animal before you make the commitment.

  • ||

    Ok, given the story above.....we are really going to make this a fight over the DOG'S BREED? It really shouldn't have mattered if they had a wolverine and a Tasmanian Devil, they wouldn't have posed a threat to any SWAT men who didn't want to protect the world from the scourge of craving junk food and bad tv.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    While Staph Terriers (pitbulls, whatever) ARE more naturally aggressive towards other dogs; people not so much, unless they have been trained that way.

    The reason that they are responsible for the high number of human deaths is that they are VERY good at what they do.

    While I don't have a citation in front of me, empirical evidence tells me that a friggin' chihuahua is more likely to bite you than a pit bull. The difference is that when Yo Quero Taco Bell attacks, you just punt his little ass into the corner.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    I own a pitbull cross, and while he scares the fuck out of the neighbor kids (partly because he has one psycho-killer blue eye), he is the biggest pussy in the world towards even my 2 yo grandson. Now, another dog......

  • ||

    I hear people say the same thing about (fill in the stereotype you despise here)people, it obviously has nothing to do with the environment they are raised in.

  • Independent George||

    Guns are crazy machines and as such have a magnetic attraction to unstable owners. I don't give a fuck that you think you've trained yourself well. It is nature to be violent and that will triumph.

  • a grain of truth||

    IG, for your reading pleasure

    http://www.duncanlong.com/scie.....-guns.html

  • ||

    My aren't you the expert on pitbulls. Such flaming fucking ignorance is really impressive. What an ass.

  • ||

    Any family dog that did NOT attack strangers breaking into the house would be pretty much useless. Dogs by nature are protective, especially of "their" children. What brand of idiots would break into a home without a damned good idea they would find a whole lot more than a few grams of pot?

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    You guys are all arguing about pit bulls while ignoring the REAL danger to those heroic SWAT agents: the dreaded, insanely dangerous corgi. I've seen a corgi attack such that a man's throat was tore clear out. He talks through a little gizmo on his neck now. Sounds like a robot.

  • ||

    dey ain;t got no pit no mores....

  • Jerry||

    Damn you Balko, there goes the Saturday night!

  • juris imprudent||

    Dammit, I'm so depressed reading this shit that I'm going to go get high.

  • ||

    Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone's safety.

    But if those dopesmoking fiends hadn't had the pot, the cops would NEVER invaded their home.

    Never

    Ever

    If you're not doing anything wrong, you have NOTHING to be afraid of.

  • ||

    You damn well do have a lot to worry about. Those goons get the wrong address sometimes.

  • ||

    I really hope you're joking, you can't be that naive can you?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yes, he's joking.

  • robc||

    Is sarcasm that hard to understand?

    (Answer: No)

  • ||

    Is sarcasm that hard to understand?

    In this day and age - yes.

  • ||

    To be sarcastic nowadays you've really got to go over the top. People really make that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have NOTHING to be afraid of" argument with a straight face. Granted, we're talking about stupid people. But such things do exist.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    When posting to the stupid eediots on facebook, I am always careful to add a little winky so they know I am JFK. I have always been grateful that I am seldom misinterpreted here.

  • Ice||

    "held back and then fatally shot the dog, which officers said was acting in an uncontrollably aggressive manner. "
    AKA it was barking.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    I believe the "aggressive manner" that they are referring to was the manner in which the dog was "aggressively" pissing all over the floor when all the officers came storming through the door.

  • ||

    I have a friend who has 2, count 'em, two corgi's.... and let me tell you, they could certainly nuzzle you to death. They won't back off till patted!
    Corgi's - nature's death nuzzlers!!!

  • ||

    The deadliest part is that you don't see their danger until its too late.

  • ||

    [insert have as needed]

  • ||

    "He was LOOKING RIGHT AT MEEEEEE!!"

  • Jamie Kelly||

    Yep. I haven't had a drink since I relapsed and broke my neck last July, but I'm fucking loading up tonight. Thanks, Radley!

  • ||

    Break a leg, Jamie!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Jamie, that's what pot is for (assuming you like its effects). Substitute for alcohol as needed - your body will thank you.

    Of course, you might have a SWAT team kick your doors in, but you'll be much healthier when you're arrested.

  • ||

    Conversely, do not attempt substituting alcohol for pot (say, during a dry spell).

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    151 rum DOES light up pretty well.

  • ||

    Maybe they should start storming Mizzou dorms and killing RAs and arresting students for pot.

    Was this state, local, fed or some combination there of?

  • SWAT Guy||

    Hey, guy. Thanks for the tip. Hope they don't have no dogs.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Don't shoot!!! That's not a dog, the RAs girlfriend is just really ugly.

  • ||

    I just want to see all the Saint Louis kids who couldn't get into good schools moms and dads go ape shit.

  • SWAT Guy||

    I got a pal over at Grammar Police HQ who might want to have a word with you.

  • ||

    Ya I saw that. Is he a grammar nazi?

  • ||

    no, he's a grammar socialist.

  • juris imprudent||

    Oh fuck, that means we ALL have to get it right.

  • Mad Max||

    The Nomenklature have special permits to be ungrammatical, and they can buy slang at special stores.

  • Mad Max||

    I meant to write "Nomenklatura," but "Nomenklature" seems just as good.

  • ||

    both versions are perfectutely cromulent

  • ||

    Oh fuck, that means we ALL have to get it right.

    That post erased all the shittiness deposited in my heart by the article. Thank you sir.

  • ||

    The NAZI were SOCIALISTS:"National Socialist German Workers' Party." They were about as right wing as Teddy Kennedy.

  • The Queen loves Corgis||

    SG, are you going to shoot him over the grammar?

  • SWAT Guy||

    For the grammar violations, I start with a bit of Mace and follow with a bit of beatdown stick.

  • The Queen loves Corgis||

    I imagine you mean this type of stick:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6idHmoe5EM

  • SWAT Guy||

    Yeah, just like that. Speaking of which, I need to hit the shower . . . totally blasted my pecs--thought you should know. Then, some friends and I are going to fill our quotas by booking a few illegals for Public Intoxication . . . while they're still in a bar.

  • The Queen loves Corgis||

    Have fun at the RAINBOW LOUNGE!
    www.dallasvoice.com/artman/pub....._11500.php

  • Beavis||

    Give him the taser! THE TASER!!

  • ||

    For the grammar violations, I start with a bit of Mace and follow with a bit of beatdown stick.

    Applied anally, naturally.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Radley is obviously unaware of the pressing need to save villages by burning them to the ground.

  • riley||

    greasy pigs, lets go raid the swat teams families and see how they like it. Inhumane bastards don't realize they will get whats coming to them eventually.

  • ||

    Unless "what's coming to them" is early retirement with a fat pension paid for by the taxpayers then, no.

    These thugs are probably not ever going to get what they deserve.

  • ||

    Which is why I'm campaigning for death panels in the new socialized healthcare we'll have within 15years.

    Then i get appointed to the death panel for sick and retired LEO's. And pull the plug on them, grinning over them as they grasp for help.

    I'll carry around a scythe and wear a black robe just for kicks.

  • ||

    Oh, look:

    The ethics committee said it reviewed nearly 250,000 pages of documents in its comprehensive investigation, concluding unanimously that "the evidence presently before the Committee does not support a determination that any House Member or employee violated any law, regulation, rule or other applicable standard of conduct."

    "Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not ... support a claim that a member's actions are being influenced by campaign contributions," the report said.

    Of course not.

  • SWAT Guy||

    Do you have a warrant to jack this thread? Didn't think so. Hey fellas, I think we have probable cause here . . .

  • The Queen loves Corgis||

    When they came for the dogs, I remained silent; I wasn't a dog. When they came for the grammar-challenged , I remained silent; I wasn't a grammar-challenged (ok, sometimes).When they came for the thread jackers, I remained silent; I wasn't a thread jacker...Hell, I am too.

  • ||

    "Git 'em, Spot!"

    *Frantically loads shotgun*

  • ||

    Well that's one way to make sure they're neutered.

    Seriously though, if being allowed to watch animals die constitutes "child endangerment", then every parent who lets their kid watch nature programs should be charged with that.

  • ||

    I'm sure the discharging of weapons within the confines of their house was an added safety measure for the children.

  • The Queen loves Corgis||

    Come on, it teaches them how to play dodgeball.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Watching an animal die on TV != shooting the family pet right in front of the kid.

  • ||

    Both present an equal amount of danger to the kids. ie, zero.

    Not that I agree with what the cops did, or drug laws in general, etc, but terming it child endangerment is a bit melodramatic.

  • Maxwell||

    You're joking right? we need a sarcasm emoticon.

  • ||

    Hey Tulpa, is there any level of authority you won't fellate?

  • ||

    I said I disagreed with the actions of the police in this case, owl fucker. Failing to freak out to a sufficient degree is hardly comparable to fellatio.

  • Warty||

    Fucking owls is a non-trivial task, even an experienced avian rapist like Epi. Watch your accusations.

  • ||

    As Warty says, only an accomplished deviant such as myself is capable of fucking owls. And frankly, it's only exciting because of the danger.

    An experienced cop-blower such as yourself should know this.

  • ||

    breaching a door and firing what were probably 5.56 round in a home with a child is a little dangerous. A little more dangerous than pot. I don't think anyone has had to dig a joint out of someone's chest and I've never seen a cause of death listed as marijuana. Bullet wounds on the other hand.

  • ||

    I don't think either one rises to the level of child endangerment, to be honest.

  • Kyle||

    A ricochet is pretty fucking endangering.

  • ||

    So, if a burglar broke in to their house, and one of the parents shot him while their child was in the room, would that constitute child endangerment?

  • ||

    Tulpa, do you be stupid on purpose?

  • Almanian||

    Yeah, gee - shooting an intruder, in your family's presence, who may inflict harm on your family = gov't intruders shooting the family pet in front of your family. Yep, got it.

  • ||

    Ricochets are equally dangerous whether the bullet was aimed at a pet or a burglar. No?

  • ||

    Yes, absolutely, equally dangerous. And, if a burglar broke in and was confronted by a pit bull and shot the pit bull in the presence of the child I would expect "child endangerment" or some similar charge to be leveled against the burglar.

  • ||

    That may be, but I don't think it would be justified. Believing that firing a gun in the same room as a child is child endangerment sounds like a gun banner's attitude.

  • ||

    Nope, I'd prefer to ban stupid and irresponsible acts. Firing a gun inside a home is generally dangerous and should be done only under the most dire circumstances. Maybe the dog was at this guy's throat. If not, I'd find it hard to justify the action.

  • ||

    Go easy on Tulpa, guys. He's come down with a really bad case of equivocation.

  • ||

    Dudes, the cops could have taken a dump on the kid and Tulpa would excuse it. He has a wicked hard-on for authority.

  • ||

    I didn't even excuse what they did here. But if willful misreading makes you feel better, by all means go ahead.

  • Kris||

    I didn't even excuse what they did here

    You didn't even seem particularly concerned or alarmed about what they did "in this case" either. Like it was a minor tactical error in an otherwise reasonable and routine police procedure.

  • ||

    Um, no. That's not what I said. I would quote it, but it's a tad embarrassing having to quote the beginning of this very comment tree, so I'll direct the readers to reread my comment.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Gosh, the difference between the police and the burglar scenario might be one of...context. And necessity.

    One is to defend the children; the other is to fight the war on drugs.

    Tulpa, you're friggin' stupid.

  • ||

    The bullet is just as dangerous whether it's intended for a cause libertarians agree with, or for one we don't agree with.

  • JSchuler||

    So, you're saying a fired bullet is a fired bullet, and context doesn't matter.

    Yup, you're a moron.

  • ||

    Self-defense against an intruder to protect yourself and your family against imminent harm is totally the same thing as breaking down a door and lighting up the family pets.

  • Family Pet||

    Fuck these kids. What about me? I'm feeling pretty fucking endangered here!

  • ||

    It doesn't even have to be 5.56, a 9mm will go through several sheetrock walls.

    And here is another good one.
    http://kstp.com/news/stories/S.....ml?cat=206
    "A police officer trying to make an arrest at a Minneapolis home shot the neighbor's dog."

  • Maxwell||

    Wow, I guess Tulpa wasn't joking. I did give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

    Note that the police fired 7 rounds at the two dogs, and yet only wounded the corgi.

  • robc||

    Typical police accuracy. As a general rule, firing inside a home is most likely cop endangerment considering how often they shoot each other in these situations.

  • ||

    Perhaps they were concentrating their fire on the (plausibly) dangerous dog, the pit bull (which was killed).

    Again, not defending the cops' actions here -- I don't support sending SWAT teams to such situations, nor do I support drug laws to begin with -- but attaching this melodrama to the situation only makes your argument against these practices more easily dismissed.

  • Changihopicorn||

    plausibly dangerous? You break into my house and every living thing in it is plausible dangerous from the poodle to my wife to me. I don't care who you are or what you think you have the right to do, my right to protect myself by dog, gun, or wife, from wrongful physical harm is innate. Your context for your argument is absurd. 5 guys in a home jacked up armed and shooting animals is far more dangerous than dad looking to defend his family. The level of aggression, violence, tension, and potential for a mistake is multiplied several times over with tommy cop getting his rocks off.

    The situation was cause and the police, they raised the level of danger for everyone by operating on assumptions that have been proved to be increasingly inaccurate. They are the ones that use the escalation of force that is always a few steps ahead of any threat. (in this case light years ahead) If I go to defend my family from a bad guy I am fairly certain where everyone and everything is, I am immediately concerned that my target may not be a bad guy, I am operating in a defensive mind set and not an offensive mindset. The cops are just the opposite, they are using SWAT because they expect a threat, they are looking for a threat, they are prepared to encounter the worst. Your context is all wonky here, your argument is pretty silly.

  • ||

    Discharging a weapon in a residential neighborhood endangers everyone. Not that I haven't done it before...

  • anonymous||

    Eat shit and die, Tulpa.

  • TacticalTim||

    You hippies don't know how fucking boring it is to raid your hovels without a dog to shoot.Please, if you're gonna smoke pot get a pet.

  • juris imprudent||

    +1

  • Hippie||

    Gimme a break, man.

    It was the pot.

  • Hippie||

    the dog's pot

  • TP||

    Please, if you're gonna smoke pot get a pet.

    Will a ferret do?

  • ||

    ferrets are preferred.

  • Changihopicorn||

    Ferrets with fricken laser beams attached to their heads.

    Or better yet ill tempered mutated sea bass.

  • ||

    Nigale Farage went all swat team up on the EU president. I love the EU, it's like a never ending circus. Brits backing micks, hell has frozen over.

    Belguim the non-country

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Damn, don't care who is but I'd vote for him.

  • SWAT Guy||

    Real lucky lady right here. Should've called my team; we know probable cause when we see it . . . no need for a warrant and I can already see her dog acting in an "uncontrollably aggressive manner."

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    "That's a pretty memorable story. And anybody that has some kind of drug issue would be naturally nervous, especially those of us with dogs," says Sloan.
    ROFL

    Oh and SWAT Guy, I'm not certain that leg humping in an "uncontrollably aggressive manner" is a shooting offense. Or if it is at least let the poor thing finish first.

  • ||

    I thought the standard was "reasonable fear for your safety" not "uncontrollably aggressive". It is, after all, in the nature of dogs to protect their masters, even if they're Chihuahuas, but no sane person is in fear for their safety from a Chihuahua or Corgi.

  • anarch||

    It is, after all, in the nature of dogs to protect their masters

    It all hangs on identifying the referent of that final word; dog failed to recognize its Ubermaster.

  • Hoist That Rag||

    "If you let too much time go by, then the drugs are not there"

    So the dogs were shot as a matter of expedience? So that the officers could quickly act to interdict marijuana that, as it turned out, was not even present?

    Brutal...

  • ||

    WTF? We're libertarians, damnit! There's a market here for pet body armor and we're not filling it! Sure, they've got stuff for police dogs, but what about Corgis? Cats? Turtles? I saw a movie where a rabbit was just lethal, so God knows the SWAT can't take any chances around an aggressive bun-bun.
    Does anyone know any venture capitalists with deep pockets?

  • TP||

    Just put a kevlar lining in one of these.

  • ||

    You know how long you can go to jail for attacking a police officer wearing body armor?

  • ||

    You know how long you can go to jail for attacking a police officer wearing body armor?

    Huh? What's body armor got to do with it? I thought attacking an officer was enough to land you in jail.

  • ||

    Make sure you don't use black vest with convenient ergonomics, or you've just created an "assault dog". That's bad news right there.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Just make sure the dog doesn't have a bayonet clip, and you'll be okay.

  • ||

    Corgis? Cats? Turtles?

    Hmmmm, turtles......

    I'm thinking a fiberglass+kevlar composite you could spray on their shell.

    Turtles are probably some of the easiest animals to bulletproof.

  • Beezard||

    This could have all been avoided if Whitworth had been properly blasted by classical music in his delinquent teen-aged years.

  • ||

    It was nice to see that the comments of the linked article were almost uniformly against the pigs.

  • Wally||

    Is anyone surprised given the elimination of the 4th Amendment by the courts and police?

    The revolution is beginnging...

  • ||

    Yep, and we're losing.

  • ||

    Yep, and we're losing.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Evidently twice.

    HA HA!

  • GrilledCS||

    This is pretty terrible.

    Today a pub owner in the UK got thrown into jail for six months because he dared to defy the UK smoking ban.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....tence.html

    Where's reason on reporting that?

    Hey, ignore it. The story only epitomizes all of the libertarian values you espouse.

    It won't even make a brickbat.

  • GrilledCS||

    What Reason really needs are more articles on how we should take a centrist view on global warming, get busy de-normalising Glenn Beck, and place our views regarding Tea Partiers in line with the mainstream media.

    No kidding, you guys at Reason give new meaning to the phrase "fucking up a wet dream".

  • BakedPenguin||

    What magazine are you reading, troll? Or did you just hear a bunch of crap on LewRockwell.com and decide to come over here after drinking all night?

  • Changihopicorn||

    Is that like an H&R booty call?

  • oaktownadam||

    We could post a story every day about the UK's nanny-fascists....but that would get tedious. Even the brickbats are 90% British.

    There's a reason we declared independence from that kingdom ~234 years ago.

  • ||

    Reason posts a lot on UK lunacy. They really do. Send that link to them. I bet they will put it up.

    Sadly, you have a point about global warming and making sure that no one off the approved cool list is considered anything but a nut.

  • TP||

    Amazing, they did put it up.

  • ||

    He got jailed for refusing to pay a fine, silly. If you get a ticket for jaywalking and refuse to pay the fine, you are probably going to jail too -- it doesn't mean you got "jailed for jaywalking".

    Again, I don't support smoking bans, but I also don't support exaggerating the evils of the ban. It makes our (correct) position on these things more easy to dismiss.

  • Changihopicorn||

    Jailed for contempt relative to an infringement on your property rights is a little different than jay walking. Just a little. There really isn't a lot of exaggeration. State said you can't do such and such on your own property, property owner said piss off wankers, state said that's a fine, property owner said piss of wankers, state said no freedom for you. Pretty basic and hyperbole free.

  • ||

    Jailed for contempt relative to an infringement on your property rights is a little different than jay walking.

    Not according to our legal system, throughout our history as a nation. The correct means of challenging the government's authority to fine you under this law is to appeal to a higher court. Refusing to pay the fine is not an acceptable course of action, for obvious reasons.

  • Changihopicorn||

    Who said he hasn't appealed to a higher court?

    You mean like refusing to pay a tax is not an acceptable course of action? Paying a fine is capitulating to government authority, not challenging it.

  • ||

    If you could just refuse to pay a fine with no consequences, by simply asserting that it violated your rights, then no one would ever pay a fine.

  • hmm||

    I don't pay camera traffic light tickets. You know why? Because they have no authority in my state to collect on them. Yet they still issue the fine. Maybe the problem isn't the fine, but the violation of rights. The fine is just a manifestation of the violation, so not paying it is perfectly acceptable.

  • ||

    I'm assuming you're saying that the law in your state does not allow them to collect fines on red light camera tickets. That's quite different from the situation where your assertion that a fine violates your rights is not based on law but on your own whim.

  • hmm||

    Forcing me to pay criminal fines without the ability to question my accuser is a violation of my rights. Hence the reason I don't have to pay and the reason the state has not tried to prosecute anyone to date.

    Same theory different right.

  • hmm||

    You seem awfully willing to assume the legal system never makes an error. Like saying torturing people is okay, black slaves are property, it's okay to take some ladies property... it's a long list of booboos.

  • ||

    Hardly. Are you guys deliberately mischaracterizing my positions today or are you just reading comprehension challenged?

    But hey, God gave us two ears and one mouth, so I'll listen. How do you think a legal system can function if its rulings are not enforced? If a fine is levied, and the fined person can choose not to pay the fine simply by asserting that the law is a violation of his rights, how is such a legal system anything but a mockery?

  • juris imprudent||

    Well, the legal system WILL cease to function effectively when enough people civilly disobey. Then what for you, nightsticks and jackboots?

  • ||

    For much of our history, tar and feathers was the correct response to uppity government employees.

  • Red Redding in voiceover:||

    I didn't know until that day that Tulpa stood for Tongue Ur Long Penis, Authorities?

  • ||

    "Drug distributors traditionally have a history with firearms, which is why the SWAT team is used when executing such warrants, Haden said."

    Farmers have a history of firearms. Do we need the SWAT teams to execute a search warrant on a farm? Who doesn't have a history of firearms in this country? I need to stop reading Reason or at least avoid Balko's posts. It is not good for my health. These people are just sick, sadistic bastards. And they have unquestioned authority. And there is nothing I can do about it. It infuriates me so much, I am going to have a heart attack reading one of these posts some day.

  • BakedPenguin||

    John - a low sodium diet, beta blockers, and the occasional Valium do wonders.

  • Changihopicorn||

    After this viscous incident perpetrated on one of our finest defenders of truth and citizens at a rural home in Oklahoma all police visits will be proceeded by carpet bombing to protect the safety of our brave officers.

  • juris imprudent||

    viscous? I didn't see any blood. [/fucking snarky pedant]

  • ||

    I don't think it's too pedantic expecting people to distinguish between "viscous" and "vicious".

    Lrn2english, damn goobacks!

  • ||

    Yeah. His posts should come with a prescription.

  • too too ||

    funny

  • yellow badge of courage||

    are the cops who shot the dogs because they feared for their lives ineligible for bravery citations now?

  • Changihopicorn||

    Bravery isn't the lack of fear. It's the action you take in the face of fear. These brave men took action to stop a man eating corgi from decimating their comrades. I'd like see your reaction when under threat from such a beast.

  • Lt. Thaddeus Harris||

    A corgi barked at me once, and I shit myself.

    True story.....

  • ||

    After reading all of the comments* I have a question for Tulpa. Do you buff the cops boots after licking them?

    * Don't worry, I'm working on the masochism thing with my therapist.

  • ||

    You must have only skimmed them, since on multiple occasions I stated that the cops acted wrongly and the drug laws are stupid. But that's no worse a misinterpretation than the rest of the Herd was guilty of, so you are forgiven.

  • Forgiveness is overrated||

    Tulpa, it's a little boring today. Why don't you guys just bitch slap each other a little more?

  • ||

    Anyone who thinks cops doing a marijuana SWAT raid and discharging firearms needlessly in a house with children present isn't recklessly endangering said children is a lickspittle.

  • RCTL||

    "lickspittle" word of the day?

  • ||

    A public high school teacher turned me on to Skakespeare. Lickspittle is part of an arsenal that includes bootlicker, toady and fellator.

  • ||

    So, do you believe the cops should face some sort of consequences for acting wrongly? You know, like us hoi polloi do.

  • ||

    Absolutely. They should face the same charges that a non-cop would face if he or she shot someone's dog, with the same standard of evidence for claiming self-defense, as opposed to the bald-assertion-standard they routinely get away with.

  • ||

    how is such a legal system anything but a mockery?

    How is a legal system in which the enforcers are never accountable for their excesses or errors not a mockery?

  • ||

    And how is giving the taxpayers money to the victim acceptable?
    Shouldnt the cop have to do the paying?

  • ||

    Gosh, the difference between the police and the burglar scenario might be one of...context. And necessity.

    One is to defend the children; the other is to fight the war on drugs.

    Thank you TAO. QFT

  • The Skeptical Juror||

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    One of the problems is that judges and magistrates are simply warrant mills that review oaths and affirmations with an uncurious eye, if at all. In the case of Cory Maye, for example, the police sought warrants for two addresses, neither of which was clearly identified, using two sets of paperwork, one of which was literally a photocopy of the other.

    The probable cause standard was nothing more than a tip from an unidentified informant (a drug user in this case) that had at least once before provided information (for a cash payment)
    which led to an arrest (whether the party arrested was found guilty or not). It made no difference if the informant had been wrong 99 times out of 100.

    The judge merely had the officer swear that the inadequate paperwork was true, as far as it went. Without questioning the adequacy of the request, the judge granted two warrants that led to simultaneous raids on two apartments, the death of of a young and dedicated officer, and the death penalty for a quiet and gentle man.

    Such problems as the one described in this post will continue as long as warrants are passed out like candy by judges who refuse to abide by the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.

  • ||

    What is this "Fourth Amendment" of which you speak?

  • ||

    This type of thing never happened before Bush became President. Because Bush didn't care about the Constitution, soon enough our military did not care, and it has now filtered down to the cops. Bush is responsible for a culture of corruption from top to bottom that is going to take Obama a full 8 years to fix, or maybe even more.

  • Untermensch||

    hah hah hah hah. Good one. wipes tears from eyes.

  • ||

    Neither bush was in office when the paramilitarization of police began. Not going to quote balko in the comments thread of a balko-penned article. But, if you want something broken, let obama and his cancerous groupthink czars get on it. Iran, contras, crack. DARE, nobody ever says the want to be a junky when they grow up, this is your brain on television. Turn it back to the 80s, yeah. Every kid is a gang member, every skateboarder is a vandal, and anybody with a beeper is a drug dealer. Another 10 years from now, and we'll be back at dobermans and german shepherd dogs being evil, and police will be walking their beats along with milkmen and mailmen and kids on bicycles delivering the newspaper, with a sense of community where you know more than one or two of your neighbors, and nobody judges you based on your religious practices, skin color, car you drive, the level of wealth you choose to present, the people you associate with, the pron you stream online and the websites you frequent. Do what though wilt shall be the only law. I could care less about some suit of a lawyer that lives in a mansion in DC; he's in it for his own best interests, not mine.

    Now military personal with combat experience going on to becoming police officers in a small suburban edge city like the one i live in? You are more aggressive drivers than the guy in a lexus that believes the road is his gift for his contributions to mankind. You'd think i lived on I25 in new mexico by the number of prostrated drivers i've seen with guns pointed at them while 3-9 more officers are busy tossing your 10 year old minivan. I met the police chief and his wife once, and in the spirit of pink floyd's "The happiest day of our lives," the nice man has no control of how the criminal justice vacuum cleaner exorcises the streets of his town at the hands of his laity. Generational gap if i've ever seen one.

  • ||

    It amazes me all the energy spent over terrorists being kept in Gitmo, yet this sort of thing doesn't seem to bother anyone.

    Yet, this sort of thing is far more likely to affect the average person. I had a similar raid simply because I bought too much cold medicine (since according to the police, the only reason to buy cold medicine with pseudo-ephedrine is to make meth). It's very helpless having your dogs threatened like that, knowing the police can kill them without any repercussion. Or pretty much anything to you.

  • ||

    Doesn't bother *anyone*?

    Man, I guess I'm the only person here that bothered.

  • ||

    Public servants who run amuck should be terminated. Their employment that is. Now if that homeowner whose dogs were shot was to track those killers down in cold blood and execute them with malice and forethought I suppose I'd have to find him guilty...of something...maybe.

  • James||

    One small bag of pot=asset forfeiture.
    mothers milk of modern law enforcement.gotta love it!

  • ||

    Mental notes from Balko's article:

    Keep any pot I have in the house in the bathroom.

    Flush it before challenging armed intruders.

    Turn laser on high-cap .45 on to be sure of headshots, in case intruders are wearing body armor.

    I think that about covers it.

  • David Knights||

    To hell with the Pit Bull. They shot a Corgi? Hell, a Corgi is a hairy football. If you were ever attacked by one all you'd ahve to do is kick it away. I can't imagine a police officer saying, with a straight face, "I was attacked by the family Corgi, so I had to shoot him."
    Good god.

  • ||

    some of the bull dog breeds were bred to take on wild boars and bulls, but they also make excellent family dogs. Before the 60's they were a very popular family dog and in England were called nanny dogs because of their ability to watch over and protect small children. After the 50's they have been increasingly bred for fighting which has given them a bum rap. The totalitarians that want to ban them should look at banning driving which cause 40,000 deaths a year. The people who want to exterminate bull dogs are reactionary and profoundly ignorant.

  • yup||

    Pitbulls are traditionally aggressive animals. When you rush into a house of a suspected narcotics dealer with the possibility of being shot at and a dog growls at you, threatening attack, it's in your best interest to eliminate that threat and move forward

  • ||

    If for any reason somebody killed my dog, I would kill them. Simple. My dog is a member of our family and I would consider his murder to be the equivalent of killing my wife, mother or brother. I hope those cops get what's coming to them.

  • DogLuver||

    These brain washed "cops" have no souls.

  • StuBall||

    I don't know what is more sickening. A paramilitary gang invading yet another home of someone that has harmed nobody(victimless crime) causing harm to the entire family, or the people that could read this and think in terms of what breed of dog was inside this family's home. You people need to get the sand of of your eyes and ears. Look at the real issues here. It is nothing to do with the breed of a beloved family member that was murdered. My German Shepherd is a part of my family. What do you plan on doing when you see ANYONE draw down on, or shoot a family member? Would you hide in a corner and say "please sir.. just don't hurt ME...please?" Sickening. Just repulsive.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain wizard of oz books

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  • sathi2000||

    The neck is extremely sensitive all the way around, so don’ t leave any of it out. You can do anything from massaging the back of his neck and shoulders to gently scratching his neck, to licking, nibbling and sucking from just under his ear to the tops of his shoulders. Slide ice cubes along his collar bones on a hot summer night, or slide your warm vibrator along his collar bones in the chill of winter.
    http://destinationsoftwareinc.com

  • tortia||

    If anyone ever stuck by the idea to buy authentic gucci,come to us www.authenticguccibags.com.
    We set our Gucci store at Hong Kong, selling Authentic Gucci online now by a discounted price. As we all know,to buy fake Gucci is not only vulgar but also illegal, visit our store as we will teach you how to spot the fake Gucci,moreover, we’d like to offer chances to buy authentic gucci,gucci tote,gucci boston,gucci messenger,gucci hobo,gucci by gucci,gucci sukey in an affordable price, to extend our business to a larger scale.

  • kadin||

    help, i want to buy authentic gucci, Thanks for sharing. i like gucci

  • kadin||

  • kadin||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement