Drug War

Subjects of Missouri Drug Raid That Went Viral Have Their Civil Suit Dismissed


Jonathan and Brittany Whitworth became inadvertent youtube stars last year thanks to the Columbia, Missouri Police Department. The footage of the February 2010 narcotics raid on the Whitworth home — filmed by the SWAT team themselves —has now been watched more than 1.8 million times.

But as Radley Balko noted in May 2010, this raid wasn't unique, in fact it was far less of a disaster than it could have been: the police announced their presence, no humans were killed or injured, and it was even the correct house, in that it contained the person listed on the warrant. (And indeed, Jonathan plead guilty and paid a $300 fine for possession of drug paraphernalia,  The parents were initially charged with child endangerment. Which is hilarious, considering who was firing weapons in a house which contained a child.)

Still, Jonathan Whitworth's baffled yells and the horrible whimpering of his injured dog made this raid go viral in a way that most of the 150 daily SWAT raids never will.

Now the Whitworths' civil suit has been dismissed by a federal judge. According to the Columbia Daily Tribune:

[The judge] found few, if any, facts to support many of the allegations in the complaint. She also found cause for tactics used by officers to conduct the raid, force used against Jonathan Whitworth during his arrest and the actions toward the wife and son to be proper….

The lawsuit was seeking restitution for damages to personal property and medical and veterinary expenses. It was filed in September 2010 against the 12 police officers who were at the raid for their contribution toward an alleged violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Watch the raid for yourself if you've never seen it. The offensive language is not the offensive part.

But at least, says the Daily Tribune, the police were kind to the family after they murdered their pet:

Brittany Whitworth and her son were escorted outside the house after asking to be moved so they couldn't see the dead dog, according to the order.

Officers complied with requests for blankets and shoes as they went out to wait in a patrol vehicle for the next two hours. That car was later moved upon the mother's request so the boy would not see the dog's remains taken out by animal control.

Police complied with an additional request to allow Brittany Whitworth to mop up the dog's blood and for officers to tell her son that "Nala was alive and being taken to be a police dog."

Past Reason reporting on the raid, which got an impressive amount of attention at the time. Reason on the militarization of police.

NEXT: But What About the Eyeball Method?

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.

  1. “Nala was alive and being taken to be a police dog.”

    He’s working to take them down from the inside now!

    1. Sniffing Hispanic-driven 18-wheelers…in HEAVEN.

    2. That’s the most twisted, f-ed up part. Hell no, I’m telling them that you, the cops, killed their beloved dog.

    3. that’s nice.

  2. “…which got an impression amount of attention at the time.”

    Yay, this is the first time I’ve caught a grammer mistake before anyone else! A winner is me!

    1. grammer mistake


      1. Yes, it was done on purpose, along with the mutiliated grammar of the last sentence, in self-parody.

        I care for M. Steigerwald far too much to risk hurting her feelings without a bit of a jape to show it isn’t meant as serious literary criticism, for which I am justly renowned.

        1. Well done, sir. Fixed, thank you. Proof-reading myself is my strong suit. I read what I think I wrote, which all of you know by now.

    2. Lucy’s MO is to make grammar errors anticipating the ending of a word she is about to write.

    3. It looks fine to me. Get off Lucy’s back!

      [points menacingly at Jim]

      1. That ain’t Jim, it’s a spoof.

        By my reckoning it’s Jim spoofing rectal spoofing Episiarch spoofing Jim who as a joke spoofs John, but it’s really John getting revenge on Jim by reprimanding H&R fave Lucy under Jim’s new handle, Gojira.

        +e^(i*pi) to me, fuckers

        1. I went cross-eyed.


  3. Ah, so the cops were shooting dogs in compliance with department policy and training. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    1. believe it or not , dogs CAN attack people and there are situations where it is justified to shoot one.

      was THIS situation justified? well, the judge thought so. the entire scene is horrid, and i’d personally rather get bitten (to an extent) than shoot a dog. it’s just defending it’s owner. and fwiw, one of my partners got bitten pretty badly on a traffic stop when we arrested a woman for DUI. he didn’t shoot the dog.

      i’ve also responded to two incidents where “civilians” shot a dog that was attacking in them. in neither case was anyone arrested, cited or anything else. because those were justified.

      1. and fwiw, one of my partners got bitten pretty badly on a traffic stop when we arrested a woman for DUI. he didn’t shoot the dog.

        OH MY GOD. Can you upload a pic of your partner’s medal?

        1. No medal hth

      2. Sheesh, Dunphy, next you’re gonna say that dogs evolved from wolves!

        1. more correctly, humans bred them from wolves.



          11!1111!!! oh noes!

      3. Dunphy has now descended into whimperingly unconscious self-parody. Yes, it’s a dangerous job. Yes, due to ubiquitous recording technology the po-po are finally coming under a heightened level of scrutiny and accountability. Yes, you’re going to have a lot more restrictions and oversight. Deal with it, constable.

        1. I do deal with it… However, when an impartial third party uses that oversight, as in this case, to determine THE COPS DID NOTHING UNREASONABLE UNDER THE LAW as in this case, YOU need to fuckng deal with

          Cops 1
          Frivolous unjustified lawsuit 0


          1. “impartial third party”? When did the courts become impartial third parties where police are involved (especially federal courts in light of Scalia’s “New Professionalism”)?

            Legal fictions make for bad “law”.

  4. The part where they shot the dog isn’t captured on video. In fact, none of the shooting is captured, so it’s hard for me to tell what caused the cops to react and shoot.

    And it looks like the cops on video are being as considerate and conscientious of the people as I could hope for them to be.

    The bigger issue is: what led them to get the warrant? Was it a legitimate investigation (doubtful) or a fishing expedition with dubious information leading to the warrant (likely).

    One more thing: I think they could have just as easily gone in at lunchtime with a couple of uniformed cops and served this guy. The nonsense from this is the time of day and the method of service.*

    *Because until the absurd drug war is ended, warrants will still be served and houses will be searched.

    1. That’s what really gets me. Da Judge thinks the amount of force was appropriate? For WHAT? Did they think this guy was another Waco waiting to happen?

      1. Department policy takes precedence over any Constitutional privileges or human decency.

        1. That’s the problem with the “unreasonable” part of “unreasonable search and seizure”.

          The fuckheads doing the searching and seizing get to decide what’s reasonable.

          1. no, a JUDGE gets to decide. and specifically what was unreasonable here?

            i don’t see anything.

            the dog shooting was horrible, but i have no reason to know if it was unreasonable. it’s off camera, and the judge found it to be reasonable.

            i posted a cite regarding cop shootings and dogs with several legal cites the other day iirc

            1. Its unreasonable to take a SWAT team into the home of a non-violent criminal.

              Start there.

              1. have you read the search warrant affidavit.

                i had three friends shot at a search warrant (no, they weren’t swat)

                search warrants are dangerous. my agency, and probably this agency has a risk matrix to determine if swat is warranted

                do you KNOW swat wasn’t warranted and/or what info they had that warranted it?

                1. The info they had that “warranted it” was that this guy might have some weed in his house. This guy was well known by the cops for being an asshole drunk driver. He was being taught a lesson with this raid for being an ass. Nothing ever suggested that he had weapons in the house or would have any kind of shootout with the cops. Regardless, shooting the caged dog and the small corgi (!) fenced into the kitchen was completely uncalled for. These cops wanted the adrenaline rush of shooting something and scaring the shit out of this asshole and his family. I’ll bet they wish that they could have gone in there and shot the guy, but they can’t get away that shit so they shoot dogs.

                  1. What do you mean by asshole drunk driver? Did he have a history of assault, etc.?

                    Again, are you privy to the facts on the risk matrix etc. ? If not. You are arguing from ignorance

                2. Suck it up, whiner.

                  1. I agree. They got their day in court. With their frivolous lawsuit. They lost
                    DEAL WITH IT

                    1. DEAL WITH IT

                      When legal recourse becomes more and more difficult and assholes continue to cover for assholes… Bad times ahead.

                      I don’t care if you guys don’t make it home from work anymore.

                    2. Cops just make it into the Top 10 Most Dangerous Jobs. Garbage collectors, Truck drivers, Linemen and Fishermen have it worse.

                      @Karl – ‘I don’t care if you guys don’t make it home from work anymore.’ – I’m with you there.

    2. i 100% agree with you here. if at all possible, warrants should be served in daylight hours.

      people are ALWAYS prone to do wacky shit when they get woken up in the middle of the night, and there is going to be that several second window where they are fuzzy and don’t know what’s going on. it can lead to bad shit. if there are SPECIFIC reasons justifying doing it at night, then fine.

      when i used to work hawaii, we were prohibited BY LAW from doing warrants after 10 pm unless there was some sort of exigency (never happened) or a judge pre-authorized it

      it’s a good law.

  5. The order seems to make it clear that this videotape was never introduced into evidence. See this, for example:

    The officer, in a direct manner thatdid not constitute yelling, informed Mrs. Whitworth that she would need to leave thebedroom and come to the front of the house.


    “An officer, with gun pointed at Mrs.Whitworth and P.M., told them to step past Mr. Whitworth and sit a few feet from the door.The Whitworths allege in their amended complaint that officers shouted and yelled at Mrs.Whitworth and P.M. [Doc. # 47 at 17], but never direct the Court to any evidence of this fact.”

    That’s just bogus, as we can all tell from the video, there’s no shortage of yelling.

    1. in regards to mrs whitworth,she is told to “move” a couple of times. you could argue that was yelling.

      it seems pretty ridiculous to be parsing what is or isn’t “yelling”.

      after they say “move” and they DO say it loudly a couple of times, the cop continues to talk to her in a very soft voice ONCE she gets past her proned out husband. the move command is to get her past the proned out man quickly

  6. Lucy has replaced Balko as the weekly “ball-busting” contributor.

    1. We’ve known about this case for some time, so it’s more like a vodka tampon than a nutpunch.

      1. it’s a NOTHING. at least from the video. is there other stuff on this that shows the cops did something wrong

        because the video certainly doesn’t

        1. Once again, using SWAT for a non-violent drug offender that got busted for a FUCKING MISDEMEANOR, is where this starts to be wrong. Die in a fire you statist jack-booted fucking asshole.

          1. What he was busted for is irrelevant.

            Typical reasonoid results based, not process based analysis.

            What IS RELEVANT is the risks known to them PRIOR TO getting the warrant. That did or didn’t justify or not justify SWAT

            are you knowledgeable about that?

            1. No I am not. And Neither are you fuck face. Given the usual boilerplate to acquire drug warrants usually being based on a “confidential informant” and that they probably did no actual, you know, INVESTIGATION, except that this guy has had previous contact with the pigs, I am completely comfortable assuming this was payback as mentioned elsewhere. So tell me officer dick head, how often do the jack boots come up with nothing when they have a credible investigation beforehand? Fuck you and die in a fire along with all of your progeny.

              1. that’s why i am not jumping to that conclusion SANS evidence

                what i do know is that what i saw on the video was justified. that a lawsuit was filed. that a judge, privy to far more evidence than you or i am , tossed the lawsuit.

                what i know is that we can’t see what happened with the dog, and i am not going to assume it was UNjustified.

                i’ll ignore your trollish crap.

                typical of the bigorati. all emotion, no substance

                1. Extremism is defense of Liberty is no vice. Yes, seeing the jack-booted thugs of La Copsa Nostra, violating peoples rights makes me angry. I dont care what the fucking law says. Right is right and wrong is wrong. What those fuckers did was wrong, what the judge did was wrong. Ignore the “trollish crap” all you want. Just remember this shit when you are up against the wall, crying that you were just following orders.

                  1. troll-o-meter: .000002

                    extra points for hysterics and La Copsa Nostra

                    1. I like “La Copsa Nostra”

                      suitable to the the attitude

                      deserves to go viral

  7. I suppose the bar is low enough that showing common decency to the boy whose dog you just killed is praiseworthy.

    1. I suppose the bar is low enough that showing common decency to the boy whose dog you just killed is praiseworthy.

      Shit, in Houston they’d give those cops a medal.

  8. Well the police are getting well trained by former military troops who conducted these same kinds of raids overseas. I expect to see ever increasing violence as former military relive their tours of duty. Was it worth a trillion dollars to train better killers America?

    1. A huge number of them are actually former soldiers, or guard/reserve. So it’s no wonder that mentality and way of doing things naturally bleeds over into their “civilian” occupation as cops.

      1. Strange. Our soldiers are being used as policemen while our policemen are being used as soldiers.

        1. HA, I never thought of it like that, but that’s an excellent was of phrasing it.

          Back when I was in the guard while I was going to college, literally 1/4 of the local PD was in my battalion.

      2. I doubt that. I would be willing to bet that military veterans are far more relaxed and confident in these situations, especially ones who have seen combat. They’re not going to be scared to death by a barking dog.

    2. Soldiers who pulled crap like this would be in deep shit.

        1. crap like what? what specifically is unreasonable here?

          i see nothing

          1. i see nothing

            We know, dude. We know.

          2. The whole fucking raid is unreasonable. Killing the defenseless dogs is indefensible.

            1. Which is of course you have no evidence or basis for concluding… As opposed to the judge, who was privy to the evidence and ruled it was justified.

              Ignorance. How does it work?

          3. i see nothing

            “Sgt. Schultz” dunphy

          4. “i see nothing”

            OMG, I called unconcious self-parody on Dunphy above before reading this. Priceless.

            Thanks, Dunphy, this is your “gamboling” moment.

            1. Again, there is no “there” there. Yu have no specific articulable facts.

              You have conjecture and hyperbole

      1. Well maybe.

        All regular searches in Iraq, Soldiers and Marines knocked and were courteous. The Army would pay for any damage to property.

        Raids against hard-core terrorist are a different story – anyone inside who lives is damn lucky.

    3. I think it is more a thing of police wanting to emulate military than anything else.

      And the police do not understand what they are attempting to employ.

      1. Exactly.

        A lot of these so-called “SWAT” teams are nothing but regular local cops, dressed up in riot gear obtained with a federal grant, with minimal training, if any.

  9. Fucking entrapment how does it work? The LVPD knows how to boost revenue create awareness for a non-issue.

    1. A few years ago, in my little town in California, the cops did something similar. They had a cop in regular civilian clothes stand at a corner and sucker drivers into “not yielding”, then write a ticket. A friend of mine got nabbed. The cop stood at the corner, 4 way stop, and showed no intention of actually stepping into the cross walk. My friend stopped, made eye contact with the cop, and waited a few seconds to be sure the guy was just loitering at the corner and not trying to cross, he then drove on through. He was cited and paid a substantial fine. Just fucking infuriating.

      Andy of Mayberry, please come back. America needs you.

  10. Don’t compare me and my fellow troops to cops. Only the stupid ones become cops after getting out. I would only consider being a cop after all “cocksucking for spare change jobs” had been taken first. I have standards.

    1. Yep. When I was in, it was the 8 year Corporal or the 30 lbs past regs that left for Bovine University. Basically, the shitheads that wanted to play with guns but couldn’t hack a military lifestyle.

    2. i’d bet dollars to doughnuts (we love doughnuts) you couldn’t pass the psychological anyway

      1. I guess that’s the test where they figure out if you have any morals or any kind of humanity and reject the ones that do.

        1. No, it’s called MMPI ETC. a lot of people fail.

          1. The fact that they let a boot licking ass wipe like you through says all I need to about the process.

            1. yawn.

              troll-o-meter: .000001

              extra points for calling an anti-state power libertarian a boot licker


              1. You are a servant of the state, that makes you a boot-licker by definition. Now go and profile some blacks or latinos or something to earn your pay.

          2. Did you really just cite the MMPI as an effective means of weeding out officers with psychological problems? So along with your alleged accreditation as a police officer, you have a Phd. in Psychology? Impressive.

  11. As for troop mentality bleeding over into police work, another insult. Troops could give a fuck less about non-threats. Cops get hot and bothered over little old ladies who fail to bow quickly enough.

    Search warcrime vs police brutality on YouTube. Which is MUCH more common?

  12. Pigs:

    Fuck them all.

  13. this video, UNLIKE the UC Davis video shows nothing that looks unjustified or unreasonable. and an independent finder of fact found the same.

    yes, it looks ugly. force is ugly. but this is pretty much textbook

    my favorite part is the moron who asks for a lawyer, refuses to give his name and THEN asks a bunch of questions. hint: if you ask for a lawyer and refuse to give your name, don’t expect that cops are going to answer YOUR questions. the only thing they are required to do is show the homeowner the warrant. answering questions is a courtesy. and if you are going to be an assmunch and not give your NAME, don’t expect courtesy

    note: invoking right to an attorney does not give you the “right” to refuse to give a name

    1. It is unreasonable to raid a non-violent criminal’s home with a SWAT team in the early morning hours.

      Start there.

      1. imo, it is bad policy to do these raids in the early mornign hours UNLESS there are specific facts and circ’s requiring it be served then

        some states PROHIBIT early morning warrant service w/o such facts and circ’s. e.g. hawaii when i was there.

        regardless, you don’t know WHAT facts and circ’s they had that warranted SWAT unless you read the affidavit and the risk matrix they filled out

        i can tell you i had three friends who were NOT SWAT get shot at a search warrant, where we thought SWAT wasn’t required.

        i would suggest unless you know the entire set of circ’s that led this agency to choose to do the warrant via SWAT, then you are just (as usual) speculating based on shit you don’t know

        and even if SWAT was not used, if the dog attacked officers who weren’t SWAT, they STILL would have shot it most likely.

        but we can agree that it should require specific justification to hit the house in the early mornign hours.

        and this is an excellent area that people can MAKE changes

        either start a citizen initiative OR contact your legislature to propose such a law in your state

        hawaii had one

        vs. wanking about it in a blog. i’d bet you don’t even KNOW what your state law says or doesn’t say about it.

        it varies state to state

        1. i’d bet you don’t even KNOW what your state law says or doesn’t say about it.

          How about we start with what the Constitution says about it?

          1. It only says it ust be REASONABLE. The law doesn’t agree, by those that interpret it, that nittime raids are ipso facto unreasonable

            So, it’s up to legislators, which in many states, includes citizen initiative, to CHANGE that

            We did that in WA with racist racial preferences… Fixed it

            If you think this should be changed, then DO something

            1. Incorrect. The 4th Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

              You are correct (because the court told you so) that this was not an unreasonable seizure. There was a warrant signed by a judge. But as I’ve pointed out already, these are legal fictions created by the courts to preserve an orderly society.

              Unfortunately, the People are growing increasingly tired of all these outrageous SWAT raids which are done under the aforementioned legal fiction. You are right. And it is fun to be right, until you are no longer right.

              Then, I expect, it won’t be so much fun.

        2. “imo, it is bad policy to do these raids in the early mornign hours UNLESS there are specific facts and circ’s requiring it be served then”

          Just as a hypothetical, what would those ‘circs’ be?

          You have said that you are against the drug war. Isn’t a SWAT team delivering a warrant in the middle of the night about as bad as this war gets?

          If this is acceptable, could you point me to an example of an unacceptable use of force in serving a drug warrant?

          And I am not really a regular here (I lurk about twice a week) so I would appreciate an actual link as opposed to a reference to some thread last week. I say this because I notice that Reasonoids (and I am including you here, because you post a lot) tend to be kind of self referential.

          I am not being hostile. I would really like to know.

    2. yes, it looks ugly. force is ugly. but this is pretty much textbook

      Yeah, force is ugly, but necessary, right? You’ve gotta kill a few dogs, children, and grandmas if you wanna peaceful society.

      And hey, it’s textbook, so nothing to worry about.

      (Maybe find a new textbook?)

      1. When it’s justified, you Do Have to shoot dogs etc.

        Do you have any evidence the dog shooting wad NOT justified?

        i thought not

        1. It was a fucking CORGI. If officer Pisses-My-Pant is so frightened of a 15 lbs dog maybe he should find a new line of work. It sounds like clubbing baby seals is more his speed. Fucking Douchebag.

          1. troll-o-meter: .00000000001

  14. Does the fact that Dunphy sees nothing unreasonable tell us:

    A. This was just peachy and wonderful or
    B. The person, and by extension the group, who sees this raid as peachy and wonderful have serious issues.

    Survey says?

    1. Judge says? No

      histrionic bigots say? Yes

      I’ll go with the judge… Whowas privy to facts that you aren’t, such as those relevant to WHY the dog was shot

      1. Dog was shot because officer Pisses-My-Pants is a big crying pussy. And as I understand it, the second dog shot was penned and not a threat at all. The fact that the judge is covering for his “friends” in the gang does not make it right asshole. Once again…Die in fire with all your progeny and Ancestors.

        1. ah yes, unsupported allegations that the judge is covering for his friends.

          evidence? zero

          unsupported assertions? legion

  15. An interesting note. Raisins can throw dogs into renal failure. If you have a cop neighbor with an outside dog, a gift of rasinettes, tossed over the fence, might be in order. Give the gift of trauma to cop kids, like their dads like to give to the “sheep”.

    1. Not like them. Never like them.

    2. Yay! ATF is here!

    3. You really are a sick piece of shit, that you could advocate hurting a dog, a noble creature if there ever was one, to get back at a cop (bigotry? How does thst work?) based on his choice of working in a noble career.

      Again, people who advocate torturing animals are psychologically ill. Yu wouldnt pass a psych test.

      1. LOL, your brothers in blue shoot dogs for no reason all the time you hypocrite. I advocate fire-bombing the pigs house. In the early morning hours when he, and his family, are still sleeping. That will give the thug-pig a taste of his own medicine.

        1. lol. troll-o-meter: .0000000000000000000000001

          1. That is your best response? So sad. Once again. Die in a fire with all your progeny and ancestors. Do the world a favor for once and do the right thing. Eat your service weapon.

  16. The important thing is that they got that deadly drug paraphernalia off the streets, and it only took a dozen cops to do it. Columbia is blessed to be so affluent and free of violent crime that they can afford to send twelve expensive cops to raid a family’s house in the middle of the night.

    1. ah, results analysis vs. process analysis

      when convenient

      how typical

      1. We wouldn’t have to do the results analysis if the pigs had done their job ahead of time. They wanted to play with their toys and get the chance to shoot something, anything.

        1. yawn

          assertions w/o evidence

          1. I generally agree with you on a lot of points dunphy. I’m impressed by the logical arguments you have put forth. You’re right, the judge is privy to info we are not. You’re also right that serving search warrants can be dangerous. So can driving a car, but I’ll concede the expected violence of the search warrant to be higher. I also agree to your analysis of the situation.

            But I disagree with you entirely for not accepting any “results” analysis to this. This proved to have little to none of the results they expected when they took 12 fully armed para-military soldiers into a house after the sun went down and all the residents were believed to be in bed. This proves that this was not the appropriate response to the situation. A corgi is not anything a full sized man wearing armor should actually be afraid of enough to fire a weapon in a residential district where he could miss and a stray bullet could be more deadly to an innocent person also sleeping unawares of the volatile situation next door… a fact that would not be much more well known had the raid been done during the day.

            Truth is the results of the raid are a part of what those police were on trial for and the judge just thought that everything they did was right. Even after it was shown to be unjustified use of force. Such success encourages police forces across the country to do less investigation and more raids all because their analysis of the situation is just as one sided as “legions” to quote you. I wouldn’t have actually fired any of the police officers involved but I would have like to have seen the police department pay a little in the hopes that they might show more restraint in using these paramilitary forces in residential zones at any time.

            I also saw you’re comment that not much can be done about these till the drug war is ended, and again I agree. But highlighting this atrocity and keeping the police accountable will still reduce violence in our streets, and we as citizens have the right to ridicule our police forces and courts for not caring about the results of their actions. As an officer you should be appalled that your fellow officer shot a corgi for fear of it when your partner took a bite themselves.

            I would also like to say that there is no evidence that they did everything right when they shot the dog except for their own word… or assertion without evidence.

  17. officers to tell her son that “Nala was alive and being taken to be a police dog.”

    That’s like telling a little Dutch kid circa 1944 that Anne Frank was being taken away to join the Hitler Youth. 😛

  18. The issue of military vs police conduct in these sort of raids was discussed a few months ago on H&R. It was pointed out then that the military was much more disciplined and restrained in their actions than our domestic cops. The military has actual rules of engagement.

    The problem is police policy, and the law itself. Drug raids of this sort should be last resort; arrest the guy at the grocery store or at work, then calmly search his house afterward. If there are kids in the house to be searched, then wait until they are in school. Make sure you have the right address. Use SWAT ONLY when there is reason to believe there is imminent danger of a shoot-out. End asset forfeiture; it has turned the police forces into armed robbers, and the legal system into fences.

    1. Imminent danger of shootout is MUCH TO high a threshold to justify SWAT. SWAT is a valuable tool, and definitely overused, but you set the bar WAY TOO high. My three buddies who got shot were at a scene where prior to the warrant, ther was no IMMINENT danger of shootout, but there were warning signs

      Reasonble risk matrixes need to be e,ployed. My agency now does so…

      Note, i helped advocate for our policy onSWAT T be changed such that they are used LESS often, iow , i have actually done something to improve the situation vs, wanking onthe intertoobs

      1. Your buddies got shot doing their fucking jobs. Too bad. if you dont like find different work

        1. lol. classic

          1. It is classic. Police work isnt even in the top 10 of most dangerous jobs so fuck you and the other crybabies. Do the world a favor and eat your service weapon.

            1. exactly true. BECAUSE we use reasonable officer safety methods, training, employ SWAT, etc.

              1. Well get that message out to the other thugs. They are always crying about how dangerous the job is and how they need to ramp up their aggression for “officer safety”. Cant have it both ways dick face. Eat your service weapon.

                1. it IS dangerous. how many of your friends have been shot or shot at?

                  i have several, two were shot and killed, and i have been shot at myself.

                  but we REDUCE the risk and increase the odds in our favor by using good officer safety, backing each other up, etc.

                  and we will continue to do so. we don’t get paid to lose.

                  i make a commitment to go home safely every night, to be better trained, and when the shit hits the fan to aggressively respond and to win

                  1. That’s exactly the thing – when it comes to police work – there is no win. Either the cop gets hurt, or a person the cop is sworn to ‘protect & serve’ gets hurt. Seriously, take the word ‘win’ out of your vocabulary.

                  2. Fuck you, I have 4 friends that have been shot. None of them are cops. I have had guns pointed at me on more than one occasion. The time I feared the most it was your “brother” doing the pointing. And they had the wrong fucking guy. I also have several friends that have been involved in justifiable shootings. Unlike you pigs, they killed the right guy, every time. Eat your servie weapon, PLEASE!

  19. Reasonoids whine from a position of ignorance after impartial review od facts reveal justification


    Film at 11

    Reasonoids go back to believing everything that homeless cop accusers say, no matter how ridiculous… On face value, and discounting all evidence to contrary…

    Film at 11

    1. A judge is NOT impartial. He/she is an office of the court. Just like the DA and fucking PO-PO. It is all one big fucking cesspool of fun.

      1. so is a defense attorney. the judge is (theoretically) impartial

        much like a jury.

        do they always rule correctly?

        of course not.

        are you privy to any reason why this ruling should be considered incorrect?

        of course not

        1. Yes, THEORETICALLY, impartial. But how many are from the ranks of former prosecutors and how many from former defense attorneys? I’m betting the former is way over-represented. And of course they immediately divest themselves of all those pesky prejudices when they take the bench right? After all they are better than us little people. Please oh, please, eat your service weapon.

  20. Cops 1
    Frivolous lawsuit 0

    film at 11

    reasonoids (for no reason) OUTRAGED

  21. Rasinettes. Hard to prove. Loads of fun.

    You target the team, their goods and their circle. You may not get the individual who wronged you, but eventually they’ll get the message. Like Amish shunning, only with more dead German Shepherds.

    And on a related note, what if I accidentally dropped a bunch of sticky chocolate covered raisins on the floorboards, just before officer lassie starts illegally sniffing? Will they bust me for failure to vacuum when lassie goes to the great donut shop in the sky?

    1. OMG that is fucking classic. I will start carrying Raisenettes with me whenever I have to get in a car.

  22. Ethylene Glycol would work, too. But the required dosage is higher and less certain in effect.

  23. Cop as a noble career? At least crack whores provide valuable blowjob services. And they don’t shoot dogs. That’s two reasons crack whore trumps cop.

  24. And Dunphy, you missed a valuable point. I would not kill a dog, but a COP’S dog I would. I would not call a woman a worthless cunt, but a COP’S wife I would. I would not pass by a human being bleeding to death on the street, but would pass by a COP. I would not laugh at the death of four human beings sitting peacefully in a coffee shop, but four dead COPS in a coffee shop is a riot.

    There I a difference.

  25. There is a difference.

    Team Blue has earned my hatred. I only hope to get a chance to show it in a way that they’ll understand.

  26. WTF is wrong with that retarded judge? I hope she gets vaginal cancer, and her kids get aids

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.