Miami Police kill 4 masked men

[paladin420]

And exactly what is said against the grower that might choose to exercise their right to defend their own home, property & life... armed & aggravated counts, assuming they didn't rightfully gun you down first.


Look... assuming we all agree that if someone else takes up violence against us (up to & including mortal threat), then we have the right to defend ourselves to the point necessary... and at a highly critical life or death moment, you have to give a little to the person that is defending themselves. I feel this is fair to assume.

Well... the cops use threat of force up to & including mortal harm, even death, on mmj growers... most all us here, live in fear... and a very real one. And we all, fair to assume, recognize that the gov is not justified in doing so.

By the original assumptions, we, in turn, have the right to defend ourselves against such aggressors... namely gov't official, e.g., cops.

But should any of us HAVE to be in the position to defend our very lives against paramilitary groups such as the local pigs???

And the resounding answer, I feel it fair to assume, is NO. Cops shouldn't be able to just gun people down... and tell a story... end of story.


You can't go touting the outstanding job well done, where the very thing you are lauding is the very same tactic that is used against us. It really is a bit crazy that so many people don't see this.

If I am forced to defend my patients medicine I will.
If is turns out to be LEO instead of rippers then I will lose.
If I lose WE ALL know how the story will be spun.

 

[MIway]

If I am forced to defend my patients medicine I will.
If is turns out to be LEO instead of rippers then I will lose.
If I lose WE ALL know how the story will be spun.

This ^^^ I get... except it needn't be for my patients, but if anyone comes for me or my shit, would like to think I'd be man enough to defend it. At that point, it's a clear 'fuck them'... or so I am afforded to believe while having my principles. And principles aren't cheap.


Just would rather have it not cost me, or anyone else, their lives. I do not like cops... just can't stand the tactics they employ, or the mentality they hold... and am fearful of the next steps in the progression. At some point, America's decline is going to get really ugly.

 

[santamartagold]

I am unable to decide if I support the cops' actions or not. i can argue both ways. what would have happened if the cops didn't stage the event, the rippers kill a grower while robbing him the following day, and the cops, without evidence to try the rippers did nothing. The citizens and media would have had a field day. It is akin to the cops not doing anything to help a girl from getting raped and killed until after the crime when they know who her stalker is. Haven't you wondered how that can be? In this case, the cops could've waited and waited and taken a much higher risk if they followed the rippers until they committed the next robbery. Instead the forced the event to occur and had total control to ensure no one besides the rippers were hurt. No home owner, kids, grandma living there etc.. I don't believe the cops set it up to kill them (but thought it was likely to occur) but they had to have a tight case if the rippers would've put the guns down.

But I still would be against staging such events by the cops with some exceptions. This would be one exception if I could pick and choose. But you can't. So I would vote against staging any and all such events if I had to vote on the issue. I come from a generation where you never ever steal someone's weed even if you hate them. It's sacred. Unfortunately today, the generation has to think in terms of ripping someone off through any means to make themselves a buck. They can't just earn it and be happy if someone else succeeds as well. Maybe this is a good lesson for thieves. And maybe not.

 

[redbear]

You say tinfoil hats. I say keep taking the blue pill.

Those of you who think cops staging shoot-outs is an acceptable MO, even in this extreme case, have very little perspective.

Rule #1: Cops lie. I'd enumerate the other rules, but they're just variations of the same.

And in this delightful case (for the propagandist mass media, at least), we can see at least two dubious elements. An informer who apparently couldn't provide more information than "I'll bring them to you, ok? Don't ask me any more questions." And a police death squad capable of setting a trap for assumed criminals, but incapable of doing so in a way which would avoid the death of everyone involved.

What ever happened to non-lethal means of subduing criminals? Where did due process go on vacation?

What if these aren't the guys? The real rippers obviously aren't going to keep it up after this incident. Copy-cat crimes and lying snitches are not unheard of people...

 

[Hydrosun]

Where did due process go on vacation?

She left Florida to see if the pigs in Greece needed some help.

 

[santamartagold]

You say tinfoil hats. I say keep taking the blue pill.

Those of you who think cops staging shoot-outs is an acceptable MO, even in this extreme case, have very little perspective.

Rule #1: Cops lie. I'd enumerate the other rules, but they're just variations of the same.

And in this delightful case (for the propagandist mass media, at least), we can see at least two dubious elements. An informer who apparently couldn't provide more information than "I'll bring them to you, ok? Don't ask me any more questions." And a police death squad capable of setting a trap for assumed criminals, but incapable of doing so in a way which would avoid the death of everyone involved.

What ever happened to non-lethal means of subduing criminals? Where did due process go on vacation?

What if these aren't the guys? The real rippers obviously aren't going to keep it up after this incident. Copy-cat crimes and lying snitches are not unheard of people...

I have underlined certain words for reference below:

Yes, cops lie. So do thieves, politicians, coaches, everyone else, and even me if I had to dig. People from each category including cops have been known to tell the truth sometimes. Good and bad in everything. Weak argument becuase you have no facts here.

Your two dubious elements are big what if assumptions that say nothing.

Your non-lethal method has merit. But it doesn't guarantee the thieves wouldn't have still been able to fire a weapon after the non lethal action.

Last, two more "what ifs" are added and underlined. I may agree with your macro position, but not how you get there for this specific matter.

 

[superbolan]

Live by the gun, Die by the gun, I feel sorry for their previous victims.

 

[Hydrosun]

Live by the gun, Die by the gun, I feel sorry for their previous victims.

That's right. These guys jacked 15 houses or so it goes. Is there public comment from any of the 15?

 

[santamartagold]

And exactly what is said against the grower that might choose to exercise their right to defend their own home, property & life... armed & aggravated counts, assuming they didn't rightfully gun you down first.


Look... assuming we all agree that if someone else takes up violence against us (up to & including mortal threat), then we have the right to defend ourselves to the point necessary... and at a highly critical life or death moment, you have to give a little to the person that is defending themselves. I feel this is fair to assume.

Well... the cops use threat of force up to & including mortal harm, even death, on mmj growers... most all us here, live in fear... and a very real one. And we all, fair to assume, recognize that the gov is not justified in doing so.

By the original assumptions, we, in turn, have the right to defend ourselves against such aggressors... namely gov't official, e.g., cops.

But should any of us HAVE to be in the position to defend our very lives against paramilitary groups such as the local pigs???

And the resounding answer, I feel it fair to assume, is NO. Cops shouldn't be able to just gun people down... and tell a story... end of story.


You can't go touting the outstanding job well done, where the very thing you are lauding is the very same tactic that is used against us. It really is a bit crazy that so many people don't see this.

I do have a question. Were any people hurt in the 15 robberies? And, were they identified by several victims?

I suppose the robbers could have been gentle, warm, fed the kids, and let the dog out in each robbery, and made sure everyone was safe and comfortable.

 

[Captain Ginyu]

There's more to it than what the cops are telling, so I'm not going to buy one side of the story, & pass judgement on the other, fuck no!

Always remember when they're not busy busting bank robbers, & rapists; They're doing their own robbing on the side.

 

[Gsizzle]

There's more to it than what the cops are telling, so I'm not going to buy one side of the story, & pass judgement on the other, fuck no!

Always remember when they're not busy busting bank robbers, & rapists; They're doing their own robbing on the side.

Good point^^^^^^
Only hearing it from one side of the fence. Believe none of what you hear and a quarter of what you see. In certain parts of the world pigs are the biggest rippers out. Seeking grow house to benefit them. All they did was get rid of the competition because they were hitting the homes before them. Also to teach the others to stay out the way or they will get the same. Maybe the informant was helping both sides rip houses. So everyone was killed so the truth wont come out.

 

[redbear]

I have underlined certain words for reference below:



Yes, cops lie. So do thieves, politicians, coaches, everyone else, and even me if I had to dig. People from each category including cops have been known to tell the truth sometimes. Good and bad in everything. Weak argument becuase you have no facts here.



Your two dubious elements are big what if assumptions that say nothing.



Your non-lethal method has merit. But it doesn't guarantee the thieves wouldn't have still been able to fire a weapon after the non lethal action.



Last, two more "what ifs" are added and underlined. I may agree with your macro position, but not how you get there for this specific matter.

You're correct. We have no facts here, just hearsay and the statements from the cops' side. Which is why I asked "What if these aren't the guys?" and didn't type "The pigs murdered innocent people." Which is precisely why we have a justice system and not simply a police force with the power of judge and jury. Which is why I mentioned what I consider to be Rule #1 in these cases. Perhaps we all "know" that everyone lies, but some take a cop's word as gospel. Even today, when people are released from life-sentences based on conclusive DNA evidence. Chest-thumping comments like Loftus's "This is a reminder that it's dangerous for the bad guys," only increase my suspicion. Do the courts themselves sometimes wrongly execute people? Sure. That's one of the reasons I feel iffy about capital punishment. But at least there's a little more oversight than a cop's snap judgment in a bad situation he's taken part in creating.

While I sympathize with your mistrust for "What if" hypothetical questions, in the case of a criminal accusation "What if the cops made a mistake? What if they're wrong? What if they lied to get the all important case-closed on their work record?" are hardly equivalent to "What if there were no gravity? What if everyone shat gold? What if my dick were 47 feet long?"

This was not a controlled situation. If it were, the police would have prepared beforehand for suspects who, when correctly identified, should be expected to come armed and crazy to the party.

Non-lethal methods which allow a suspect to continue firing after their application haven't subdued anyone and the police don't bother with them. I'm not talking about net guns and human-sized fly-paper. The police have the technology and regularly use it against protesters who they decide are protesting excessively. They incapacitate quite effectively, even in semi-uncontrolled street situations (as opposed to a sting in and around a building). There are plenty of videos of them floating about to support this. Some work better than bullets in the "He's on PCP" type situations.

I stand by my claims of the existence of questionable elements within this story. I find it doubtful (dubious, if you will) that any informant worth taking seriously couldn't provide the information to handle this differently. I find it doubtful that police with tactical training couldn't handle this better, given that they had time to set up a purportedly controlled situation and have quite an arsenal at their command. I find it suspect that the police couldn't have avoided the need to set a trap (sting, if you prefer) altogether with the massive databases at their disposal and the aid of an informant with any information whatsoever.

Let me be clear: I am not saying "All pigs are evil." Gross generalizations are useless, my personal feelings aside. I am specifically impugning the manner in which this group of cops handled this situation and the manner in which this reporter has chosen to (not) investigate as to what actually happened. Journalists should be held to a higher standard than this. They are supposed to serve as more than simple mouth pieces for those in power and their hired guns. I could list the ways in which this article leads the reader towards a feeling of "These were definitely the guys. The police did the right thing." instead of giving some balance, however minor. But I believe we've found a point where we're all just going to have to agree to disagree in our minds and in the voting booth and such detail is probably excessive even in the context of this obese post I'm writing.

As a (nitpicking) response to the underlined and questioned "obviously," I can only say that even starving coyotes quickly learn to avoid poison traps, however deliciously baited and cleverly armed, when they see a few fellows die. I feel it's likely that said gang, if still free, might choose to take a break. Stopping the appearance of any new attacks which would suggest the earlier identification was incorrect and encourage further investigation leading to the capture of the culprits. But perhaps you're right to question it, and the gang wouldn't go on vacation, and people could keep getting free super-circumcisions/FGM. Either way, with crimes as heinous as these, I'd sleep better with some proof they actually caught the correct people. That way I know the genital mutilators aren't out there doing as they please. Just because somebody died, doesn't mean it was the right somebody.

I've assumed nothing other than the possibility of error and made no argument other than to encourage the questioning of one-side's statements. Statements which some seem to be taking as undeniable facts. No one has tested the police force's assumptions and evidence in court, yet a group of people is already dead after being lured into a drastic situation which they likely had neither the training nor the mental clarity to handle appropriately. Terrible record or not, they're still people. More than one IC member has a record the police consider terrible. We have precious few civil liberties left and I, for one, am not going to allow them to go the way of the dinosaurs without a few questions. I'd like more information before whitewashing the cops' actions. An investigation would be nice, but the history of questionable police actions suggests I shouldn't hold my breath. They, too, get to skip the court system, but in a wholly more pleasant manner.

I don't so much bemoan the death of the suspects as the death of the legal precept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Shoot first, ask questions later, is not an attitude I'm comfortable with in law enforcement, whatever the degree of its expression may be. Setting up situations where group shoot-outs are likely to happen certainly falls under that umbrella to me.

As to saving a few dollars on court fees... I'd much prefer they quit spending my tax dollars investigating, arresting, and jailing non-violent drug users over skimping on the judicial process expenditures.

To sum up a lengthy response for those with better things to do: Where some of you say "Fuck those ripper scum," I ask "What makes you so certain they were the rippers? Statements from people whose job and salary depend on marking cases as solved?" And I add "Why do you hate your dying civil liberties so? You do realize that many of us fall into the same 'criminal community' as the thugs in the eyes of our local police, don't you?"

 

[paladin420]

You're correct. We have no facts here, just hearsay and the statements from the cops' side. Which is why I asked "What if these aren't the guys?" and didn't type "The pigs murdered innocent people." Which is precisely why we have a justice system and not simply a police force with the power of judge and jury. Which is why I mentioned what I consider to be Rule #1 in these cases. Perhaps we all "know" that everyone lies, but some take a cop's word as gospel. Even today, when people are released from life-sentences based on conclusive DNA evidence. Chest-thumping comments like Loftus's "This is a reminder that it's dangerous for the bad guys," only increase my suspicion. Do the courts themselves sometimes wrongly execute people? Sure. That's one of the reasons I feel iffy about capital punishment. But at least there's a little more oversight than a cop's snap judgment in a bad situation he's taken part in creating.

While I sympathize with your mistrust for "What if" hypothetical questions, in the case of a criminal accusation "What if the cops made a mistake? What if they're wrong? What if they lied to get the all important case-closed on their work record?" are hardly equivalent to "What if there were no gravity? What if everyone shat gold? What if my dick were 47 feet long?"

This was not a controlled situation. If it were, the police would have prepared beforehand for suspects who, when correctly identified, should be expected to come armed and crazy to the party.

Non-lethal methods which allow a suspect to continue firing after their application haven't subdued anyone and the police don't bother with them. I'm not talking about net guns and human-sized fly-paper. The police have the technology and regularly use it against protesters who they decide are protesting excessively. They incapacitate quite effectively, even in semi-uncontrolled street situations (as opposed to a sting in and around a building). There are plenty of videos of them floating about to support this. Some work better than bullets in the "He's on PCP" type situations.

I stand by my claims of the existence of questionable elements within this story. I find it doubtful (dubious, if you will) that any informant worth taking seriously couldn't provide the information to handle this differently. I find it doubtful that police with tactical training couldn't handle this better, given that they had time to set up a purportedly controlled situation and have quite an arsenal at their command. I find it suspect that the police couldn't have avoided the need to set a trap (sting, if you prefer) altogether with the massive databases at their disposal and the aid of an informant with any information whatsoever.

Let me be clear: I am not saying "All pigs are evil." Gross generalizations are useless, my personal feelings aside. I am specifically impugning the manner in which this group of cops handled this situation and the manner in which this reporter has chosen to (not) investigate as to what actually happened. Journalists should be held to a higher standard than this. They are supposed to serve as more than simple mouth pieces for those in power and their hired guns. I could list the ways in which this article leads the reader towards a feeling of "These were definitely the guys. The police did the right thing." instead of giving some balance, however minor. But I believe we've found a point where we're all just going to have to agree to disagree in our minds and in the voting booth and such detail is probably excessive even in the context of this obese post I'm writing.

As a (nitpicking) response to the underlined and questioned "obviously," I can only say that even starving coyotes quickly learn to avoid poison traps, however deliciously baited and cleverly armed, when they see a few fellows die. I feel it's likely that said gang, if still free, might choose to take a break. Stopping the appearance of any new attacks which would suggest the earlier identification was incorrect and encourage further investigation leading to the capture of the culprits. But perhaps you're right to question it, and the gang wouldn't go on vacation, and people could keep getting free super-circumcisions/FGM. Either way, with crimes as heinous as these, I'd sleep better with some proof they actually caught the correct people. That way I know the genital mutilators aren't out there doing as they please. Just because somebody died, doesn't mean it was the right somebody.

I've assumed nothing other than the possibility of error and made no argument other than to encourage the questioning of one-side's statements. Statements which some seem to be taking as undeniable facts. No one has tested the police force's assumptions and evidence in court, yet a group of people is already dead after being lured into a drastic situation which they likely had neither the training nor the mental clarity to handle appropriately. Terrible record or not, they're still people. More than one IC member has a record the police consider terrible. We have precious few civil liberties left and I, for one, am not going to allow them to go the way of the dinosaurs without a few questions. I'd like more information before whitewashing the cops' actions. An investigation would be nice, but the history of questionable police actions suggests I shouldn't hold my breath. They, too, get to skip the court system, but in a wholly more pleasant manner.

I don't so much bemoan the death of the suspects as the death of the legal precept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Shoot first, ask questions later, is not an attitude I'm comfortable with in law enforcement, whatever the degree of its expression may be. Setting up situations where group shoot-outs are likely to happen certainly falls under that umbrella to me.

As to saving a few dollars on court fees... I'd much prefer they quit spending my tax dollars investigating, arresting, and jailing non-violent drug users over skimping on the judicial process expenditures.

To sum up a lengthy response for those with better things to do: Where some of you say "Fuck those ripper scum," I ask "What makes you so certain they were the rippers? Statements from people whose job and salary depend on marking cases as solved?" And I add "Why do you hate your dying civil liberties so? You do realize that many of us fall into the same 'criminal community' as the thugs in the eyes of our local police, don't you?"

well stated. Lookin forward to more from you Sir.

 

[slojoe]

They got exactly what they deserve.
I'll shed NO tears for them.
They were violent thieves. Fuck them. The world is a safer and better place, now that they are dead.
Good riddance.

your right how many home invasions did these scum pull off 12?

 

[santamartagold]

You're correct. We have no facts here, just hearsay and the statements from the cops' side. Which is why I asked "What if these aren't the guys?" and didn't type "The pigs murdered innocent people." Which is precisely why we have a justice system and not simply a police force with the power of judge and jury. Which is why I mentioned what I consider to be Rule #1 in these cases. Perhaps we all "know" that everyone lies, but some take a cop's word as gospel. Even today, when people are released from life-sentences based on conclusive DNA evidence. Chest-thumping comments like Loftus's "This is a reminder that it's dangerous for the bad guys," only increase my suspicion. Do the courts themselves sometimes wrongly execute people? Sure. That's one of the reasons I feel iffy about capital punishment. But at least there's a little more oversight than a cop's snap judgment in a bad situation he's taken part in creating.

While I sympathize with your mistrust for "What if" hypothetical questions, in the case of a criminal accusation "What if the cops made a mistake? What if they're wrong? What if they lied to get the all important case-closed on their work record?" are hardly equivalent to "What if there were no gravity? What if everyone shat gold? What if my dick were 47 feet long?"

This was not a controlled situation. If it were, the police would have prepared beforehand for suspects who, when correctly identified, should be expected to come armed and crazy to the party.

Non-lethal methods which allow a suspect to continue firing after their application haven't subdued anyone and the police don't bother with them. I'm not talking about net guns and human-sized fly-paper. The police have the technology and regularly use it against protesters who they decide are protesting excessively. They incapacitate quite effectively, even in semi-uncontrolled street situations (as opposed to a sting in and around a building). There are plenty of videos of them floating about to support this. Some work better than bullets in the "He's on PCP" type situations.

I stand by my claims of the existence of questionable elements within this story. I find it doubtful (dubious, if you will) that any informant worth taking seriously couldn't provide the information to handle this differently. I find it doubtful that police with tactical training couldn't handle this better, given that they had time to set up a purportedly controlled situation and have quite an arsenal at their command. I find it suspect that the police couldn't have avoided the need to set a trap (sting, if you prefer) altogether with the massive databases at their disposal and the aid of an informant with any information whatsoever.

Let me be clear: I am not saying "All pigs are evil." Gross generalizations are useless, my personal feelings aside. I am specifically impugning the manner in which this group of cops handled this situation and the manner in which this reporter has chosen to (not) investigate as to what actually happened. Journalists should be held to a higher standard than this. They are supposed to serve as more than simple mouth pieces for those in power and their hired guns. I could list the ways in which this article leads the reader towards a feeling of "These were definitely the guys. The police did the right thing." instead of giving some balance, however minor. But I believe we've found a point where we're all just going to have to agree to disagree in our minds and in the voting booth and such detail is probably excessive even in the context of this obese post I'm writing.

As a (nitpicking) response to the underlined and questioned "obviously," I can only say that even starving coyotes quickly learn to avoid poison traps, however deliciously baited and cleverly armed, when they see a few fellows die. I feel it's likely that said gang, if still free, might choose to take a break. Stopping the appearance of any new attacks which would suggest the earlier identification was incorrect and encourage further investigation leading to the capture of the culprits. But perhaps you're right to question it, and the gang wouldn't go on vacation, and people could keep getting free super-circumcisions/FGM. Either way, with crimes as heinous as these, I'd sleep better with some proof they actually caught the correct people. That way I know the genital mutilators aren't out there doing as they please. Just because somebody died, doesn't mean it was the right somebody.

I've assumed nothing other than the possibility of error and made no argument other than to encourage the questioning of one-side's statements. Statements which some seem to be taking as undeniable facts. No one has tested the police force's assumptions and evidence in court, yet a group of people is already dead after being lured into a drastic situation which they likely had neither the training nor the mental clarity to handle appropriately. Terrible record or not, they're still people. More than one IC member has a record the police consider terrible. We have precious few civil liberties left and I, for one, am not going to allow them to go the way of the dinosaurs without a few questions. I'd like more information before whitewashing the cops' actions. An investigation would be nice, but the history of questionable police actions suggests I shouldn't hold my breath. They, too, get to skip the court system, but in a wholly more pleasant manner.

I don't so much bemoan the death of the suspects as the death of the legal precept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Shoot first, ask questions later, is not an attitude I'm comfortable with in law enforcement, whatever the degree of its expression may be. Setting up situations where group shoot-outs are likely to happen certainly falls under that umbrella to me.

As to saving a few dollars on court fees... I'd much prefer they quit spending my tax dollars investigating, arresting, and jailing non-violent drug users over skimping on the judicial process expenditures.

To sum up a lengthy response for those with better things to do: Where some of you say "Fuck those ripper scum," I ask "What makes you so certain they were the rippers? Statements from people whose job and salary depend on marking cases as solved?" And I add "Why do you hate your dying civil liberties so? You do realize that many of us fall into the same 'criminal community' as the thugs in the eyes of our local police, don't you?"

Your clarification and elaboration is excellent. Perhaps it comes from "it is better to let a guilty man go free than to arrest and jail an innocent man".