Manhattan Buckeye;1481205 wrote:Or, the more reason to be more communicative.....thus the guns aren't needed.

Reading the article they executed a warrant, so I don't see the problem with that. The problem is recently we've seen many situations where unannounced and ill-advised raids have resulted in harm to LE, the citizens and their animals...and unfortunately in many situations involved nothing more than a misdemeanor offense. It is unnecessary and dangerous.

justincredible;1481207 wrote:I guess I have less of a problem with them being armed and more of a problem with the fact that they needed 9 agents and 4 deputies and their response was to compare it to a drug bust. The show of force, IMO, is completely unnecessary. Again, that's just my opinion. With all of these federal grants to give local police departments military vehicles and shit I am leery of any and all overt shows of force like this. And yes, I get that this may be how they typically operate, but that means nothing to me. It shouldn't be how they operate.

LJ;1481210 wrote:I assume that it is because those who illegally keep wild animals are typically of the, how should I put this, meth head type. It's probably just policy due to 90% of the time they are dealing with actual criminals that end up with many more charges. I get a Ohio Outdoor Newspaper and they always have the ODNR blotter, and so often there are stories of an illegally kept wild animal raid where they end up with a meth lab, illegal guns, all kinds of shit.

Manhattan Buckeye;1481212 wrote:"That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. "Hey bad guy, please, I want to be nice to you, I am unarmed, so that means you should go peacefully!""

You might need to turn on Channel 9 Lawrence.

The conversation goes something like this, "Hello Mr. X, I am Officer Y from Z Department and we have reason to believe that you are harboring an animal unlawfully and that the animal may pose a danger to our environment breaking B laws. We have secured a warrant from Judge D to enter your premises to investigate the matter and would appreciate your cooperation."

Or on the other hand you can send in the SWAT team for a deer - obviously nothing bad ever happened from that (sarcasm alert).

In the former example, there is a trust built, and even if it doesn't work, even if the guy is a jerk then you can perhaps move on to stronger force. Unfortunately we've got law enforcement that have adapted the latter scenario - got a warrant, tear the house down!

GoChiefs;1481211 wrote:And that other 10% a little common sense needs to be used. It was an animal shelter.

se-alum;1481217 wrote:Why would we care how many officers were used?

LJ;1481215 wrote:Because policies are made to be broken right?

Manhattan Buckeye;1481222 wrote:^^^

Because tax dollars pay for them.

Aside from the Constitutionally incorrect and borderline criminal actions of the VA ABC, what brought everyone together (Reps and Dems...not to take this to the political forum) was why 6 agents were needed - 4 of which travelled more than 50 miles on a two day "sting" to make 10 misdemeanor arrests, and to falsely arrest a 20 year old girl buying water.

My guess is that why people care is similar. Is this the best use for our public funds?

GoChiefs;1481225 wrote:Right, because they never break policy. :rolleyes:

Manhattan Buckeye;1481232 wrote:So 12-13 agents didn't get paid?

I'm pretty sure they weren't working for free, and if I was a taxpayer in that jurisdiction I would question why their time is being spent on this.

Do you understand that point?

GoChiefs;1481186 wrote:Awwww, someone's feelings are hurt.

redstreak one;1481315 wrote:The article stated they used aerial reconnaissance! That right there tells me that public funds were being abused! How much did that cost? A quote from the story, "The warden drafted an affidavit for the search warrant, complete with aerial photos in which he described getting himself into a position where he was able to see the fawn going in and out of the barn." I know some of you have hard ons for arguing with each other and completely taking the extreme stance one way or the other, but that IMO is a waste of public money.

Enforcer;1481314 wrote:The show of force is just an intimidation factor by the DNR, when I was Youngerthe ODNR brought 6 armed Wardens to My work and escorted Me out to ask Me questions over My cousin poaching a Deer

redstreak one;1481315 wrote:The article stated they used aerial reconnaissance! That right there tells me that public funds were being abused! How much did that cost? A quote from the story, "The warden drafted an affidavit for the search warrant, complete with aerial photos in which he described getting himself into a position where he was able to see the fawn going in and out of the barn." I know some of you have hard ons for arguing with each other and completely taking the extreme stance one way or the other, but that IMO is a waste of public money.