said_aouita;1481161 wrote:Way not to answer my question. You must suddenly realize you took the wrong side of the story.

Totally one sided article. Making the law look like the bad guys.

Nope. It's just not worth arguing with you over it.

LJ;1481162 wrote:How was it unjustified. DNR agents are always armed, and always go in big groups.

just because they always do it doesn't mean it's not fucking overkill, especially given that it was a baby deer being rescued from a no kill animal shelter

said_aouita;1481161 wrote:Totally one sided article. Making the law look like the bad guys.

To be honest the article seems like some animal rights type people exaggerating because they are so upset over them euthinizing the fawn.

Mohican00;1481158 wrote:so the show of force was justified?

Of course not but don't count on any type of accountability.

A group of 6 Virginia ABC (that is the alcohol regulatory board) morons were armed and assaulted a UVA sorority girl in her vehicle in a dangerous parking lot at night, because they thought she and two of her sorority sisters may have purchased beer at a grocery store. They didn't. They bought bottled water, ice cream and cookie dough.

That didn't stop these nitwits from arresting the driver (who rightfully fled the scene when accosted by people with guns, two in t-shirts and one heavily tattooed), charging her with a felony and keeping her in jail overnight.

So far, no one at the VABC has been fired, reprimanded or otherwise punished and there is no explanation why the Commonwealth of Virginia is spending $500M/year to enforce underage drinking laws, or why they have a police force of some 120 of washouts from the State Police/military.

On the other hand, the media got a hold of this and I'm hopeful heads will roll:

http://www.dailyprogress.com/opinion/editorials/patterns-at-abc-point-to-problems/article_b2d601d4-f9e5-11e2-981c-0019bb30f31a.html

justincredible;1481165 wrote:Nope. It's just not worth arguing with you over it.

I'm not looking for an argument. I just wondered how you define SWAT-style.

Do you at least agree it's a one-sided article? Cute how the article mentions the deer is named Giggles.....:thumbdown:

LJ;1481168 wrote:To be honest the article seems like some animal rights type people exaggerating because they are so upset over them euthanizing the fawn.

Exactly.


^:thumbup:

said_aouita;1481171 wrote:I'm not looking for an argument. I just wondered how you define SWAT-style.

Do you at least agree it's a one-sided article? Cute how the article mentions the deer is named Giggles.....:thumbdown:

The article may be one sided but that doesn't change the fact that 13 armed men showed up to confiscate a deer. In the end, the deer being killed isn't the problem. Like LJ said, there is the fear of the spread of disease. That said, the response from the DNR is complete bullshit. You are not conducting a fucking drug raid.

said_aouita;1481171 wrote:I'm not looking for an argument. I just wondered how you define SWAT-style.




Exactly.


^:thumbup:

I mean they even said they plan to sue over them taking the deer.

Also, this wasn't the feds, it was the state DNR.

LJ;1481174 wrote:Also, this wasn't the feds, it was the state DNR.

That's my mistake.

justincredible;1481173 wrote:The article may be one sided but that doesn't change the fact that 13 armed men showed up to confiscate a deer. In the end, the deer being killed isn't the problem. Like LJ said, there is the fear of the spread of disease. That said, the response from the DNR is complete bullshit. You are not conducting a fucking drug raid.

Again, DNRs always do things in secret and in numbers.

justincredible;1481173 wrote: That said, the response from the DNR is complete bullshit.

I wonder if it's a Union rule as for how many people are part of the response.

LJ;1481176 wrote:Again, DNRs always do things in secret and in numbers.

Again, that does not make it right.

said_aouita;1481171 wrote:I'm not looking for an argument. I just wondered how you define SWAT-style.

For fuck sake, everyone knows what the hell SWAT style is. Don't play retard.

GoChiefs;1481180 wrote:For fuck sake, everyone knows what the hell SWAT style is. Don't play retard.

fuck off ass hole. Don't say I'm playing retard.


How the fuck do I know what "Swat style" is..........? II'm not a cop!


God you are by far the stupidest and worse mod ever.


Saying I'm "playing retard" well fuck you asshole. :thumbdown:

LJ;1481176 wrote:Again, DNRs always do things in secret and in numbers.

Why? They had a warrant and nothing stopped them from contacting the owners of the premises. If they were that concerned about the animal in question being moved they could alert the Staties to conduct a Terry stop (even without a warrant) if there was an attempt to release the animal.

As one sided as the article may be, there is no explanation why we arm to the degree described these types of enforcement officials in the first place.

justincredible;1481179 wrote:Again, that does not make it right.

What makes it wrong? They had a warrant, no one was abused, and the DNR got what they were after. I mean, I could see a point if they did it without a warrant or something.

said_aouita;1481182 wrote:fuck off ass hole. Don't say I'm playing retard.


How the fuck do I know what "Swat style" is..........?


God you are by far the stupidest and worse mod ever.


Saying I'm "playing retard" well fuck you asshole. :thumbdown:

Awwww, someone's feelings are hurt.

Manhattan Buckeye;1481183 wrote:Why? They had a warrant and nothing stopped them from contacting the owners of the premises. If they were that concerned about the animal in question being moved they could alert the Staties to conduct a Terry stop (even without a warrant) if there was an attempt to release the animal.

As one sided as the article may be, there is no explanation why we arm to the degree described these types of enforcement officials in the first place.

DNR officials are armed because they are almost always dealing with armed hunters. There is no reason for them to not be armed.

What harm did it do in them not contacting them? You're right, they had a warrant, so in reality, they did nothing wrong.

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

I guess so dick head. Since when are Mods allowed to refer to members as mentally handicap?

Manhattan Buckeye;1481183 wrote:Why? They had a warrant and nothing stopped them from contacting the owners of the premises. If they were that concerned about the animal in question being moved they could alert the Staties to conduct a Terry stop (even without a warrant) if there was an attempt to release the animal.

As one sided as the article may be, there is no explanation why we arm to the degree described these types of enforcement officials in the first place.

The volunteers at the animal shelter might have went at the officers vigilante style!

justincredible;1481153 wrote:So this didn't happen? Thirteen armed men didn't show up to confiscate a baby deer? Yes, I understand it wasn't an actual SWAT team.

Why wouldn't they be armed? They always are.

A mailman deals with my armed dog every day (except for Sunday), and they don't have firearms to my knowledge. These agents were carrying out a bureaucratic warrant, they weren't rescuing a kidnapped woman or rushing to address a hostage situation. There is no need for this type of militarization. If they did nothing wrong according to protocol, the protocol needs to change. This isn't a police state.

Manhattan Buckeye;1481196 wrote:A mailman deals with my armed dog every day

Really? You are comparing a mailman to officers who constantly deal with poachers who are armed with guns?

LOL

Manhattan Buckeye;1481196 wrote:A mailman deals with my armed dog every day (except for Sunday), and they don't have firearms to my knowledge. These agents were carrying out a bureaucratic warrant, they weren't rescuing a kidnapped woman or rushing to address a hostage situation. There is no need for this type of militarization. If they did nothing wrong according to protocol, the protocol needs to change. This isn't a police state.

DNR agents always carry. The are officers of the law. Geez people. :rolleyes:

LJ;1481197 wrote:Really? You are comparing a mailman to officers who constantly deal with poachers who are armed with guns?

LOL

How many homeowners in Ohio own guns?

In my township I'm guessing 99%.

Manhattan Buckeye;1481200 wrote:How many homeowners in Ohio own guns?

In my township I'm guessing 99%.

Ok? So even more reason that officers of the law should be armed in order to do their jobs!