New evidence in Houston no knock raid that left two citizens dead

Another crooked cop and what about those extra shots fired 30 minutes after the raid/murders? Shot the woman thru the wall but supposedly she was going for a cops shotgun.

If you want to clear houses for fun then join the GD military.
 
These No Knocks are a recipe for disaster. Waco should have been an eye opener for all. Again..if they want you...they will have you. It doesn't bring back a single stolen soul after the "investigation" is completed.
I am sitting looking at my 15 pound companion right now. If Anybody breaks down my door and harms him, I promise you your ass won't hold corn shucks.
 
Claymores. A perimeter with warnings is what is needed. If you're not an enemy you need not worry, simple as that. They wanna play soldier, give it to em. Answer the door with body armor anytime there is a badge at the door folks.

jtg-3d-rubber-patch-claymore-mine.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jesus.....at what point does this become unacceptable to people?

Of the last 109 cases where Officer Goines swore out search warrants, all made claims of guns, but no guns were recorded as having been seized. From khou.com:

Goines swore in search warrant affidavits that “knocking and announcing would be dangerous, futile,” because he claimed a confidential informant had seen a gun inside. Those claims led judges to grant no-knock warrants, which accounted for 96 percent of all the search warrants he filed in the last seven years, a KHOU 11 Investigation has found.

But in every one of the more than 100 drug cases based off those warrants, there’s no record of Goines ever seizing a gun after executing a no-knock search warrant.
 
I can totally understand why hard decisions and no-knock raids that can result in multiple deaths all go down based on the word of some random tweeker trying to buy himself less time.

It just makes good sense. Good solid policy. At least its a good start.
 
SPM said:
Jesus.....at what point does this become unacceptable to people?

Of the last 109 cases where Officer Goines swore out search warrants, all made claims of guns, but no guns were recorded as having been seized. From khou.com:

Goines swore in search warrant affidavits that “knocking and announcing would be dangerous, futile,” because he claimed a confidential informant had seen a gun inside. Those claims led judges to grant no-knock warrants, which accounted for 96 percent of all the search warrants he filed in the last seven years, a KHOU 11 Investigation has found.

But in every one of the more than 100 drug cases based off those warrants, there’s no record of Goines ever seizing a gun after executing a no-knock search warrant.
Click to expand...

He conveniently retired upon these findings being made public. That asshole's head should be on a pike somewhere along with his family in trees.
 
AR10ShooterinNC said:
But, we are told the thin blue line will protect the public......or it's just one bad cops, this proves it was more than 1 bad apple....the police are no better then street criminals.
Click to expand...
http://www.larkenrose.com/tmds-blog/1840.html
A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.

A FASCIST cop, on the other hand, would view everyone as his inferior, to be controlled, interrogated, or even abused at will.
He sees himself, a representative of "authority," as having the right to forcibly impose his will on anyone he wants, whenever he wants, for any reason (or no reason) and the right to use outright violence against any who do not obey his every whim.
Click to expand...

Also from the same author:
“A cop's JOB is to violently enforce upon the rest of us whatever arbitrary bullshit the political parasites declare to be "law." It is, therefore, impossible to be a "law enforcer" and behave morally, for the same reason one can't be a moral car-jacker.”
Click to expand...

Policeman versus law enforcement officer. You decide.
 
noway2 said:
A NON-fascist cop, when he looks out at the world, would see lots of good people, whom he would want to protect, and would never want to harm, intimidate, or even inconvenience unnecessarily. His goal would be to find the nasty people in the world, and see to it that they are prevented from harming any of the decent people.
Click to expand...
.
For the sake of argument... While I appreciate this viewpoint, but the reality is that we are all sinners. And who defines nasty? And don't say it's common sense, because sense isn't all that common.


There was once a sci-fi story that touched on this...
The system was designed to protect humanity from evil. But, as the system learned more about humanity, it learned that man was inherently evil and couldn't be trusted to rule itself. So, the system began to take control. To protect humanity from itself.

This is purely a thought provoking point, not a debate issue.
 
Last edited:
georgel said:
For the sake of argument... While I appreciate this viewpoint, but the reality is that we are all sinners. And who defines nasty?
Click to expand...
Approaching this from the thought provocation point, not debate.....
There are two ways in which I look at this. The first way is through a semi-religious view. As a non Xn, I don't believe in the concept of sin, at least in terms of it being a blaspheme in the eyes of a %deity%. My view is more simplistic and cab be pretty much summarized as long as you're not harming anyone, yourself included, do what you want. It is also recognized that this is an ideal standard that can be difficult and at times impossible to live up to. It is also tied to the concept of karma, in that you will receive what you send out at three times the power but that it will be received in the here and now, not in the afterlife. This applies to both positive (constructive) and negative (destructive) (side note: evil, I believe is a man made concept and destructive isn't always bad as it too is a natural part of the cycle). So in that simplistic view, a nasty person is one that is intentionally and willfully harming others. Looked at from this perspective, there is no such thing as a crime against the state or a victimless crime that harms nobody, but has been declared grounds to act against another by some nebulous 'state'.

The second, more broad and secular based, would be the model of society and social interaction (* much of this comes from Bruce Schneier's Liars and Outliars). As he says in that book, Society runs on trust. Trust that people will behave in a certain fashion. Some people, a certain percentage will defect and act differently - a competing interest, personal versus social. This defection isn't necessarily wrong, e.g. an abolitionist helping an escaped slave. At the small scale, we have the family and other local units, such as a tribe. At this scale social cues and peer pressure are formidable and effective at controlling norms of behavior and establishing trust. It is that interpersonal social unit that defines what is nasty and what is not; and it may very well be different in diverse societies or those with different religious views. There is a reason why the maximum tribe size is about 150 people. It is the limit at which this type of social control mechanism moral and personal reputation breaks down and we start to implement other security measures, some of which are institutional including laws and police that are designed to induce compliance and reduce defection to social norms. This brings us to the point of this thread, what about when those entrusted with this function go bad?

It seems that, especially with the advent of the internet, and social networking, the size of society is again expanding and the trust inducing mechanism are again breaking down. Take the subject of this thread for example - and add in that we in NC and SC are able to rapidly access information and discuss an event in TX. The technological changes both bring about a whole new category of parasite, but also makes the presence of other parasites more widely known. Some might claim that there have always been bad cops, or at least since the time of having cops - and before then the private policing such as the Pinkertons, its just that its now more visible.

Still, I think at least at the rudimentary level, the nasty person, is one that intentionally harms other people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
noway2 said:
Approaching this from the thought provocation point, not debate.....
There are two ways in which I look at this. The first way is through a semi-religious view. As a non Xn, I don't believe in the concept of sin, at least in terms of it being a blaspheme in the eyes of a %deity%. My view is more simplistic and cab be pretty much summarized as long as you're not harming anyone, yourself included, do what you want. It is also recognized that this is an ideal standard that can be difficult and at times impossible to live up to. It is also tied to the concept of karma, in that you will receive what you send out at three times the power but that it will be received in the here and now, not in the afterlife. This applies to both positive (constructive) and negative (destructive) (side note: evil, I believe is a man made concept and destructive isn't always bad as it too is a natural part of the cycle). So in that simplistic view, a nasty person is one that is intentionally and willfully harming others. Looked at from this perspective, there is no such thing as a crime against the state or a victimless crime that harms nobody, but has been declared grounds to act against another by some nebulous 'state'.

The second, more broad and secular based, would be the model of society and social interaction (* much of this comes from Bruce Schneier's Liars and Outliars). As he says in that book, Society runs on trust. Trust that people will behave in a certain fashion. Some people, a certain percentage will defect and act differently - a competing interest, personal versus social. This defection isn't necessarily wrong, e.g. an abolitionist helping an escaped slave. At the small scale, we have the family and other local units, such as a tribe. At this scale social cues and peer pressure are formidable and effective at controlling norms of behavior and establishing trust. It is that interpersonal social unit that defines what is nasty and what is not; and it may very well be different in diverse societies or those with different religious views. There is a reason why the maximum tribe size is about 150 people. It is the limit at which this type of social control mechanism moral and personal reputation breaks down and we start to implement other security measures, some of which are institutional including laws and police that are designed to induce compliance and reduce defection to social norms. This brings us to the point of this thread, what about when those entrusted with this function go bad?

It seems that, especially with the advent of the internet, and social networking, the size of society is again expanding and the trust inducing mechanism are again breaking down. Take the subject of this thread for example - and add in that we in NC and SC are able to rapidly access information and discuss an event in TX. The technological changes both bring about a whole new category of parasite, but also makes the presence of other parasites more widely known. Some might claim that there have always been bad cops, or at least since the time of having cops - and before then the private policing such as the Pinkertons, its just that its now more visible.

Still, I think at least at the rudimentary level, the nasty person, is one that intentionally harms other people.
Click to expand...
Dear lord. You pulled a @tanstaafl72555 on us.
 
noway2 said:
Approaching this from the thought provocation point, not debate.....
There are two ways in which I look at this. The first way is through a semi-religious view. As a non Xn, I don't believe in the concept of sin, at least in terms of it being a blaspheme in the eyes of a %deity%. My view is more simplistic and cab be pretty much summarized as long as you're not harming anyone, yourself included, do what you want. It is also recognized that this is an ideal standard that can be difficult and at times impossible to live up to. It is also tied to the concept of karma, in that you will receive what you send out at three times the power but that it will be received in the here and now, not in the afterlife. This applies to both positive (constructive) and negative (destructive) (side note: evil, I believe is a man made concept and destructive isn't always bad as it too is a natural part of the cycle). So in that simplistic view, a nasty person is one that is intentionally and willfully harming others. Looked at from this perspective, there is no such thing as a crime against the state or a victimless crime that harms nobody, but has been declared grounds to act against another by some nebulous 'state'.

The second, more broad and secular based, would be the model of society and social interaction (* much of this comes from Bruce Schneier's Liars and Outliars). As he says in that book, Society runs on trust. Trust that people will behave in a certain fashion. Some people, a certain percentage will defect and act differently - a competing interest, personal versus social. This defection isn't necessarily wrong, e.g. an abolitionist helping an escaped slave. At the small scale, we have the family and other local units, such as a tribe. At this scale social cues and peer pressure are formidable and effective at controlling norms of behavior and establishing trust. It is that interpersonal social unit that defines what is nasty and what is not; and it may very well be different in diverse societies or those with different religious views. There is a reason why the maximum tribe size is about 150 people. It is the limit at which this type of social control mechanism moral and personal reputation breaks down and we start to implement other security measures, some of which are institutional including laws and police that are designed to induce compliance and reduce defection to social norms. This brings us to the point of this thread, what about when those entrusted with this function go bad?

It seems that, especially with the advent of the internet, and social networking, the size of society is again expanding and the trust inducing mechanism are again breaking down. Take the subject of this thread for example - and add in that we in NC and SC are able to rapidly access information and discuss an event in TX. The technological changes both bring about a whole new category of parasite, but also makes the presence of other parasites more widely known. Some might claim that there have always been bad cops, or at least since the time of having cops - and before then the private policing such as the Pinkertons, its just that its now more visible.

Still, I think at least at the rudimentary level, the nasty person, is one that intentionally harms other people.
Click to expand...


at the core, I wonder how a blob of protoplasm can have inherent value, which then makes attacking that value "evil." blow you nose, rape a child, kill and rob someone....., I can't see how you get "ought" from "is" if there is no personality outside the system.

I ain't the first to bring this up, btw. Most secularists do a 3 card monty and just emote here as an argument when utilitarianism is shown to be a null set.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
at the core, I wonder how a blob of protoplasm can have inherent value, which then makes attacking that value "evil." blow you nose, rape a child, kill and rob someone....., I can't see how you get "ought" from "is" if there is no personality outside the system.

I ain't the first to bring this up, btw. Most secularists do a 3 card monty and just emote here as an argument when utilitarianism is shown to be a null set.
Click to expand...
I don't follow what you're getting at here, at least as how it relates to my post. However, I am not athiest or agnostic, but I do have a different faith with different tenants.
 
The very idea of "evil" requires personality. It is a distinctly personal idea. Whether one is "atheistic" or not is not the issue (sorry for being unclear).

The idea of classifying something as "evil" or "bad" requires a judgment, which requires a personality MAKING that judgment. Impersonal forces are simply incapable of doing so. Evaluating something as evil also cannot be rooted in utilitarianism, or "what works"... as it begs the question of "works to WHAT END?" In other words, your restriction on activity to do no harm to others.... "My view is more simplistic and cab be pretty much summarized as long as you're not harming anyone, yourself included, do what you want."...... while I agree 100% with it, has no objective basis, and excluding a personal source OUTSIDE the cosmos, must be rejected as a standard.

If you asked me (which you have not! lol) I would say you have arrived at that conclusion because you are made in the image of God and CANNOT AVOID assigning moral categories to activities, because you reflect Him, even while you may reject the only logical source for such judgment.

Usually folks here try to slip in some value laden concept as "minimizes pain" or "creates more efficient living" (really saying the same thing), but this again begs the question of WHY such an end is "good." If the universe is impersonal (even if it is "spiritual") then no such classifications can be made which rise above the whims of arbitrary human choices.

IF, otoh, our inherent inability NOT to make classifcations of things as "good" or "bad" have any objective meaning, then by definition they must refer to a standard outside ourselves. Since such judgments are a function of personality, then they require a personal source outside the cosmos.

Hope that is clearer
 
Last edited:
So @tanstaafl72555

My interpretation of part of your above statement is this
If you train a dog to be mean and bite it’s not really “evil” it is the breeding and mannerisms that it was taught, that it learned and has been allowed to do. The dog has no understanding of evil or good.
 
Cpippen said:
So @tanstaafl72555

My interpretation of part of your above statement is this
If you train a dog to be mean and bite it’s not really “evil” it is the breeding and mannerisms that it was taught, that it learned and has been allowed to do. The dog has no understanding of evil or good.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the moral capabilities of animals, so can't speak there.

I would agree 100% with this is if you changed the illustration to a guillotine or ... to get closer to home, a firearm. It is a machine, and incapable of moral determination. If there is no personality outside the cosmos, then by definition there can be no morality in the machines making up that cosmos.
 
Last edited:
True you are correct in the observation that we do not really know what dogs can think or do think about
 
Cpippen said:
True you are correct in the observation that we do not really know what dogs can think or do think about
Click to expand...
It is MERE SPECULATION on my part, I admit, but it does make sense that if we as the overlords of creation are going to be enobled, exalted, and restored, then why not the lower creatures? It is quite possible that the animal kingdom will be exalted and raised up along with fallen humanity (the scriptures speak clearly that our minds are "darkened" by sin, and I do believe that neuroscience points us to vast capabilities in our minds which are unused.... so..... ????). If so, might we have dogs who can talk and communicate and assist us in worship? I think of Micah, my grandson, and how millions like him will be "exalted" and .... well, what if that exaltation brings with it the diminished capabilities (relative to us), so that God in His lowliness of majesty is pictured more clearly.

This is all speculation on my part, of course. Hints and feints of it in scripture, but nothing clear, so I could be dead wrong there.

Anyway......
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
I don't know about the moral capabilities of animals, so can't speak there.

I would agree 100% with this is if you changed the illustration to a guillotine or ... to get closer to home, a firearm. It is a machine, and incapable of moral determination. If there is no personality outside the cosmos, then by definition there can be no morality in the machines making up that cosmos.
Click to expand...

All excellent points you've made here. I ask: aren't we all just machines making up the cosmos? Including the animals? Change a couple electrons and neutrons and the carbon that makes us is still the same carbon that makes that steel from which the guillotine and firearm are crafted.

Here's my abstract. Way out there. So people think something is bad that man has come up with. Guns, internal combustion engines, nuclear power/weapons, the whatever. It's "unnatural". What if grizzly bears worked out nuclear fusion. Would humanity then accept that as natural?
 
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/ne...-raid-where-couple-were-killed/#ixzz6BtbuGYDW
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

No officers wore body cameras. Shortly after the raid, Chief Acevedo spoke of officers “laying down covering fire”.

"Laying Down Covering Fire" ... Not shots aimed at an imminent threat ... but random shots fired in a general direction ... in a residential neighborhood ... Let that sink in a bit.
Sounds more like a free-fire war zone full of enemy combatants, than a neighborhood you're sworn to protect. ... Just my opinion.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
The very idea of "evil" requires personality. It is a distinctly personal idea. Whether one is "atheistic" or not is not the issue (sorry for being unclear).

The idea of classifying something as "evil" or "bad" requires a judgment, which requires a personality MAKING that judgment. Impersonal forces are simply incapable of doing so. Evaluating something as evil also cannot be rooted in utilitarianism, or "what works"... as it begs the question of "works to WHAT END?" In other words, your restriction on activity to do no harm to others.... "My view is more simplistic and cab be pretty much summarized as long as you're not harming anyone, yourself included, do what you want."...... while I agree 100% with it, has no objective basis, and excluding a personal source OUTSIDE the cosmos, must be rejected as a standard.

If you asked me (which you have not! lol) I would say you have arrived at that conclusion because you are made in the image of God and CANNOT AVOID assigning moral categories to activities, because you reflect Him, even while you may reject the only logical source for such judgment.

Usually folks here try to slip in some value laden concept as "minimizes pain" or "creates more efficient living" (really saying the same thing), but this again begs the question of WHY such an end is "good." If the universe is impersonal (even if it is "spiritual") then no such classifications can be made which rise above the whims of arbitrary human choices.

IF, otoh, our inherent inability NOT to make classifcations of things as "good" or "bad" have any objective meaning, then by definition they must refer to a standard outside ourselves. Since such judgments are a function of personality, then they require a personal source outside the cosmos.

Hope that is clearer
Click to expand...
Slowly backing out of this room cause I ain't got a dam clue what either of you is saying. But IMO yall went to too dam many Anglish classes. Too much education is discriminatory towards us lesser educated assholes.
 
gunbelt said:
Slowly backing out of this room cause I ain't got a dam clue what either of you is saying. But IMO yall went to too dam many Anglish classes. Too much education is discriminatory towards us lesser educated assholes.
Click to expand...

I find myself in a position of agreement, too verbose and lengthy, I ain't reading all that crap.......
 
I love it. Crooked warrant. Misinformed. No knock entry. Laying down cover fire. Shots well after the raid. Sounds like a scene from a war movie. Tell me why this is still a pending investigation and only recent arrest.

Seems the most dirty cops are in drug divisions. Our little local sheriff department before the last election was totally corrupt in the drug division. Don’t forget the Cherryville, NC entire department was informing dealers of impending raids and investigations at one time. Danzel Washington has inspired a generation of Training Day participants.

Thank you to all the ethical law enforcement members. Remember a bad cop is not your brother. He is another villain who will get you killed.
 
4 officers from the dept have retired suddenly. Two were directly involved in the raid. That says it all. Now Goines just needs to be tried for murder by the victims relatives in civil court. The DA's office will never prosecute.
 
BlackGun said:
Don’t forget the Cherryville, NC entire department was informing dealers of impending raids and investigations at one time.
Click to expand...

Hah, Frankie and company were doing far more than that; those dudes were so crooked, they made Waxhaw and Hickory PD look like saints. He had a whole damn tractor trailer full of goods he had stolen (trailer and goods) when the hammer came down. I think he got out not too long ago.
 
jimmyjames8 said:
4 officers from the dept have retired suddenly. Two were directly involved in the raid. That says it all. Now Goines just needs to be tried for murder by the victims relatives in civil court. The DA's office will never prosecute.
Click to expand...
He needs to be tried by the victims relatives in a quarry somewhere.
 
gunbelt said:
He needs to be tried by the victims relatives in a quarry somewhere.
Click to expand...
For those who have watched Babylon 5: locked in a room full of angry Narns.

Joke: what’s more dangerous than a locked room full of angry Narns?
One angry Narn with the key?
Get it? With the key!
 
BlackGun said:
Thank you to all the ethical law enforcement members. Remember a bad cop is not your brother. He is another villain who will get you killed.
Click to expand...
I'm in quality management in a health-related field. I don't care how much I like you, if you're a danger, I will investigate and quite possibly recommend you be removed from your job. I've been involved in the termination of people above, below, and at my level. and i'm not even 2 years in at this company. I need a job, and I need to satisfy my own ethics at the end of the day - please don't interfere with either one of those.
Just today I had a talk with one of our nurses and suggested that if I ever went around her and did XYZ and couldn't 100% back up why, she should report me so that I could agree with her complaint and get myself in trouble. I don't even really like her that much. But she has her role and I have mine.
One place I worked had a big white board in a general hall to write employee names when they had made a mistake and needed to come discuss it with quality. I usually caught my own mistakes, notified other quality team members, and then went and wrote my own name up on the board. I clearly could have skipped that step since I had already identified and acknowledged my error and took the appropriate corrective actions. My errors were usually found and discovered in seconds. I left my own name on the board until we were about to become "late" on documenting corrective actions because I know I'm not perfect and I refuse to hide my mistakes. I'll take the swat on the nose and be the first to tell people about my own mistakes so that they can avoid them.

So when people call me "the police" at work, I sometimes get offended. I get it though.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
I'm in quality management in a health-related field. I don't care how much I like you, if you're a danger, I will investigate and quite possibly recommend you be removed from your job. I've been involved in the termination of people above, below, and at my level. and i'm not even 2 years in at this company. I need a job, and I need to satisfy my own ethics at the end of the day - please don't interfere with either one of those.
Just today I had a talk with one of our nurses and suggested that if I ever went around her and did XYZ and couldn't 100% back up why, she should report me so that I could agree with her complaint and get myself in trouble. I don't even really like her that much. But she has her role and I have mine.
One place I worked had a big white board in a general hall to write employee names when they had made a mistake and needed to come discuss it with quality. I usually caught my own mistakes, notified other quality team members, and then went and wrote my own name up on the board. I clearly could have skipped that step since I had already identified and acknowledged my error and took the appropriate corrective actions. My errors were usually found and discovered in seconds. I left my own name on the board until we were about to become "late" on documenting corrective actions because I know I'm not perfect and I refuse to hide my mistakes. I'll take the swat on the nose and be the first to tell people about my own mistakes so that they can avoid them.

So when people call me "the police" at work, I sometimes get offended. I get it though.
Click to expand...
And still medical malpractice is one of the most prolific killers in the country today.

I'm not calling you out just saying how much slips through the cracks.

Before you get started, I am not trying to defend these excuses for cops either. Hell, I've said more times than I can remember that Narcs are put into a position to where they have to produce or they will find someone else who does. It leads to zealots and wholesale corner cutting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom