Hyperbole IS fun . . . but my last post was not hyperbole. Educate yourself . . .

So, every government worker is on the take AND out to screw you?

This is a simple situation actully. The anti gambling laws are stupid, but they are the law. Misguided zealot politicians or mob owned ones have made these laws. The police do not make these laws, but it is their job to enforce them. They will continue to make these raids because people are actully breaking the law with these underground rooms. I repeat , the laws are goofy and stupid, but untill we stop electing these do gooders and paid for pols, and change the law, this **** will continue!

No, most people are just trying to get by. It's the system itself that rewards incompetence and corruption, and punishes nobility and virtue.

That's part of the problem. On an individual level, very few people we encounter are corrupt. They're just cogs in a broken system.

The global elite control the vast majority of the world's resources, leaving the rest of us to scramble for the table scraps, once the medium-sized dogs are finished fighting over them.

Doe'n't, tho'?

Palimax vs. Pfap round 1,003,452

My apologies.

No. If he has something to say, he can go make another two-hour rant begging me to never talk to him.

Damn, I knew I shoulda made a prop bet for that image showing up.

You denied my request. So therefore, neener neener neener.

Okay, to un-derail this thread...

While there has been some hyperbole on both sides in this thread, there is a legitimate question about the risk assessment policies that determine whether or not SWAT should be used in any given situation. To my knowledge, most police departments (including OCSO) do not make their risk assessment scorecard public - so we have no way of knowing what criteria were used when deciding to bust this game with SWAT.

From an outside, subjective perspective, it looks like overkill to me. And there are certainly a number of documented cases around the country where the scoring criteria for SWAT was met, but the use of SWAT was overkill at best and wholly unjustified at worst - just google "swat lawsuit" for examples.

I'm not saying this was one of those cases. To me (a non-LEO) this case seems like an inefficient use of the law enforcement that my tax dollars pay for. OCSO may have had reason to believe that SWAT was required, but I don't know because the policies used to make that determination are not known to the public. That's probably my biggest problem with this situation.

Schmendrick nails it pretty well. Another issue is that, having built these units (sometimes under dubious "need"), the inertia of the bureaucracy is such that demobilizing is almost impossible. Thus, to use a term from the military, "mission creep" begins to take over, and SWAT begins engaging an ever increasing section of the population.

Both sides have good points but the one over riding question is, what kind of report did the police get on the game/house. If they were told there was a armed guard, then they are going in with sway everytime. If they were told there was a guard at the front door ( not known if he was armed), then they are going in with swat everytime.

It would be interesting to know the type of report they got.

What type of initial report they got is irrelevant. Do you think they just sent SWAT to a place that someone reported there might be illegal gambling? I'm sure they checked the game out before just showing up and busting the door down on their own.

I think the initial report is very important and sets the basises on how the police respond. Maybe they got a report of illegal gambling and there was a armed guard at the door? Police are not going to fool around with that crap.

So, a random person makes a report of illegal gambling and an armed guard and out rolls swat?

If a random person reports a meth house with an armed guard does swat head right over?