"Look, whatever you think – that there is a criminal inside, or not, a murderer or not – you should think before you act because there are kids in the house," she said, adding police surveillance should have shown the presence of children. ⇒
14 June 2007, mid-morning
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
Interesting that there should be such a concern for the children when the parents are involved in dangerous and illegal acts.
You can’t live by the sword and expect to protected by what you consider your enemy.
by radmila on June 14 2007, 11:35 pm #
That doesn’t make any sense: If anything there should be more concern for children whose parents are involved in dangerous and illegal acts.
by ramanan on June 15 2007, 9:18 am #
Of course…but how do you protect them when their parents use them as human shields.
If you don’t want your children traumatized by a police raid, don’t sell drugs and firearms from your house.
Harsh?
Perhaps, but just as harsh as sitting around smoking a blunt with guns and drugs on the coffee table while your kids watch cartoons.
by radmila on June 15 2007, 12:42 pm #
Again, you’re punishing the kids because their parent’s brother is a dumb-ass — assuming that the charges brought against him stick. If the police knew there were children in the house, which they must have since they’ve been watching the place for months apparently, why raid it in this fashion? I realize they want to grab everyone at the same time so people don’t run, but I imagine there are far better ways of grabbing this particular dude than storming into the place guns drawn.
by ramanan on June 15 2007, 3:54 pm #
How do you do it then?
On the street where they can pull out their guns and shoot innocent bystanders?
Or in their house where they’re less likely to shoot because it’s their own space?
The answer is a difficult one and the police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
by radmila on June 15 2007, 7:15 pm #