There are 100 comments.

1. Thatcher
   Bryan G. Stephens

   Percival (View Comment):

   Search warrants are frequently served simultaneously with others involved in the same case, especially in drug cases. You don’t want anyone kicking off a chain of phone calls allowing evidence to be destroyed or suspects to make themselves scarce.

   So what if the police make a few mistakes and kill some people. Got to get them drugs.

   Get a warrant to search the house then. 

2. Thatcher
   Bryan G. Stephens

   Doug Watt (View Comment):

   How a warrant is served depends upon the crime that has, or is still being committed. The vast majority of warrants are for Failure To Appear (FTA). Non-violent offenders will sometimes turn themselves in after being contacted by their attorney.

   There are reasons to take a door off the hinges to execute a warrant on a violent felon at 0300 hours. You don’t want to get into a gunfight in a supermarket parking lot, when kiddies are getting on, or off the school bus in the line of fire. Nor when people are on their driveway’s coming home from work, or going to work.

   Again, just don’t mind thr dead 90 year old. That happened in Atlanta.

   You want them? OK, when an innocent person is dead because the police messed up, then what? 

   Blood calls out for blood. Lives should be ruined from the Mayor on down. The penalty for this should make people shudder.

   Thr face the police can storm my home, kill my dog (and boy don’t police seem to kill, a lot of dogs in these cases) terrorize my family, shoot me if I try to resist home invaders, shoot me if I follow their instructions but they decide I am a danger anyway, and then, then, say “whoops” we got it wrong, claim indemnity and shrug their shoulders is appalling. 

   I have a right to be secure in my home against the government storming it with military grade weapons. 

   But is is always clearly more important for the cops to make it home to their families than for the rest of us to live through a raid.

3. Member
   Django

   Doug Watt (View Comment):

   How a warrant is served depends upon the crime that has, or is still being committed. The vast majority of warrants are for Failure To Appear (FTA). Non-violent offenders will sometimes turn themselves in after being contacted by their attorney.

   There are reasons to take a door off the hinges to execute a warrant on a violent felon at 0300 hours. You don’t want to get into a gunfight in a supermarket parking lot, when kiddies are getting on, or off the school bus in the line of fire. Nor when people are on their driveway’s coming home from work, or going to work.

   I’ve heard that hard cases make bad laws and similar sayings. But this is a serious question. Guy lives in a bad neighborhood, so he keeps a loaded firearm by the bedside. Police come in without knocking or identifying themselves and have entered the wrong apartment/house. Occupant has good reason to believe he is in danger and takes out one of the police thinking he is legitimately defending himself. Assuming he survives the encounter, what happens next? I can say what happens if I’m on the jury, but that’s just one case. 

4. Thatcher
   Bryan G. Stephens

   Django (View Comment):

   Doug Watt (View Comment):

   How a warrant is served depends upon the crime that has, or is still being committed. The vast majority of warrants are for Failure To Appear (FTA). Non-violent offenders will sometimes turn themselves in after being contacted by their attorney.

   There are reasons to take a door off the hinges to execute a warrant on a violent felon at 0300 hours. You don’t want to get into a gunfight in a supermarket parking lot, when kiddies are getting on, or off the school bus in the line of fire. Nor when people are on their driveway’s coming home from work, or going to work.

   I’ve heard that hard cases make bad laws and similar sayings. But this is a serious question. Guy lives in a bad neighborhood, so he keeps a loaded firearm by the bedside. Police come in without knocking or identifying themselves and have entered the wrong apartment/house. Occupant has good reason to believe he is in danger and takes out one of the police thinking he is legitimately defending himself. Assuming he survives the encounter, what happens next? I can say what happens if I’m on the jury, but that’s just one case.

   He gets murder charge. That is what happens. How dare he defend himself. That is if they don’t kill him outright. 

   And the police all go home alive to their families. 

5. Member
   Django

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Django (View Comment):

   Doug Watt (View Comment):

   How a warrant is served depends upon the crime that has, or is still being committed. The vast majority of warrants are for Failure To Appear (FTA). Non-violent offenders will sometimes turn themselves in after being contacted by their attorney.

   There are reasons to take a door off the hinges to execute a warrant on a violent felon at 0300 hours. You don’t want to get into a gunfight in a supermarket parking lot, when kiddies are getting on, or off the school bus in the line of fire. Nor when people are on their driveway’s coming home from work, or going to work.

   I’ve heard that hard cases make bad laws and similar sayings. But this is a serious question. Guy lives in a bad neighborhood, so he keeps a loaded firearm by the bedside. Police come in without knocking or identifying themselves and have entered the wrong apartment/house. Occupant has good reason to believe he is in danger and takes out one of the police thinking he is legitimately defending himself. Assuming he survives the encounter, what happens next? I can say what happens if I’m on the jury, but that’s just one case.

   He gets murder charge. That is what happens. How dare he defend himself. That is if they don’t kill him outright.

   And the police all go home alive to their families.

   If I’m on the jury, there will be a mis-trial. He will not be convicted and it is NOT because I hate the police. 

6. Member
   kedavis

   Seems like a good time for this, again:

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HSJtJZLyls&t=82

7. Reagan
   Roderic

   [Snipped for length]

   So what should we do? Honestly, I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all decision. I strongly lean against no-knock warrants because I don’t like the idea of innocent people being terrified and/or killed when they didn’t have to be. But I won’t deny the fact that there may be some extreme situations where one might be called for. On the whole, though, they don’t make sense to me. They’re just too risky for everyone.

   We have people trained to use violence armed with deadly weapons to enforce order running around, and people make mistakes. That they make mistakes is not sufficient reason to keep them from doing their job. It seems to me that it has been shown recently that keeping the police from doing their jobs is not proving to be a good idea. Better training would probably improve things, but it will not entirely eliminate mistakes, and we can’t be throwing cops under the bus every time an honest mistake is made.

   Prosecuting people for breaking the law applies to all involved. I have not seen any reluctance to prosecute bad actors among the police lately.

8. Coolidge
   Skyler

   Roderic (View Comment):

   [Snipped for length]

   So what should we do? Honestly, I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all decision. I strongly lean against no-knock warrants because I don’t like the idea of innocent people being terrified and/or killed when they didn’t have to be. But I won’t deny the fact that there may be some extreme situations where one might be called for. On the whole, though, they don’t make sense to me. They’re just too risky for everyone.

   We have people trained to use violence armed with deadly weapons to enforce order running around, and people make mistakes. That they make mistakes is not sufficient reason to keep them from doing their job. It seems to me that it has been shown recently that keeping the police from doing their jobs is not proving to be a good idea. Better training would probably improve things, but it will not entirely eliminate mistakes, and we can’t be throwing cops under the bus every time an honest mistake is made.

   Prosecuting people for breaking the law applies to all involved. I have not seen any reluctance to prosecute bad actors among the police lately.

   Regardless, the time for reform is past. Any reform now would never suffice and will only embolden the rioters. They are the ones to reform, in jail.

9. Coolidge
   Flicker

   Roderic (View Comment):

   Weeping (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Miffed White Male (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
   And service of a no knock warrent just to let you search someplace you cannot get a search warrant is not good police work.

   Huh?

   A no-knock warrant is a search warrant.

   No, it is a warrant to seize a person. Searching is a side benefit.

   Unless someone is holed up, there is no reason to execute a warrant on them this way as it is the most dangerous for all involved.

   Pick him up on the street.

   And as for the military police storming the compound? That is how you get snipers killing people through windows, and setting fire to cultists and burning children alive

   Or kill a harmeless 90 year old woman because you got the wrong house. Or prosocute a man for killing a cop when he thought he had a home invasion. Just don’t do them. I will never support them.

   No-knock warrants make absolutely no sense to me either – for these very reasons. It’s just too dangerous for those on both the police and the ones being searched.

   So as long as perps stay holed up the police can’t arrest them?

   Well, but they have to come out and make a speech occasionally.

10. Member
    Weeping

    Roderic (View Comment):

    [Snipped for length]

    So what should we do? Honestly, I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all decision. I strongly lean against no-knock warrants because I don’t like the idea of innocent people being terrified and/or killed when they didn’t have to be. But I won’t deny the fact that there may be some extreme situations where one might be called for. On the whole, though, they don’t make sense to me. They’re just too risky for everyone.

    We have people trained to use violence armed with deadly weapons to enforce order running around, and people make mistakes. That they make mistakes is not sufficient reason to keep them from doing their job. It seems to me that it has been shown recently that keeping the police from doing their jobs is not proving to be a good idea. Better training would probably improve things, but it will not entirely eliminate mistakes, and we can’t be throwing cops under the bus every time an honest mistake is made.

    Prosecuting people for breaking the law applies to all involved. I have not seen any reluctance to prosecute bad actors among the police lately.

    Are we talking about police behavior in general or whether or not no-knock warrants/raids should be allowed? Because one can totally support the police and their methods in general and still believe that no-knock warrants are a very, very bad idea.

11. Coolidge
    Skyler

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    [Snipped for length]

    So what should we do? Honestly, I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all decision. I strongly lean against no-knock warrants because I don’t like the idea of innocent people being terrified and/or killed when they didn’t have to be. But I won’t deny the fact that there may be some extreme situations where one might be called for. On the whole, though, they don’t make sense to me. They’re just too risky for everyone.

    We have people trained to use violence armed with deadly weapons to enforce order running around, and people make mistakes. That they make mistakes is not sufficient reason to keep them from doing their job. It seems to me that it has been shown recently that keeping the police from doing their jobs is not proving to be a good idea. Better training would probably improve things, but it will not entirely eliminate mistakes, and we can’t be throwing cops under the bus every time an honest mistake is made.

    Prosecuting people for breaking the law applies to all involved. I have not seen any reluctance to prosecute bad actors among the police lately.

    Are we talking about police behavior in general or whether or not no-knock warrants/raids should be allowed? Because one can totally support the police and their methods in general and still believe that no-knock warrants are a very, very bad idea.

    They should be very rare, but once you open that dyke, you can never make it rare. Look at FISA and what they did. We need to jealously and fearfully guard our rights and protections from the government over reach. Very rare should mean never or almost never. But almost never never works because it’s too easily corrupted into very easily and very often.

12. Coolidge
    Headedwest

    Percival (View Comment):

    Search warrants are frequently served simultaneously with others involved in the same case, especially in drug cases. You don’t want anyone kicking off a chain of phone calls allowing evidence to be destroyed or suspects to make themselves scarce.

    Yeah another fine facet of the futile drug wars.

13. Thatcher
    Percival

    Have any of you “legalize everything” Einsteins seen video of the recent unpleasantness in the streets? 

    Now imagine it if a significant percentage were on PCP. Or bath salts. Or both. 

14. Member
    Quietpi

    There’s so much misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread I have no idea where to start, or even to bother trying.

    The concept of “military grade weapons” is for all practical purposes a false construct. The only difference between firearms the military uses and those used by civilians is that some of the military versions have “full automatic” options. The firearms that law enforcement officers carry on a regular basis do not have the “full automatic” option. People look at the (civilian) AR-15, and think it is somehow “military grade.” it is not. The AR-15’s only sin is that it looks scary. The reason for its appearance is not to make it more useful for combat, any more than they make it more useful for hunting, competition, whatever. It looks different because it uses a new design of action that requires a straight tube directly behind the chamber, in line with the barrel. It’s called a “gas impingement” system. That’s why the stock extends straight back, requiring the sights to be set higher so that the shooter can get his / her eyes down to them. And it requires a “pistol grip,” because the stock has to be too straight for the dominant hand to hold on to the rest of the stock. Anybody with firearms training can tell you that the pistol grip type of stock makes the rifle more difficult, not less, to fire it from the hip, “Rambo style.” To be sure, firing rifles from the hip pretty much only happens in the movies, because 999 times out of 1000, doing so would be stupid. And enough has been said of that.

    Another benefit of the “AR-type” design is that it is modular. Just like modern stereos have separate units rather than a single, beautiful wood cabinet, you can adapt it to fit your needs. BTW all my rifles are semi-automatic, because I’m left handed. The “AR-style” rifle is far and away the favorite sporting firearm today for these reasons. When you get right down to it, the characteristics that make a firearm better suited for military use also make it better suited for hunting.

    I have to stop there because it’s late at night.

15. Coolidge
    Headedwest

    Percival (View Comment):

    Have any of you “legalize everything” Einsteins seen video of the recent unpleasantness in the streets?

    Now imagine it if a significant percentage were on PCP. Or bath salts. Or both.

    “Legalize everything” is not the same as noting that the drug wars have been futile and (basically) useless.

16. Thatcher
    Percival

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Have any of you “legalize everything” Einsteins seen video of the recent unpleasantness in the streets?

    Now imagine it if a significant percentage were on PCP. Or bath salts. Or both.

    “Legalize everything” is not the same as noting that the drug wars have been futile and (basically) useless.

    How does it differ, pray tell?

17. Coolidge
    Skyler

    Percival (View Comment):

    Have any of you “legalize everything” Einsteins seen video of the recent unpleasantness in the streets?

    Now imagine it if a significant percentage were on PCP. Or bath salts. Or both.

    They’re not?

18. Coolidge
    Skyler

    Quietpi (View Comment):

    There’s so much misunderstanding and misinformation in this thread I have no idea where to start, or even to bother trying.

    The concept of “military grade weapons” is for all practical purposes a false construct. The only difference between firearms the military uses and those used by civilians is that some of the military versions have “full automatic” options. The firearms that law enforcement officers carry on a regular basis do not have the “full automatic” option. People look at the (civilian) AR-15, and think it is somehow “military grade.” it is not. The AR-15’s only sin is that it looks scary. The reason for its appearance is not to make it more useful for combat, any more than they make it more useful for hunting, competition, whatever. It looks different because it uses a new design of action that requires a straight tube directly behind the chamber, in line with the barrel. It’s called a “gas impingement” system. That’s why the stock extends straight back, requiring the sights to be set higher so that the shooter can get his / her eyes down to them. And it requires a “pistol grip,” because the stock has to be too straight for the dominant hand to hold on to the rest of the stock. Anybody with firearms training can tell you that the pistol grip type of stock makes the rifle more difficult, not less, to fire it from the hip, “Rambo style.” To be sure, firing rifles from the hip pretty much only happens in the movies, because 999 times out of 1000, doing so would be stupid. And enough has been said of that.

    Another benefit of the “AR-type” design is that it is modular. Just like modern stereos have separate units rather than a single, beautiful wood cabinet, you can adapt it to fit your needs. BTW all my rifles are semi-automatic, because I’m left handed. The “AR-style” rifle is far and away the favorite sporting firearm today for these reasons. When you get right down to it, the characteristics that make a firearm better suited for military use also make it better suited for hunting.

    I have to stop there because it’s late at night.

    We are not stupid. We know what rifles are.

19. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):

    [Snipped for length]

    So what should we do? Honestly, I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all decision. I strongly lean against no-knock warrants because I don’t like the idea of innocent people being terrified and/or killed when they didn’t have to be. But I won’t deny the fact that there may be some extreme situations where one might be called for. On the whole, though, they don’t make sense to me. They’re just too risky for everyone.

    We have people trained to use violence armed with deadly weapons to enforce order running around, and people make mistakes. That they make mistakes is not sufficient reason to keep them from doing their job. It seems to me that it has been shown recently that keeping the police from doing their jobs is not proving to be a good idea. Better training would probably improve things, but it will not entirely eliminate mistakes, and we can’t be throwing cops under the bus every time an honest mistake is made.

    Prosecuting people for breaking the law applies to all involved. I have not seen any reluctance to prosecute bad actors among the police lately.

    Are we talking about police behavior in general or whether or not no-knock warrants/raids should be allowed? Because one can totally support the police and their methods in general and still believe that no-knock warrants are a very, very bad idea.

    Agree

20. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    Percival (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Have any of you “legalize everything” Einsteins seen video of the recent unpleasantness in the streets?

    Now imagine it if a significant percentage were on PCP. Or bath salts. Or both.

    “Legalize everything” is not the same as noting that the drug wars have been futile and (basically) useless.

    How does it differ, pray tell?

    I don’t want everything legalized.

    I don’t like the “war on drugs”

    Both of those possible statements because, unlike the “legalize it all and everything will be great” crowd wants to claim, one can be against how things are done right now and still not for legalization. 

    I would like 1000 more drug courts and people forced into treatment by the justice system because it works and saves lives. 

     

21. Thatcher
    Percival

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Search warrants are frequently served simultaneously with others involved in the same case, especially in drug cases. You don’t want anyone kicking off a chain of phone calls allowing evidence to be destroyed or suspects to make themselves scarce.

    So what if the police make a few mistakes and kill some people. Got to get them drugs.

    Get a warrant to search the house then.

    They’ve already got that. The no-knock warrant has to meet a higher standard.

    Have mistakes occurred?

    

    You may not have noticed, but things go wrong sometimes.

22. Member
    kedavis

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Have any of you “legalize everything” Einsteins seen video of the recent unpleasantness in the streets?

    Now imagine it if a significant percentage were on PCP. Or bath salts. Or both.

    “Legalize everything” is not the same as noting that the drug wars have been futile and (basically) useless.

    How does it differ, pray tell?

    I don’t want everything legalized.

    I don’t like the “war on drugs”

    Both of those possible statements because, unlike the “legalize it all and everything will be great” crowd wants to claim, one can be against how things are done right now and still not for legalization.

    I would like 1000 more drug courts and people forced into treatment by the justice system because it works and saves lives.

    That sounds expensive, and the addicts/criminals won’t be paying for it.

23. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Headedwest (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Have any of you “legalize everything” Einsteins seen video of the recent unpleasantness in the streets?

    Now imagine it if a significant percentage were on PCP. Or bath salts. Or both.

    “Legalize everything” is not the same as noting that the drug wars have been futile and (basically) useless.

    How does it differ, pray tell?

    I don’t want everything legalized.

    I don’t like the “war on drugs”

    Both of those possible statements because, unlike the “legalize it all and everything will be great” crowd wants to claim, one can be against how things are done right now and still not for legalization.

    I would like 1000 more drug courts and people forced into treatment by the justice system because it works and saves lives.

    That sounds expensive, and the addicts/criminals won’t be paying for it.

    No, it is expensive. So is the War on Drugs.

24. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    Percival (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Search warrants are frequently served simultaneously with others involved in the same case, especially in drug cases. You don’t want anyone kicking off a chain of phone calls allowing evidence to be destroyed or suspects to make themselves scarce.

    So what if the police make a few mistakes and kill some people. Got to get them drugs.

    Get a warrant to search the house then.

    They’ve already got that. The no-knock warrant has to meet a higher standard.

    Have mistakes occurred?

    

    You may not have noticed, but things go wrong sometimes.

    Yes they do.

    So knock. 

    All I am asking for is a knock and announcement. 

    I have a right to be secured in my home against the State.

    I guess you don’t agree that we have such a right.

25. Coolidge
    Skyler

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    So knock. 

    All I am asking for is a knock and announcement. 

    I have a right to be secured in my home against the State.

    I guess you don’t agree that we have such a right.

    I agree. I’m sickened everytime I read of a no-knock raid gone wrong because the police had the wrong address or a fraudulent affidavit.

    If you’re at home and someone barges in at night screaming things (and what if you’re deaf), how are you supposed to know that this is a legal, warranted attack or if some hooligans are attacking you? You can’t. No-knock raids are dangerous and an affront to our liberty. I would rather the bad guys get away every time than have one innocent person get killed defending himself from a cop invasion.

26. Coolidge
    acanavan

    To Doug Watt

    The description of your actions is the absolute epitome of an out of control power mad cop.

    You seemed to have a reasonable suspicion to stop the offender in this circumstance, why did you not conduct a typical felony stop? Call for backup? Loudspeaker to order him out of the car, secure the suspect, all that? You assume, correctly, that the suspect is armed with a deadly weapon, and yet you give away all of your crucial advantages. You don’t call for backup, giving away the advantage of numbers. You don’t order the suspect out of the car, giving away the advantage of observation and being able to more clearly see what he is doing and the cover of your car. Finally, you approach close enough to get within arms distance of this person, putting your weapon within easy reach of a potentially violent suspect where he can grab it and get into a deadly struggle with you, giving away the crucial advantage of distance.

    All of the actions described in this situation seemed oriented around creating a situation where a lone cop can righteously pull his gun on a deserving dirtbag and put it directly up against his head and create his perfect Dirty Harry moment that he can tell stories about for years. These actions put both the officer and the suspect at greater risk for injury or death, and none of these described actions are within ANY department’s training or policies, and if these actions were accurately written up in the report they would have likely resulted in the officer’s discipline or worse. 

    Can anybody provide any reasonable justification for Doug Watt here?

27. Moderator
    Doug Watt

    Post author

    acanavan (View Comment):

    To Doug Watt

    The description of your actions is the absolute epitome of an out of control power mad cop.

    You seemed to have a reasonable suspicion to stop the offender in this circumstance, why did you not conduct a typical felony stop? Call for backup? Loudspeaker to order him out of the car, secure the suspect, all that? You assume, correctly, that the suspect is armed with a deadly weapon, and yet you give away all of your crucial advantages. You don’t call for backup, giving away the advantage of numbers. You don’t order the suspect out of the car, giving away the advantage of observation and being able to more clearly see what he is doing and the cover of your car. Finally, you approach close enough to get within arms distance of this person, putting your weapon within easy reach of a potentially violent suspect where he can grab it and get into a deadly struggle with you, giving away the crucial advantage of distance.

    All of the actions described in this situation seemed oriented around creating a situation where a lone cop can righteously pull his gun on a deserving dirtbag and put it directly up against his head and create his perfect Dirty Harry moment that he can tell stories about for years. These actions put both the officer and the suspect at greater risk for injury or death, and none of these described actions are within ANY department’s training or policies, and if these actions were accurately written up in the report they would have likely resulted in the officer’s discipline or worse.

    Can anybody provide any reasonable justification for Doug Watt here?

    The citizens he threatened thanked me after they identified him, but then again constructive criticism is always welcome.

28. Thatcher
    Percival

    acanavan (View Comment):
    All of the actions described in this situation seemed oriented around creating a situation where a lone cop can righteously pull his gun on a deserving dirtbag and put it directly up against his head and create his perfect Dirty Harry moment that he can tell stories about for years.

    Do you ever get nosebleeds up there on your high horse?

29. Coolidge
    acanavan

    Percival (View Comment):

    acanavan (View Comment):
    All of the actions described in this situation seemed oriented around creating a situation where a lone cop can righteously pull his gun on a deserving dirtbag and put it directly up against his head and create his perfect Dirty Harry moment that he can tell stories about for years.

    Do you ever get nosebleeds up there on your high horse?

    Instead of a non-sequitur insult, lets imagine you had put some thought into your response…..

    I think that if you were capable, the argument you would try to make is

    “It is unrealistic to expect that a police officer is going to be able to follow every last line of policy and procedure when public safety is on the line, and results are what matters”

    We all love Dirty Harry, and Riggs and Murtaugh, and John Mcclane because they get results, but they have the unrealistic benefit of always being right. In the real world mistake are made by our very human police officers, and intuition is not usually enough to get the job done. In Doug Watt’s described scenario he would have still received the rightful accolades from the public and he would have still stopped a threat, but he wouldn’t have been in anywhere near as much risk if he had just followed his training. Police are taught to follow their training not only because is it legally defensible, but because it keeps them safe!! Their training protects them and it makes violent encounters less likely. Professionalism from our police is something we should demand for these reasons.

    Is that unrealistic? 

    I would take pre Ferguson style, broken windows, stop and frisk policing over the high crime high murder rate post defund policing we are going to see for years to come now, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold our police to a high standard.

30. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    acanavan (View Comment):

    Can anybody provide any reasonable justification for Doug Watt here?

    Yes. The man was going for a knife. I see nothing wrong with what Doug Watt did here, and frankly, had he acted differently, Doug Watt might not BE here.

    Edit: I took out your attack on Doug, and flagged it.

    Doug has responded much better than I am.