Would a story about SWAT team raiding a no-kill shelter to kill a deer go here?

[A Pedant]

I mean, you're acting shocked that the police treated a facility full of criminals like a facility full of criminals. Because, you know, they were kind of committing a crime. Which makes them criminals. The fact they're not being charged or fined shows admirable restraint and respect

Actually it's being convicted by a court that would have made them criminals, the fact that they're not being charged makes me think the prosecutor feels that the evidence they had actually committed the crime is weak. And means that they are, legally not criminals.

I say the evidence is weak because (according to Popehat) the relevant law is a ban on owning wildlife, and I think it would only take a halfway competent lawyer to argue that temporarily housing a deer whilst actively arranging for an appropriately licensed home is not ownership (no intent, now effective ownership etc).

Law enforcement agencies manipulate public opinion  - and endanger fair trials - all the time by doing this. They act as though you are convicted the moment they suspect you and the raid and arrest are the punishment.

[Jack Mann]

I don't mind that they have a policy to keep people from keeping deer.  Heck, I think an argument could even be made that the fawn should have been put down (though I would have liked to have seen a biologist look it over and then make the call).  But the SWAT-style raid was uncalled for.  And we should almost always be wary when police try and keep people from taking pictures of them performing their duties.

[wrightway]

My entire issue is that they acted like jackboots. Show up with a warrant? That's one thing. Aerial photographs, destroying personal property, and using a SWAT team like it's a goddamned drug raid? Fire the lot of them. Besides that, it wasn't a private citizen owning a deer. It was a rescue organization that was sending it on to a properly licensed facility. Better make sure they grabbed it so they could get their venison before it got sent somewhere they couldn't bully.

[Kit Walker]

And we should almost always be wary when police try and keep people from taking pictures of them performing their duties.

On the other hand, a properly timed picture with a properly spun description turns routine duties in to a viral scandal. I can understand exactly why even police officers following the law and proper procedure would be leery of having their photo taken - a SWAT team busting a meth lab and a situation where SWAT would be excessive don't look that much different from the outside.

That said, there's oh so much suck here to go around. Before keeping a wild animal on hand for two weeks, maybe your shelter ought to contact DNR and/or animal control and let them know what's going on. Maybe don't go big when raiding an animal shelter, maybe keep that squad to five or less.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Okay, seriously... did any of you even fucking read the article? The fawn was tranquilized at the scene, and removed to be euthanized elsewhere.

Why the hell are none of you upset that the shelter took in a baby deer, which they had no training or legal ability to do, and kept it for two weeks instead of immediately turning it over to a facility with the training and resources to handle wild deer?

I mean, you're acting shocked that the police treated a facility full of criminals like a facility full of criminals. Because, you know, they were kind of committing a crime. Which makes them criminals. The fact they're not being charged or fined shows admirable restraint and respect for the fact that the people at the shelter believed they were doing a good thing. It doesn't change the fact they were breaking the law, and endangering both their own lives and the life of the fawn by trying to take care of an animal they were not trained or licensed to care for.

As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!

[Kit Walker]

As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!

I dunno, I think a law preventing randoms from possessing wild animals that they aren't properly trained to care for is a pretty moral law.

Although I really wish I could read (and/or understand the legalese) in the police's reasoning for this clusterfuck. Either someone needed to use resources to justify their budget or they had reason to believe that  they'd find something more insidious than a single baby deer. The way they raided the place you'd think they expected to find an entire illegal wild animal pet store.

[PosthumanHeresy]

As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!

I dunno, I think a law preventing randoms from possessing wild animals that they aren't properly trained to care for is a pretty moral law.

Although I really wish I could read (and/or understand the legalese) in the police's reasoning for this clusterfuck. Either someone needed to use resources to justify their budget or they had reason to believe that  they'd find something more insidious than a single baby deer. The way they raided the place you'd think they expected to find an entire illegal wild animal pet store.

The Facebook page shows that it's based of disease paranoia.

[Yaezakura]

As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!

Now, show me where it's law enforcement's job to enforce morality, rather than the law.

If you don't like the law, that's fine. It's stupid to be angry at the officers for doing their jobs. I don't care if it's cocaine or Bambi, they were a group of people hiding illegal items. The police response has to be consistent. While the police only knew of one animal, it's entirely reasonable to suspect a group harboring one illegal animal could be harboring others. Until you're in there, you have no way of knowing. You also have no idea how far the people may have been willing to go to stop law enforcement from seizing the animal.

Seriously, they kept the thing for two weeks. It does not take two weeks to find a facility to take it in. I should know, I have access to Google. And even then, it seems a little odd that an animal shelter that specializes in domestic animals would not already have contacts with shelters capable of handling wildlife specifically for instances like these.

This whole mess could have easily been avoided by the people of the shelter choosing not to break the law. If a fawn is abandoned by its mother, chances are, something was wrong with it, and nature should have been allowed to run its course. The only sad part of this entire story is that the fawn was probably incinerated instead of ending up as a meal for a hungry predator.

[PosthumanHeresy]

As we all know, the law is automatically morally just!

Now, show me where it's law enforcement's job to enforce morality, rather than the law.

If you don't like the law, that's fine. It's stupid to be angry at the officers for doing their jobs. I don't care if it's cocaine or Bambi, they were a group of people hiding illegal items. The police response has to be consistent. While the police only knew of one animal, it's entirely reasonable to suspect a group harboring one illegal animal could be harboring others. Until you're in there, you have no way of knowing. You also have no idea how far the people may have been willing to go to stop law enforcement from seizing the animal.

Seriously, they kept the thing for two weeks. It does not take two weeks to find a facility to take it in. I should know, I have access to Google. And even then, it seems a little odd that an animal shelter that specializes in domestic animals would not already have contacts with shelters capable of handling wildlife specifically for instances like these.

This whole mess could have easily been avoided by the people of the shelter choosing not to break the law. If a fawn is abandoned by its mother, chances are, something was wrong with it, and nature should have been allowed to run its course. The only sad part of this entire story is that the fawn was probably incinerated instead of ending up as a meal for a hungry predator.

Even if you want to defend this, you can't defend a goddamn SWAT team, and taking a person's phone and deleting images. If we can't record the cops, the cops can do whatever they want. Personally, I think anyone who enforces an unjust law is just as bad as that law itself, and the correct thing to do is play stupid.

[booley]

Okay, seriously... did any of you even fucking read the article? The fawn was tranquilized at the scene, and removed to be euthanized elsewhere.

Actually the article said that the police supervisor said that's what they did.

Right around the same time she compared the shelter to a meth lab.

I think the reason most people aren't talking about the shelter illegally housing a deer is :
one, the deer was scheduled to go to a licensed facility  so the problem was about to solve itself.
two, how does that justify what the cops did?  I mean they used a swat team and had the place under aerial surveilence before they came in.  And yet couldn't bother just calling the shelter to ask about one deer.  Not to mention the number of times cops have destroyed video evidence to cover wrong doing just makes these cops erasing anyone's pictures look bad.

This is horrible. There is no question, at least in my mind, that the police went above and beyond their duties here. An innocent animal died because the police couldn't wait for the deer to be sent to a wildlife preserve and decided to justify spending taxpayer money on swat gear.

Thats' the reason.  Cities spend millions on this stuff.

If there's no massive crime waves going on, how do they justify that?

[dpareja]

Thats' the reason.  Cities spend millions on this stuff.

If there's no massive crime waves going on, how do they justify that?

Because it makes little old ladies feel safer, and little old ladies vote.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Thats' the reason.  Cities spend millions on this stuff.

If there's no massive crime waves going on, how do they justify that?

Because it makes little old ladies feel safer, and little old ladies vote.

Too bad there is no death panels /joke

[MadCatTLX]

If I remember right it's illegal in a few states to photograph or videotape a police officer, and I think it might be a felony in some of those places.

Lovely laws you have there.

[Canadian Mojo]

...The police response has to be consistent...

So close, yet so far. 

You are right, the police need to apply laws consistently and without bias. The problem is that this kind of enforcement means that every little interaction with the public can and should be dealt with as a hostile encounter necessitating overwhelming numbers massive amounts of firepower. Why, because it is too hard to use a little tact, diplomacy, and they don't know how to command respect without acting like bullies?

Really, it is not very far from here to finding yourself face-down on the side of the road with your hands cuffed behind your back and a gun in your ear while they run your license and registration for a speeding ticket. And as much as I wish it was, that is not hyperbole.

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

[Lithp]

Guys, Yae is right. The law is the law, & procedure is procedure. Frankly, some of you need to stop being so bleeding heart that you focus on a single issue & defend it to the death while ignoring other issues that might come into play. Being outraged & raging at everyone over the internet helps no one. Calling for mass firings helps no one. And I can't help but notice that one of the articles being sourced is DESIGNED to whip people up in a moral frenzy, making liberal comparisons to Nazis, overemotional language, etc.