Inside the Fire wrote on Dec 1, 2008 1:46 PM:
" Sounds like the HPD Swat team did an outstanding job capturing this suspect and saving the baby. It is comforting to know there is at least one Swat team that can handle business in Kings County. "
Christina_Ambrosi wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:28 PM:
" WOW! Two murders for Hanford, I remember when it was safe to walk around that neighborhood day or night. As a teenager, I used to go visit friends over there and didn't have to worry about shootings.
Now, I did know Steve DeSoto personally, he had a baby with an acquaintence of mine, as well as with my cousin. I do feel for the kids he's left behind, the family that mourns him, and the friends that miss him. All personal feelings aside, I will be praying for his family. "
rl56219 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:21 PM:
" I wonder if the new "toy" was brought out "
am030487 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:10 PM:
" wow! they've used the command vehicle already...sooner or later they would of used it...and some people said it was a worthless piece of tool, but i think it really helped the SWAT Team, tragedy could of happened if the command vehicle wasn't available. Good Job law enforcement! "
what the wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:23 AM:
" So if i read the story correct, no accident, no ied's that took out the whole team, etc.. wow WDF what do you think, nevermind i dont care what you think.
great job hpd swat great job to those involved in the investigation
Inside the fire, what do you meen? "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:07 PM:
" To: what the, am030487, rt56219,
How appropriate they used the new toy to rescue a baby. I don't understand in the first part of the article all the police, sheriffs, probation staff had the house surrounded did they all fit in the toy at the same time. Did it get all of them there safely, just when was it deployed? Doesn't sound to me like the suspect put up much of a fight to me, did the bad old toy scare the suspect? First time I ever heard of a gang of 1.
"SWAT members apparently entered through a window and removed the baby from the residence without incident." "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:07 PM:
" To: what the, am030487, rt56219,
Of course they will use this every chance they get, it has to look like they needed it or it will be quite obvious they didn't. "
Inside the Fire wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:31 PM:
" What the, I mean exactly what I wrote. It sounds like they did a great job during this incident and can handle their business. Nothing more nothing less. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:15 PM:
" To: what the wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:23 AM:
Well newbie evidently you don't know the story according to inside the fire the County Swat Team doesn't work well together or at all if you listen to Inside the fire. You think maybe he is a fireman? "
Alihandero wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:12 PM:
" ...Tried to communicate with a "throw-phone?"
Is that like a "Magic Jack?"
Or a "Go phone" you hand to the perpetrator using the armored assault vehicle?
Where can I buy one? "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:46 AM:
" To: what the
I'm curious just how many bullets did the SWAT Thing take for the team? According to the article not a single shot was fired by the perp. Nor was there any resistance involved, was the SWAT Thing just out for a spin to prove it would be needed to rescue a baby out the window. I believe that was probably accomplished by flesh and blood officers not the SWAT Thing. So do you now take the credit away from those brave officers to give credeance to the SWAT Thing?
As for IED's they are out of season right now, they are in demand elsewhere, but I am sure something will be arranged before this SWAT Thing is retired, count on it. Crooks can be just as inventive as Cops sometimes. Don't believe it what's the Red Light Bandits score vs the cops? He never was caught. "
what the wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:25 PM:
" Well my last post was not listed. thats ok, in nicer terms i will say that wdf, you call me a newbie? does that mean i have no opinion? you seem to have an opinon on every thing you know nothing about, next time the hpd swat has a call, why dont you call them and let them know what they should do. you seem to have some power to see into the future. they prepare for the worst and hope for the best. you seem to hope for the worst. you say saving a baby like it was not needed. i read the articel and thought, "what a great job they did" i guess they should know for a fact that they will get shot at before the arive prepared? wake up again i say, they have the vehicle, it will save lives, get over it
and thanks for giving your opinion as to inside the fire thinks. you are a mind reader and can see in to the future "
Inside the Fire wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:22 AM:
" I guess my name made it easy to figure out what I do for a living. With that said how in the world did my comments get so twisted. I never said anything about a swat team not getting along. I know very little about the swat teams in Kings County. The only information I have is through rumors and what not. I have heard that the sheriff's swat team is not active so it is comforting that there is at least one active unit in the county. That is all I meant, I did not mean to show any ill will toward anyone. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 6, 2008 12:55 AM:
" Inside the Fire wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:22 AM:
Perhaps in the future you can be a little more specific, I know everytime there is a comment about the Kings County SWAT team you seem to chime in. Next time, spell out the meaning and don't be afraid to say what's on your mind. "
Bobb wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:09 AM:
" Watchdog Fred; I don't mean to get off the subject at hand, but your referral to the armoured vehicle as "Swat Thing" reminds this Senior of an old rock and roll song, Wild Thing. I like the name, it has a classy ring to it even though I disagree with you over the need for it. I have learned on previous Boards that when the Fed's give out our taxpayer dollars that you had better get it for your Community or they will just give it to the next one in line. That is not the way it should work but that is the system. I abhorred CDBG Grants while serving on a Board in another County but that is the way it works. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 11, 2008 12:19 PM:
" To: Bobb wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:09 AM:
Mrs. Reagan said it best Just Say No! As long as we have takers on these programs they will continue. It is time we stood up and voiced our opinions on how our tax dollars are being spent. I don't care who receives the money it is still from our wallets as tax payers. Simply stating someone is gonna get it, still does not justify the expenditure in the first place.
How far could that $290,000.00 gone toward a joint combined communications network between the cities and county in this community. How many more law enforcement officers could it have paid. Just because this money is earmarked does not justify the expenditure in the manner we as citizens don't see fit. What's next an armored ambulance, fire truck, water works truck, street sweeper? "
Bobb wrote on Dec 11, 2008 2:56 PM:
" Fred; it is great to be a martyr or "just say no" but most won't do it and our community will be the one doing without. Yes, we could survive without the armoured vehicle but we are not given the option of taking the equal amount of dollars for another purpose, such as more officers or fire protection. Until the voters revolt and demand more accountability from our Representatives it will not change. Now private business is following BIG governments policies and spending into oblivion. After all, the taxpayers will just be expected to "bail" them out as we are deemed to do with the California budget and now the Federal one. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 11, 2008 8:47 PM:
" To: Bobb wrote on Dec 11, 2008 2:56 PM:
That is my point exactly, to the government and business a budget means spending beyond your means and then going to the Congress/Senate and asking for more of the taxpayer's money. It doesn't mean living within your means and paying as you go for what you want or need. As long as money can be earmarked by the government for grants and such it is initially the government telling us how to spend our own money and people think it is a gift. Imagine that!
The problem with grants is it is someone else's idea of what we need instead of something we really need and in some cases a complete waste of our money. The armoured vehicle isn't the specific problem, it is simply an example of how grants are simply waste disguised as a gift. How much lobbying was done by the manufacturer of the armoured vehicle to get someone in government to suggest buying them at $290,000,00? So is it necessity for protection or necessity for production, that is the question. Barnum was right there is one born every second. "
what the wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:45 PM:
" how many seconds ago were you born? they have it, they will use it, get over it "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 12, 2008 12:29 PM:
" what the wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:45 PM:
" how many seconds ago were you born? they have it, they will use it, get over it "
How many seconds until the first lawsuit for its use? "
Deb wrote on Dec 12, 2008 11:59 PM:
" Go Get them WD - I would think there's plenty of time to begin the process of getting something on the ballot which would outlaw the application or acceptance of grants from the Federal Govt.
“You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas.” Shirley Hufsteddler "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 14, 2008 2:53 AM:
" To: Deb wrote on Dec 12, 2008 11:59 PM:
That is very strange sometimes in sports they save the best for the final quarter, they don't waste them in the first half. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 14, 2008 8:09 PM:
" To: Deb my point is the fact that we the taxpayers allowed the government to purchase at an enormous $290,000.00 for a false sense of security, that already has anti-weapons developed to counteract it's use. Usually when the government goes after a new device or weapon it is because it is state of the art and there is no counter-weapon developed for it yet. So all this does is lull the law enforcement in the community into a false sense of security and the public receives a PR program complete with examples of how it can be justified. That still doesn't change that fact it will be defeated, involved in a excessive force lawsuit, civil action over an accident, all the above or simply rust into oblivion waiting for a useful purpose. We are not allowed to sell it if it becomes to expensive to maintain because it wasn't purhcased with our money. The Federal Government still retains control of it's disposition. I am sure we had to enter into a contract agreeing to defray the cost of maintaining it and not holding the federal government responsible for doing it. "
Watchdog Fred wrote on Dec 14, 2008 8:14 PM:
" To: what the wrote on Dec 11, 2008 11:45 PM:
I've ticked off a lot of seconds in my lifetime that is why I recognize a white elephant when I see one. You however, just see a circus with free admission and want to sit back and enjoy the show. There is no such thing as free, you will learn that one day when you've been paying taxes long enough.
Aircraft Carriers are wonderful devices in time of need to, but we don't dispense them to every port in the United States and when we get a good class we don't replace it until it has outlived it's usefulness. Then we cut it up into razor blades and sell it for scrap.
The "Swat Thing" reminds me of the Volkswagon Thing another vehicle just as useless in my opinion. But Adolph Hitler thought it was a wonderful invention. I just don't agree with him. It traveled at the speed of spit, it was ugly and it served no real purpose in life. "
Subscribe Now
Mobile Site
Place an Ad
E-Edition
Email Updates
Obituaries
Classifieds
Find a Job
Find a Car
Real Estate
Contact Us
RSS HanfordSentinel.com