LB you talk about the loss of one innocent life and I agree the loss of any life is a tragedy. Do you feel the same way about abortion or are you more of a pro-choice guy?

 

Pro-life. You must of missed some of Clyde's and myselfs epic battles. Also why I'm against the death penalty in almost all cases.

 

The Cato institute has estimated atleast 40 innocent victims have died due to no knock warrants during this spike. You guys will say % wise that it doesn't matter. I would counter your argument that one innocent life lost in raids that could be redesigned is to many. That is fine because you are in LE you want to continue to give your brothers a pass and not talk about solutions.

 

In a different topic just a few weeks ago we discussed an innocent man getting shot in his own drive way because police approach the street and didn't identify themselves to the neighborhood. I was told they did this for the saftey of the officer. Every time I hear about instances like that or No Knock Warrants. It always come back to the saftey of the officer first and the saftey of the innocent civilian second.

 

Your reasons for saying I don't understand are hilarious and shows how feable your mind is, and it makes me laugh. The reason I don't like No Knock warrants is because it leaves little room for any error. If an officer has the wrong address , wrong apartment etc... there is no way to correct it because they do not identify themselves. Just like the death penalty if one innocent person is harmed using this barbaric tactic then it needs to be changed. One innocent victim does not justify successful raids.

 

During the spike 40 people have died? How long of a time period is that? While each death is tragic and awful, I expected it to be more. Because like I've said a million times, police are human after all. And humans make mistakes. Even doctors...

 

This article estimates around 200k people EVERY YEAR are killed because of a mistake made by a doctor. Where's the outrage? That's a heck of a lot more than 40.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/opinion/more-treatment-more-mistakes.html?_r=1&

Pro-life. You must of missed some of Clyde's and myselfs epic battles. Also why I'm against the death penalty in almost all cases.

 

Kinda goes against most of your other positions but good to see.

Around 150 +/- Law Enforcement Officers are killed or die in the line of duty each year, statistically there is a much better chance of a LEO being killed on duty than them killing an innocent person.

 

LEO's do a job that most people couldn't do and even less would do. They are the line between a free and open society and the lawlessness seen in many third world countries.

 

So back to the title of the thread I think we as a society owe it to them to give them what ever equipment is needed to ensure their safety and that they go home at the end of their shift.

The Cato institute has estimated atleast 40 innocent victims have died due to no knock warrants during this spike. You guys will say % wise that it doesn't matter. I would counter your argument that one innocent life lost in raids that could be redesigned is to many. That is fine because you are in LE you want to continue to give your brothers a pass and not talk about solutions.

 

In a different topic just a few weeks ago we discussed an innocent man getting shot in his own drive way because police approach the street and didn't identify themselves to the neighborhood. I was told they did this for the saftey of the officer. Every time I hear about instances like that or No Knock Warrants. It always come back to the saftey of the officer first and the saftey of the innocent civilian second.

 

Your reasons for saying I don't understand are hilarious and shows how feable your mind is, and it makes me laugh. The reason I don't like No Knock warrants is because it leaves little room for any error. If an officer has the wrong address , wrong apartment etc... there is no way to correct it because they do not identify themselves. Just like the death penalty if one innocent person is harmed using this barbaric tactic then it needs to be changed. One innocent victim does not justify successful raids.

 

Feeble mind? Seriously? Continue to post others thoughts and pass them off as you're own, but spare me this free pass crap. Go check the thread and see if I gave them a pass, I'll wait. "If one life is saved" is equals to sensational journalism. It's a cheap statement meant to play on emotions. I can guarantee a lot more officers have been killed serving "knock warrants." Like I said and it's not an insult, that you are uneducated on this topic.

 

I guess in your mind Dr's are less accountable? Is an officers life less valuable?

Feeble mind? Seriously? Continue to post others thoughts and pass them off as you're own, but spare me this free pass crap. Go check the thread and see if I gave them a pass, I'll wait. "If one life is saved" is equals to sensational journalism. It's a cheap statement meant to play on emotions. I can guarantee a lot more officers have been killed serving "knock warrants." Like I said and it's not an insult, that you are uneducated on this topic.

 

I guess in your mind Dr's are less accountable? Is an officers life less valuable?

 

LE signs up for the job knowing the risk. An innocent civilian who loses their life due to a police mistake did not make any choice. It's very simple.

 

Passing off others idea? Really? You can't attack the message again attack me. It is becoming quite sad to see you attempt to debate. Anytime someone researches a topic their opinions are influenced by that research. When it comes to economics I'm a Milton Friedman disciple. But because a majority of my ideas are influenced by him it does not make my points any less relevant.

 

I'm just of the belief that the innocent civilians life should be priority #1.

LE signs up for the job knowing the risk. An innocent civilian who loses their life due to a police mistake did not make any choice. It's very simple.

 

Passing off others idea? Really? You can't attack the message again attack me. It is becoming quite sad to see you attempt to debate. Anytime someone researches a topic their opinions are influenced by that research. When it comes to economics I'm a Milton Friedman disciple. But because a majority of my ideas are influenced by him it does not make my points any less relevant.

I'm just of the belief that the innocent civilians life should be priority #1.

I think all of Law Enforcement would agree with you on the Bolded. However the fact that there have been errors or mistakes should not mean that Law Enforcement or Society forgo trying to apprehend those that chose to break our laws.

 

As you have pointed out there have been many errors and mistakes, but that's exactly what they are...errors and mistakes. It is not a systematic plan to go out and kill, arrest or even harm innocent civilian's on the part of the police or even government...if that was the case I would be right beside you. Surely none off you are saying that police are intentionally serving warrants at the wrong address, or intentionally arresting the wrong person as part of some master plan are you?

 

The weapons that they carry and the equipment they use has all came about from hard earn lessons. Lessons written in the blood of our law enforcement community. Until 1970 about 95% of law enforcement carried 6 shot revolvers, then in April of that month in Newhall California when 4 CHP officers were shot and killed by men with superior fire power. From that time forward departments began to switch to semi auto pistols...that is just one of 100's of cases where LEO's were not equipped with sufficient equipment and paid the ultimate price.

You should stick to economics. Are Dr's less accountable? They seem to kill more people than SWAT teams. It's not an attempt to debate. I poked holes in your theories by pointing out most search warrants aren't done by SRT, thousands of warrants go off without a hitch, soooooo many criteria even have to be met when even using a SRT team, tell you to go find where I "gave a pass" to anyone who shot the guy. In his driveway, etc and what do I get? An insult about my "feeble mind." In my experience, those who keep throwing up their education IE. "when it comes to economics, I'm a Milton Friedman disciple", are over compensating. I'm still scratching my head about why you keep bringing up economics in this topic and how it applies to your knowledge of SWAT team protocol...:lol2:

 

I may not have completed my masters yet, but I assure you I'm no fool ESPECIALLY when it comes to this.

As to your last question:

 

Armored truck patrolling community after break-ins | www.wsbtv.com

 

"It's a bit much. It's not Afghanistan," Hunter said.

Officers said the equipment is essential in their war on crime

 

NH Police Acquisition of Military-Style Vehicles Raises Questions | New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union

 

Concord Police Department’s application to Homeland Security for a $258,000 armored BearCat vehicle. The application cites non-violent groups—such as the Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire—as justification for needing the armored vehicle, asserting that New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism “slants primarily towards the domestic type” and that “the threat is real and here” . New Hampshire cities of Manchester and Keene have already acquired similar vehicles.

 

Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons - The Daily Beast

 

North Dakota’s largest city has averaged fewer than two homicides a year since 2005, and there’s not been a single international terrorism prosecution in the last decade.

But that hasn’t stopped authorities in Fargo and its surrounding county from going on an $8 million buying spree to arm police officers with the sort of gear once reserved only for soldiers fighting foreign wars

 

Every city squad car is equipped today with a military-style assault rifle, and officers can don Kevlar helmets able to withstand incoming fire from battlefield-grade ammunition. And for that epic confrontation—if it ever occurs—officers can now summon a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret. For now, though, the menacing truck is used mostly for training and appearances at the annual city picnic, where it’s been parked near the children’s bounce house

 

A soldiers role is to go to war, destroy and kill the enemy. A police officer's role is not.

 

Only one of the examples cites the police actually using the armored vehicle to patrol. And if you read on you find out why...

 

It was last week when a woman was shot multiple times after two invaders broke into her home on Estonian Drive.

Police tried to stop the burglars as they drove away in a stolen car just after midnight, but they jumped out and ran into some woods and got away.

Officers said the Bearcat, as it's named, is equipped with thermal imaging to help them see in the dark.

 

"In the event we get into another foot pursuit with these suspects the probability of us catching them is greatly increased,” Fulton County police Capt. Wade Yates said.

 

The other two links just talk about the departments buying equipment. If either said they were patrolling while in full swat gear driving the armored truck then I missed it.

You should stick to economics. Are Dr's less accountable? They seem to kill more people than SWAT teams. It's not an attempt to debate. I poked holes in your theories by pointing out most search warrants aren't done by SRT, thousands of warrants go off without a hitch, soooooo many criteria even have to be met when even using a SRT team, tell you to go find where I "gave a pass" to anyone who shot the guy. In his driveway, etc and what do I get? An insult about my "feeble mind." In my experience, those who keep throwing up their education IE. "when it comes to economics, I'm a Milton Friedman disciple", are over compensating. I'm still scratching my head about why you keep bringing up economics in this topic and how it applies to your knowledge of SWAT team protocol...:lol2:

 

I may not have completed my masters yet, but I assure you I'm no fool ESPECIALLY when it comes to this.

 

First you have yet to have a point except every who disagree's with you is wrong and none of us understand.

 

Second thank you for the point on Doctors proves my point even more. When you have a procedure done the doctor lets you no the risk invovled. If the doctor had malpractice he will be sued and lose in the court of law. With swat raids when the police do not announce their presence innocent civilians are not warned of any risk invovled. Even more so it's a lot less likley for a civilian to win any complaint against an officer whether it be criminal or civil is much more unlikley than a civilian winning against a doctor.

 

Another problem I have with how Swat teams are used these days. Are these pranks calls called "swatting", some moron calls in a threat on a homeowner who has no clue whats going on and puts a lot of people in harms way because there is little verification done before police are on the scene. I don't know think anyone has died from a "swatting" call yet but the increased calls and some of the situations people have been put it does concern me. I don't think that is a crazy concern.

 

Also why did I bring economics up? Well sir that is what people call an analogy. Economics isn't the topic but I was using an example of how other people site opinions and idea on this site through links.

 

Last but not least would I classify myself as a SWAT team expert, by no means. But I'm educated enough and done enough research to form an opinion and have some concern. You may not like my opinion or agree with my opinion . But it has validity .

I think all of Law Enforcement would agree with you on the Bolded. However the fact that there have been errors or mistakes should not mean that Law Enforcement or Society forgo trying to apprehend those that chose to break our laws.

 

As you have pointed out there have been many errors and mistakes, but that's exactly what they are...errors and mistakes. It is not a systematic plan to go out and kill, arrest or even harm innocent civilian's on the part of the police or even government...if that was the case I would be right beside you. Surely none off you are saying that police are intentionally serving warrants at the wrong address, or intentionally arresting the wrong person as part of some master plan are you?

 

The weapons that they carry and the equipment they use has all came about from hard earn lessons. Lessons written in the blood of our law enforcement community. Until 1970 about 95% of law enforcement carried 6 shot revolvers, then in April of that month in Newhall California when 4 CHP officers were shot and killed by men with superior fire power. From that time forward departments began to switch to semi auto pistols...that is just one of 100's of cases where LEO's were not equipped with sufficient equipment and paid the ultimate price.

 

We aren’t talking about systematic policies to intentionally harm citizens, but we are talking about systemic policies that have resulted in the harm of citizens and greater infringements on liberties. We shouldn’t simply tolerate these things because they can be chalked up to errors or externalities of making officers safer. In a free society, much of what makes officers safer or their jobs easier comes at the expense of the liberties of the citizens and is more than fair game for discussion and criticism. The job of the police is of course very dangerous and also extremely necessary. But, safeguarding liberties is also extremely necessary. Unfortunately, many brave and noble professionals are caught at the nexus of this security-liberty tradeoff. Yet it is still the right and even duty of the public to criticize these policies and trends when they find that the scale tilts too far away from liberty.

 

The problem with these militarized tactics isn’t that officers are better protected and safer in their duties. I don’t think any rational person is against this. The problem is, again, that militarized excesses come at the expense of the rights and privileges of free citizens. The problem isn’t that we have police fitted to capably fight back against heavily armed bank robbers, as many have used this case as an example of the need to better equip the police. The problem is that this “militarization” isn’t simply used for defensive purposes, but has in many cases replaced traditional police work with often destructive results, as others have cited. I don’t believe there would be cause for concern if the stories we were seeing were of the police successfully stopping heavily armed robbers instead of botched or unnecessarily deadly raids.

 

I know many will argue that these tactics are necessary in order to stop crime or that the rights of criminals shouldn't matter, but I implore you to think differently about this. There is a very good reason this country saw fit to protect the rights of the accused and place the burden of proof on the government in criminal cases: there would be no restraint on the power and authority of the government if it merely had to accuse someone of a crime to violate their rights. This ties directly into the idea that the “militarization” of police is problematic in that it implies that the public is a battle zone, citizens are enemies, and the police are at war and thus anything is allowable. This is not how things work in a free society. This is why people are weary of departments buying drones or armored vehicles, SWAT raids increasing 1500% in two decades, police in military garb sent to monitor protests, martial law, etc. Police are citizens and citizens are not enemies. Stories just like those posted in this thread are published frequently and they are excused simply because the police were after someone they suspected was involved in a crime. As a citizen, I am not satisfied with that justification, this trend, nor people being maligned for raising skepticism of these policies.

We aren’t talking about systematic policies to intentionally harm citizens, but we are talking about systemic policies that have resulted in the harm of citizens and greater infringements on liberties. We shouldn’t simply tolerate these things because they can be chalked up to errors or externalities of making officers safer. In a free society, much of what makes officers safer or their jobs easier comes at the expense of the liberties of the citizens and is more than fair game for discussion and criticism. The job of the police is of course very dangerous and also extremely necessary. But, safeguarding liberties is also extremely necessary. Unfortunately, many brave and noble professionals are caught at the nexus of this security-liberty tradeoff. Yet it is still the right and even duty of the public to criticize these policies and trends when they find that the scale tilts too far away from liberty.

 

The problem with these militarized tactics isn’t that officers are better protected and safer in their duties. I don’t think any rational person is against this. The problem is, again, that militarized excesses come at the expense of the rights and privileges of free citizens. The problem isn’t that we have police fitted to capably fight back against heavily armed bank robbers, as many have used this case as an example of the need to better equip the police. The problem is that this “militarization” isn’t simply used for defensive purposes, but has in many cases replaced traditional police work with often destructive results, as others have cited. I don’t believe there would be cause for concern if the stories we were seeing were of the police successfully stopping heavily armed robbers instead of botched or unnecessarily deadly raids.

 

I know many will argue that these tactics are necessary in order to stop crime or that the rights of criminals shouldn't matter, but I implore you to think differently about this. There is a very good reason this country saw fit to protect the rights of the accused and place the burden of proof on the government in criminal cases: there would be no restraint on the power and authority of the government if it merely had to accuse someone of a crime to violate their rights. This ties directly into the idea that the “militarization” of police is problematic in that it implies that the public is a battle zone, citizens are enemies, and the police are at war and thus anything is allowable. This is not how things work in a free society. This is why people are weary of departments buying drones or armored vehicles, SWAT raids increasing 1500% in two decades, police in military garb sent to monitor protests, martial law, etc. Police are citizens and citizens are not enemies. Stories just like those posted in this thread are published frequently and they are excused simply because the police were after someone they suspected was involved in a crime. As a citizen, I am not satisfied with that justification, this trend, nor people being maligned for raising skepticism of these policies.

 

Wow. You worded it much better than me. Great Post!

Lipton, you've posted your concerns. What is your solution? No more police raids? No more search warrants without calling ahead first? What?

 

Here's the deal. Crap happens. Unless your ready to give cops nothing but a whistle innocent people will be killed by mistake. You guys continue to post articles about raids gone bad but whats the time period these stretch over? How many innocent people are killed each year from bad raids? I know the PC thing to say is 1 is too many but if you think 0 is ever going to happen your living in lala land. I'm not trying to be disrespectful but it is the cold hard truth.

We aren’t talking about systematic policies to intentionally harm citizens, but we are talking about systemic policies that have resulted in the harm of citizens and greater infringements on liberties. We shouldn’t simply tolerate these things because they can be chalked up to errors or externalities of making officers safer. In a free society, much of what makes officers safer or their jobs easier comes at the expense of the liberties of the citizens and is more than fair game for discussion and criticism. The job of the police is of course very dangerous and also extremely necessary. But, safeguarding liberties is also extremely necessary. Unfortunately, many brave and noble professionals are caught at the nexus of this security-liberty tradeoff. Yet it is still the right and even duty of the public to criticize these policies and trends when they find that the scale tilts too far away from liberty.

 

The problem with these militarized tactics isn’t that officers are better protected and safer in their duties. I don’t think any rational person is against this. The problem is, again, that militarized excesses come at the expense of the rights and privileges of free citizens. The problem isn’t that we have police fitted to capably fight back against heavily armed bank robbers, as many have used this case as an example of the need to better equip the police. The problem is that this “militarization” isn’t simply used for defensive purposes, but has in many cases replaced traditional police work with often destructive results, as others have cited. I don’t believe there would be cause for concern if the stories we were seeing were of the police successfully stopping heavily armed robbers instead of botched or unnecessarily deadly raids.

 

I know many will argue that these tactics are necessary in order to stop crime or that the rights of criminals shouldn't matter, but I implore you to think differently about this. There is a very good reason this country saw fit to protect the rights of the accused and place the burden of proof on the government in criminal cases: there would be no restraint on the power and authority of the government if it merely had to accuse someone of a crime to violate their rights. This ties directly into the idea that the “militarization” of police is problematic in that it implies that the public is a battle zone, citizens are enemies, and the police are at war and thus anything is allowable. This is not how things work in a free society. This is why people are weary of departments buying drones or armored vehicles, SWAT raids increasing 1500% in two decades, police in military garb sent to monitor protests, martial law, etc. Police are citizens and citizens are not enemies. Stories just like those posted in this thread are published frequently and they are excused simply because the police were after someone they suspected was involved in a crime. As a citizen, I am not satisfied with that justification, this trend, nor people being maligned for raising skepticism of these policies.

Response to the bolded above:

 

What systematic policy in law enforcement has taken away your rights?

 

How does a police department having up to date weapons and equipment (or militarized excesses) take away your "rights and privileges?"

 

Police make thousands arrest of dangerous armed criminals everyday, and 99% of those arrest are not made by "Militarized SWAT Teams"

 

It only implies what you think it implies, you see it as some sort of military build up. I and many others do not see it that way.

Police have worn riot gear for years to large protest for over 60 years...no changes it is common procedure to be prepared if and when a protest erupts into something more.