If they want to use SWAT they should have to get a warrant saying so.

Are you being serious?

 

So we expect judges to now be experts in police tactics and determine if one officer or two can go serve a warrant. What if a judge determines four can go, are they allowed to wear vest and carry rifles or do they need special permission for that too.

What does that have to do with police having different equipment.

 

There is a law against having the military on domestic soil. So to avoid that law we stock our police like the military .

Did I once justify an innocent person being harmed? NO, I did not. My point in this entire thread is that police officers need to be prepared for a worse case scenario before things go bad, not retreat when the first two officers get shot and then get prepared. Maybe if you had a child putting there life on the line for people that could care less if he lived or died you would respect the inherent danger involved with law enforcement.

 

Why should police safety supercede a law abiding citizens safety ?

There is a law against having the military on domestic soil. So to avoid that law we stock our police like the military .

 

I can dress you like a clown but it doesn't mean your in the circus.

 

I guess you would prefer police officer to conduct patrols in shorts, tanktops and flip flops carrying a slingshot?

It usually comes down to threat assessment and level of danger to those serving the warrant and the general public. As much as people want to believe police officers are cowboys most of the time they're calculated.

 

I would agree.

Why should police safety supercede a law abiding citizens safety ?

 

Where did I ever say that it did? I just said that police officers doing there duty need to be prepared and properly equipped to be safe.

Police Officers are doing a job most of you could not do and even more of you would not do.

 

I think the rest of us owe it to them to ensure they are given the tools to do that job as safely as possible.

This is unfair (I admit it when I am), but I can't help but remember this from "Die Hard". It is unfair because these guys in the quote were pretty much portrayed as cartoons.

 

FBI Special Agent Johnson: Figure we take out the terrorists. Lose twenty, twenty-five percent of the hostages, tops.

FBI Agent Johnson: I can live with that.

This is unfair (I admit it when I am), but I can't help but remember this from "Die Hard". It is unfair because these guys in the quote were pretty much portrayed as cartoons.

 

FBI Special Agent Johnson: Figure we take out the terrorists. Lose twenty, twenty-five percent of the hostages, tops.

FBI Agent Johnson: I can live with that.

 

And now someone will be quoting this as a quote from a real agent not a fictionalized one...

And now someone will be quoting this as a quote from a real agent not a fictionalized one...

 

Let's hope not.

 

And now someone will be quoting this as a quote from a real agent not a fictionalized one...

 

Oh, for the love of God!

Oh, for the love of God!

 

I didn't think it would be you...calm down...

I can dress you like a clown but it doesn't mean your in the circus.

 

I guess you would prefer police officer to conduct patrols in shorts, tanktops and flip flops carrying a slingshot?

 

You're better than that

Why should police safety supercede a law abiding citizens safety ?

There is nothing law abiding about rioters hurling bricks. One of the officers in Ferguson had an ankle broken by a brick. If it had hit his unprotected head, he might be dead now. A brick or a Moltov cocktail is a deadly weapon when hurled at an innocent target. The police officers in Ferguson are not dressed in riot gear to observe peaceful demonstrations. They are there to try to prevent gangs of racist thugs from destroying their own community. Of course, many of them are out of towners just looking to loot and bust some heads.

My point is that in many of those cases there was no resistance given by the people who were injured/killed. In several of the cases there was little reason to believe that officers were going to be met with violence. Heck, in one of the cases the suspect had already been arrested and they burst in and killed a Grandfather. Using force like that to ensure that evidence doesn't get flushed is only going to ensure that these "accidents" continue to happen--it isn't going to win the war on drugs. It's an accident when you're walking down the street and a piano hits you on the head. It is not an accident when armed men with guns throw stun grenades into a house that they know contains children and people who are not suspects. That is taking a calculated risk. In many cases I don't feel it is warranted--especially when the initial warrant was not a no knock warrant and the police decided to bring SWAT in on their own. If they want to use SWAT they should have to get a warrant saying so.

 

So you want to hamstring the police in how they do their job by having a judge decide police tactics?