It's hard to imagine the situation getting much better without greater political change. The Second Amendment has made it very difficult for police to casually come in and slap you around, and that's not a bad thing. However, when they feel that they need to arrest you, well, they're going to bring a veritable army to avoid being causalities...and that's kind of reasonable.
So what has to change? Hopefully, the non-important and trivial laws (i.e. simple drug possession) are no longer enforced. But do concessions have to be made in terms of citizen gun rights? The police would definitely think so.
Meanwhile, while this civic debate goes on, departments are funding these militarized teams. Even if laws are changed so dramatically that these heavy SWAT raids become practically unneeded...you think the middle-managers/deputy-chiefs are going to give up the funds that enlarged their staffing and armories? Or are they going to petition for more trivial laws to enforce?
> The Second Amendment has made it very difficult for police to casually come in and slap you around, and that's not a bad thing.
I couldn't agree more.
> However, when they feel that they need to arrest you, well, they're going to bring a veritable army to avoid being causalities...and that's kind of reasonable.
Are you completely unable to see it from the perspective of an arresting officer? I can imagine not wanting to go arrest certain people without a good amount of backup. I don't think they'd need something like this for most arrests of course, definitely not cc theft, but it's not like the idea is complete without merit.
If everybody tried a little bit harder to see things from the point of view of other folks, we'd have way fewer problems.
> Are you completely unable to see it from the perspective of an arresting officer?
Of course I can see it from the officer's perspective. The officer is perfectly rational in wanted to be well armed and well supported, to increase his own security. But when that officer is deliberately doing what these officers were doing, I value the security of the victims far more than the security of the perpetrators.
If the historical purpose of the second amendment is to have a citizenry capable of defending itself from unjust government force, and the government is increasingly using unjust force; How does it follow that the citizens need to concede anything?
No kidding. There have been cases similar to this (but less dramatic) where the homeowners fired on the un-marked, un-announced police squad, and were (rightly!) vindicated under their states' respective castle or self-defense laws.
What a pointless waste of life. Police need to go back to basics.
> There have been cases similar to this (but less dramatic) where the homeowners fired on the un-marked, un-announced police squad, and were (rightly!) vindicated under their states' respective castle or self-defense laws.
There have? Could you please cite them? In reading the Author's book, mentioned at the end of the article, I was lead to believe that the castle doctrine has pretty much eroded to the point that one has a reasonable sense of privacy in one's own home, buy if you're suspected of illegal activity you basically forfeit that right.
It's not a debate in a vacuum... The problems people have with the Second Amendment often arise from citizen-on-citizen shootings...both the shooting-rampage variety, and the There's-not-enough-money-to-fund-the-police-so-criminals-go-rampant kind.
I'm not saying gun rights should be abolished or limited...I guess I'm just despondently pointing out difficult (and money-based) of an issue it is.
So what has to change? Hopefully, the non-important and trivial laws (i.e. simple drug possession) are no longer enforced. But do concessions have to be made in terms of citizen gun rights? The police would definitely think so.
Meanwhile, while this civic debate goes on, departments are funding these militarized teams. Even if laws are changed so dramatically that these heavy SWAT raids become practically unneeded...you think the middle-managers/deputy-chiefs are going to give up the funds that enlarged their staffing and armories? Or are they going to petition for more trivial laws to enforce?