4 ms·
The parent comment asked a rhetorical question implying that FBI officers never died due to being under-equipped. I provided a counter-example, and that event w
by drak0n1c 8y ago
The parent comment asked a rhetorical question implying that FBI officers never died due to being under-equipped. I provided a counter-example, and that event was what motivated a lot of heavier armament in the FBI.
The problem is not that they have equipment, it's that they are incentivized to abuse the entire toolbox for every situation under the sun.
- dmix 8y agoJust because you can find a very weakly related example doesn't make it a good counter-example. If you can find a single example where raiding a corporate office over financial reasons (or basically anything not involving weapons, violent crime, or a dangerous person) required anything beyond a holstered service weapon then I'll be convinced...
- speedplane 8y ago> If you can find a single example where raiding a corporate office over financial reasons (or basically anything not involving weapons, violent crime, or a dangerous person) required anything beyond a holstered service weapon then I'll be convinced... What about raiding a business selling counterfeit goods, like knock-off watches or pharmaceuticals? What about prostitution or sex trafficker rings? It's plausible that given the shady nature of the business, someone may do something stupid.
- kelnos 8y agoThe parent wasn't justifying the behavior, but was pointing out that the escalation in militarization of law enforcement can count the 1986 Miami FBI shootout referenced as one of its causes.