4 ms·

You would expect them to learn after a couple of times that it's not a legit report, so yes 47 times would be entirely police getting played like a bunch of fiv

You would expect them to learn after a couple of times that it's not a legit report, so yes 47 times would be entirely police getting played like a bunch of five year olds. Which I hope you'll agree is not good.

ethanbond 3y ago
That’s not what I’m responding to, obviously. This is what GP said: it is somehow acceptable for police to show up a a residence in full battle gear, when the resident has no criminal record and there is no known probable cause to use such deadly force. Swat should be rarely, if ever used. Instead they're used in more than 90% of these cases. —- All of that is obviously bullshit if you spend 45 seconds thinking about reality. Obviously there is an infinite number of different calls to police that can justify an aggressive, armed, SWAT response to someone previously unknown to law enforcement.
- MeImCounting 3y ago
  No. Cops should not even be carrying deadly weapons of any kind. Maybe tasers. Mayber pepper spray. We have a legal system for a reason. Giving a cop any lethal weapon is passive acceptance that he may circumvent the legal system and put himself in the position of judge jury and executioner. This is wrong and erodes trust in police and the judicial system vastly more than any other issue. No cops should have guns, not "SWAT" team, not beat cops, none.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Got it. Cops responding to e.g. reports of a shooter walking classroom to classroom executing 5th graders should have maybe tasers or pepper spray. Cops responding to e.g. reports of a group of jihadists ambushing restaurants in a crowded European nightlife district: MAYBE tasers and pepper spray! Here in reality, awful stuff happens on a daily basis. Get a grip.
    - amrangaye 3y ago
      What’re you talking about? We’re discussing how in this particular case it would be trivial for the police department to see that this house has been SWATed 47 (!) times, which obviously means there’s something going on. How do you get from that to a school shooter executing students (what a horrible image to use for your argument so it’s based on emotion, and accusing people who disagree with you of being OK with school shootings). There’s place for nuance, esp when guns and lives are involved.
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Because the GGP, to whom I replied, made much broader claims which I’ve already cited above. The more immediate GP doubled down and clarified the (insane) belief that cops should NEVER be armed, except perhaps tasers and pepper spray.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        So to clarify its totally fine for police to act as judge jury and executioner if the crime is bad enough? Screw the whole legal process and the idea of trials, juries and the rule of law generally? At this point why do we even have a judicial apparatus? Just give cops carte blanche to do whatever they see fit, since we dont care about the rule of law anyway.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        No
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        So wait its not good for cops to execute people at will or what? Now I'm confused...
        ethanbond 3y ago
- cycomanic 3y ago
  > All of that is obviously bullshit if you spend 45 seconds thinking about reality. > Obviously there is an infinite number of different calls to police that can justify an aggressive, armed, SWAT response to someone previously unknown to law enforcement. People are really watching too many action movies. There are essentially no scenarios that justify responding to a residential area using essentially military gear. The obvious thing to do is first confirm and assess the situation, no assault rifles needed. The biggest irony is that in the situations where police could have actually used heavy gear to save lifes (Uvalde, note it didn't need to be the initial response either), they rather waited outside not risk any injuries to themselves. Just goes to show they just want to play tough guy in situations with little risk.
pvaldes 3y ago
I have second thoughts about it The real intention of the police could be to respond to each call and swat just to assure that as many charges as possible are accumulated and billed to the culprit later. Everything is reported and recorded so the police actions, that are torturing the victim, also dig the hole deeper and deeper for the criminal. The harm done is obvious and allow asking for damage compensations. At that level of reckless no judge could dismiss it as just child's play. Keep swatting also reward the criminals that are watching. This is not necessarily a bad thing. To keep them engaged and interested on the game is a must for the police, that therefore increase their chances to complete patterns and chase them slowly one by one.

ethanbond 3y ago

That’s not what I’m responding to, obviously. This is what GP said: it is somehow acceptable for police to show up a a residence in full battle gear, when the resident has no criminal record and there is no known probable cause to use such deadly force. Swat should be rarely, if ever used. Instead they're used in more than 90% of these cases. —- All of that is obviously bullshit if you spend 45 seconds thinking about reality. Obviously there is an infinite number of different calls to police that can justify an aggressive, armed, SWAT response to someone previously unknown to law enforcement.

MeImCounting 3y ago
No. Cops should not even be carrying deadly weapons of any kind. Maybe tasers. Mayber pepper spray. We have a legal system for a reason. Giving a cop any lethal weapon is passive acceptance that he may circumvent the legal system and put himself in the position of judge jury and executioner. This is wrong and erodes trust in police and the judicial system vastly more than any other issue. No cops should have guns, not "SWAT" team, not beat cops, none.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Got it. Cops responding to e.g. reports of a shooter walking classroom to classroom executing 5th graders should have maybe tasers or pepper spray. Cops responding to e.g. reports of a group of jihadists ambushing restaurants in a crowded European nightlife district: MAYBE tasers and pepper spray! Here in reality, awful stuff happens on a daily basis. Get a grip.
  - amrangaye 3y ago
    What’re you talking about? We’re discussing how in this particular case it would be trivial for the police department to see that this house has been SWATed 47 (!) times, which obviously means there’s something going on. How do you get from that to a school shooter executing students (what a horrible image to use for your argument so it’s based on emotion, and accusing people who disagree with you of being OK with school shootings). There’s place for nuance, esp when guns and lives are involved.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Because the GGP, to whom I replied, made much broader claims which I’ve already cited above. The more immediate GP doubled down and clarified the (insane) belief that cops should NEVER be armed, except perhaps tasers and pepper spray.
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        So to clarify its totally fine for police to act as judge jury and executioner if the crime is bad enough? Screw the whole legal process and the idea of trials, juries and the rule of law generally? At this point why do we even have a judicial apparatus? Just give cops carte blanche to do whatever they see fit, since we dont care about the rule of law anyway.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        No
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        So wait its not good for cops to execute people at will or what? Now I'm confused...
        ethanbond 3y ago
cycomanic 3y ago
> All of that is obviously bullshit if you spend 45 seconds thinking about reality. > Obviously there is an infinite number of different calls to police that can justify an aggressive, armed, SWAT response to someone previously unknown to law enforcement. People are really watching too many action movies. There are essentially no scenarios that justify responding to a residential area using essentially military gear. The obvious thing to do is first confirm and assess the situation, no assault rifles needed. The biggest irony is that in the situations where police could have actually used heavy gear to save lifes (Uvalde, note it didn't need to be the initial response either), they rather waited outside not risk any injuries to themselves. Just goes to show they just want to play tough guy in situations with little risk.

pvaldes 3y ago

I have second thoughts about it The real intention of the police could be to respond to each call and swat just to assure that as many charges as possible are accumulated and billed to the culprit later. Everything is reported and recorded so the police actions, that are torturing the victim, also dig the hole deeper and deeper for the criminal. The harm done is obvious and allow asking for damage compensations. At that level of reckless no judge could dismiss it as just child's play. Keep swatting also reward the criminals that are watching. This is not necessarily a bad thing. To keep them engaged and interested on the game is a must for the police, that therefore increase their chances to complete patterns and chase them slowly one by one.