Quote:This is actually pretty simple: when cops screw up with deadly force then innocent people die. Period. The cops should always err on the side of caution for that reason. Otherwise the end result is this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475
Always? No, I disagree.
If it permits, I absolute agree with you. If it's in the middle of a fight / gun battle / etc., then there isn't time to complete the pyramid on use-of-force. It seems as though people are talking about a bunch of different things at once, so it's difficult to keep up with your exact example.
Sometimes, "innocent" people die because they did something that led any reasonable person to fear for their lives. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback everything they do, and it's difficult to accept that the person without a gun created the mess to begin with.
We forget that the cops can be "innocents" too.
Quote:People tend to think of the military as all-obeying robots. If the order ever came down to subjugate their own people, dissent amongst the ranks would quickly abolish it. Ain't gonna happen.
I've never talked to a deputy, officer, Marshall, or otherwise that agreed with the confiscation of weapons. Likewise, I've never talked to one that would enforce the laws thrown down from the White House if it ever got that far. In fact, so many talk about purposefully siding against those that do choose to enforce those laws.
People forget that most of those in LE are actively in favor of protecting civilian's rights.
Quote:I'm not against police being protected, I'm against using them to quell the violence, that's not their role nor responsibility.
That is their purpose. What purpose do they serve? Complete accident reports? These are civilians rioting and often committing crimes that we're talking about. The US military doesn't have the same extensive experience in Due Process or the basic laws that protect the US civilians as those officers. The US military doesn't have jurisdiction over them, either.
Quote:I've never argued to disarm the police, you seem to believe the police can't respond to extremely rare and in some cases events that have never happened without military grade gear. No one's ever launched random pipe bombs and if you knew anything about pipe bomb's you'd know why.
...
We can come up with all kinds of hypothetical threats to society to justify anything, that's a rabbit hole. All these mass shootings you claim as justification for a militarized police force always have one thing in common, they happen in gun free zones in states with heavy legislation against individuals obtaining CWL's. Once again government being armed isn't going to save you, only individuals taking responsibility and being allowed to defend themselves will end the mass shootings.
I'm all for those that carry a weapon on a daily basis. Those are the people I hope come to my aid whenever I'm in a gun battle.
HOWEVER
Do you expect your average Joe to handle explosives? Just a few months ago, a man walked into a FedEx warehouse located in Cobb County (remember the county you claimed to use a military-styled vehicle) and shot 6 people. As he walked around shooting people, he began placing pipebombs throughout the facility. According to witnesses, the man observed responding officer decked out in their military-garb and went ahead and off'd himself. Do you think he would have done the same had he seen a 6-shooter on those officers instead of an A&R 15 and ballistic helmet / vests?
I'm a firm believer that the it's far more likely that you save yourself than any officer. But it's unreasonable to assume that you would ever get a couple dozen licensed gun holders to tactically enter an active shooter scenario (with all their equipment) like those officers did. That happens all the time.