A whole lot more than there are now. As Mr. Tucille says, law enforcement is an army of occupation, it’s time we start playing our part in return. All Hail The Maquis.

The government would, of course, oblige, in that doing so would give it more power to intrude into the daily lives of citizens while offering the excuse that it was trying to ‘protect’ them in doing so…as the terror escalates.

The increase in repressive laws and actions, combined with ineffectiveness of those laws and actions in halting the terrorism, would then become so odious that the people would themselves throw off the yoke of the present government and create a government more closely aligned to the original aims of the terrorists. Or so the thinking went.

One might also say something similar is happening with the DrugWar; the more detestable the actions of those engaged in fighting it become to the ‘beneficiaries’ of their efforts, the more there is a demand to finally give the DrugWar the honest appraisal it has thus far avoided because of the emotion-laden propaganda that shields it from that appraisal, which usually goes like this:

Drug law reformer: “Let’s debate the usefulness of the War on Drugs.”

Drug prohibitionist: (wild-eyed, screaming, hands raised to Heaven) “What about the chil-drunnnnnn? Don’t you care about the chil-drunnnnn?”

So…by using the concepts of terrorism as espoused by its’ original adherents, one could indeed say that the police are indeed acting in the role of terrorists. They will force the changes that are so badly needed…one wrong-house raid and one 2nd Amendment believing homeowner defending against such at a time. Ironic, no?

-1- Violent searches are inherently unreasonable, unless one can demonstrate a reasonable belief that such tactics will reduce the risk of harm to innocents (e.g. in a hostage situation).

-2- Cops and government agents are required to act in such a fashion that no reasonable person could mistake them for criminals who threaten bodily harm. If a cop gets injured or killed because a person reasonably believed him to be a criminal who intended bodily harm, the cop would be to blame for his failure to avoid acting like a crook.

-3- All requests for searches, etc. by government agents shall be presumed coercive in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

While the Constitution doesn’t spell things out in such precise detail, I find it hard to imagine that the Founding Fathers would have meant anything else. James Madison et al. refrained from putting things into such explicit detail because (1) it was obvious that for the ‘oath’ requirement to be meaningful, the testimony must involve personal knowledge; (2) he probably didn’t predict that the government would try to distort the clear intended meanings of words; (3) if judges are willing to ignore the clear meanings of words, no level of linguistic precision will stop them.

This then leads to the questions: (1) If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, can a warrant which is issued contrary to it have any legitimacy? (2) If a government agent breaks into someone’s home, absent exigent circumstances, and absent what he reasonable believes to be a legitimate warrant (see above), how is that person not a burglar or robber?

So you have bigger raiding forces, you have more forceful entries, you have more ‘surprise’, more flimsy justifications for getting in the battle gear and pushing people around.

And as we’re seeing, ‘thuggy see, thuggy do’. The bad guys pretend to be cops. Doesn’t this kinda point out to the cops ‘hey, we’re acting like criminals?’ You’d think it would, but I doubt the connection is made.

Wait. Shouldn’t we be pleased that the guys who bust down our doors and terrorize us have at least standardized on the same uniform?

That’s something. The primary difference I see (and that Ryan Frederick is experiencing) is that when the criminals leave your house, the terrorizing is over.

Agreed. How many innocents and police need to die or have lives destroyed before the LEOs committing these raids realize they are a bad idea?

You risk death if you submit and it turns out they were only pretending to be cops
You still risk death if you submit and it turns out they actually were cops (they have a lot of accidents)
You’re a felon if you resist sucessfully and it turns out they were cops
You’re dead if you resist unsucessfully and it turns out they were cops

Why are those we pay to protect (and serve) us requiring we be defenseless and subjecting us to home invasions? Why do they still try to kill us after their bungles are over?

I know this because we apply the laws equally in this great land of ours and police get no special protection under the laws.

Yeah either that, or the person will be viewed as a hero and any idea of charges will be done away with in a few days.