The only reason I didn’t kill a policeman some 36 years ago myself is dumb luck and a gap in a curtain. There is no excuse for intentionally creating such dangerous and confusing situations when there are safer alternatives.

What people who say things like this forget is that whether a shootinf is justified has nothing to do with who the shooter and the victim are. It is the circumstances of the shooting that matters. Even if the shooter is a scumbag he might have still been justified in his action.

If you shoot someone in self-defence you do not do so because your attacker deserves to die. If fact he may not, but it might still be necessary in order to protect yourself from serious harm.

A police officer conducting a surprise raid does not deserve to die for it, even if the raid is unjustified. But if he puts a homeowner in fear for his life and the situation had not already become violent, then it is his fault if he gets shot. And in such a case it doesn’t matter whether the homeowner is scum or not.

In a surpise attack on a house police cannot adequately identify themselves. Fearing for one’s life is reasonable under the cirumstances.

Also, your entire argument is premised on the occasional raid that goes sideways and an innocent gets killed

…

you’d rather see cops killed, than scumbags

Notice how the times when an innocent person gets killed is treated as merely “occasional,” but the very rare times when a police officer is killed is treated as somehow commonplace.

Cops like to pretend their jobs are dangerous, but they aren’t particularly so; usually more are killed in motor vehicle accidents than by being shot. Moreover, of the police officers who are shot and killed, virtually none of them are killed while knocking on someone’s door in order to serve an arrest warrant. (Of those killed at people’s residences, most were killed while responding to domestic dispute calls.) (You can find most of the data at the Officer Down Memorial Page.)

You say it’s like we’re making a rule based on an exception, but the point is, we’re making a rule- That rule is that in order for police to conduct a military-style assault, they make some documented showing that the subject of that assault is in fact a violent individual. What you’re arguing for is no rules at all, no basis for when these tactics should and shouldn’t be used, and that’s precisely what most of the libertarians here can’t wrap their heads around.

Funny thing is, I spent a bit of my earlier life wearing body armor, carrying real weapons, and dealing with that “1%” of people looking to kill you if you gave them a chance. When I got back home to the good ol’ USA I remember being astonished to realize that the attitudes I was fighting overseas were represented in police officers. Traffic cops (about 10% of stops I get swaggering jackoffs with their hand on their guns threatening me…they’re always confused when I bite back with a smile. I’ve got the tickets to prove it.), desk jockeys (they usually threaten by proxy “our guys will kick your ass!”), SWAT guys, border control (my old boss’ son in law…not a bad guy, but enjoyed his desert rat appearance a bit too much), even the airport cops (coming back from a trip overseas even my totally oblivious g/f remarked, shocked, on how we were treated like criminals the second we got to the American side) are fascists. I mean that in the basic definition of the term where they believe that massive force and control must be forced on the subjects of government whereas the units of government are sacrosanct.

I don’t intend to raise arms against them, though I swore to defend against domestic enemies and put on a uniform to prevent shit like Guantanamo (god, I still grit my teeth even writing the name of that place). Best I can do right now is talk about what I think is wrong and try to spread the belief…I just don’t know how to be effective, like Radley. I’m also a little concerned about how many lists I’ve made just by posting on sites like this one, but hey.

SWAT team lead, you lost your chance to argue with reason by making blowhard statements backed only by your say so. If you’re not willing to put your name and your record behind what you say so we can pick it apart and devour it (I sincerely doubt you’re clean) then you need cold, hard statistics…not bullshit you believe, but backed by public numbers. Try again with some substance please? I don’t mind the drama and the name calling, but it seems like you’re still reading the thread, so it’s an opportunity to change one of our states of mind.
Of course, you could still be a total troll, but it’s entertaining to feed those once in a while too. Been too long since I wrote out my thoughts in depth.

Don’t you and your team of professional thugs have a town with a population of 547 to ‘protect and serve’? Shouldn’t you just stop barking up the wrong tree? No one here is buying what you’re selling. And never will. We’re evolving, not devolving.

If people think that you are just looking for an excuse to use violence then you have created that impression. “I’d like to put you in a room and toss a flash bang in, and see how much of a mood you’d be in to fight; the only thing you’ll be doing is wiping the feces off your underwear and blood out of your ears.” That sounds like you consider terrifying people to be a pleasant thought. You seem to be revelling inthe power that you have over them. Oh, you say they are scumbags. How do you know? All you have is that they are suspected of some crime. Suspected! You have no business acting on the assumption that they actually are guilty.

You are a polce officer. Dealing out punishments is not your job. You are also not a soldier. Falling for war rhetoric and trying to deal out punishments are refusals to do your job properly.

If you want surprise and disorientation then there is no way to identify yourself properly. You should only seek these things when the situation is already violent or would become violent without your intervention. Not when it could become violent because of your actions.

If you have to seek surprise then you need to use enough force to bring the situation to an end quickly. So much force that you should always question whether it is necessary. You seem far too unconcerned with the effect of that force on people even if no one is physically injured. If you traumatise and terrify an innocent person then you have done them a grave wrong. This should disturb you more than it seems to.

Most people here think that in general evidence preservation is not sufficient reason to run these sorts of risks. Yes,you have anobligation to enforce the law. You also have an obligation to use proportionate means.

And a thing you shoud get rid of is talking in terms of good guys and bad guys. No one who labels himself as a good guy is one. If you focus on labelling people as good or bad then you are likely to not focus on morally evaluating their acts. Right and wrong aren’t sides. We all can do both. Call yourself a good guy and you are likely to think you don’t need to look at your own actions. And this is the path to becoming a bad guy.

Also, your entire argument is premised on the occasional raid that goes sideways and an innocent gets killed

Or what Radley calls an “isolated incident“.

you’d rather see cops killed, than scumbags

If you reread Radley’s post above (not to mention his other stuff), you’d see that he and the rest of us with similar views want less innocent civilians and less cops to die.