Bad Cop, No Donut Part 2

[...]

You, on the other hand, have no concept of reality, no understanding of the real world. Your comments about the "police state" would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic, so uninformed, and so ridiculously immature. You have no concept of what a police state is .... I do. I've lived in police states, though fortunately, I had a path back home.

[...]
Pardon me for barging into this exchange but I have an increasing interest in the topic and I understand Buck's position.

While it is true the U.S. does not qualify as a police state in the purest academic sense of the term, that argument is rooted in its comparison with such examples as North Korea and most of the former Soviet states wherein a single centralized police agency, KGB, Stasi, et al, directly enforced the arbitrary and incontestable will of a centralized government. But in support of Buck's position it is plainly apparent that certain critical aspects of police state configuration have evolved in our Country within the past three decades as direct and imposing results of the War on Drugs.

One such development has been the virtual abandonment of the Castle Doctrine, which, is manifest in the unnecessary execution of more than one hundred "no-knock," early-morning residential break-ins which take place all across America every day, 365 days a year. Another is the rapidly increasing practice of asset forfeiture, which enables police to arbitrarily seize cash and property of persons arrested for even such petty offenses as marijuana possession. Some of this confiscated loot is divided up and distributed among the cops as bonuses.

So while it's true the U.S. is not emulating the full-blown character of the former East Germany there have been certain critical developments in the policies and general disposition of our civilian law-enforcement agencies which bear sufficient resemblance to things we've read and heard about KGB, Stasi and others to to justify borrowing on the term, police state, if only to more clearly describe what some of us see happening here.
 
Last edited:
First - no-knock warrants.

The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).

They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.

Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.

That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.

Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.

What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.

To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.

One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.

Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
 
[...]

You, on the other hand, have no concept of reality, no understanding of the real world. Your comments about the "police state" would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic, so uninformed, and so ridiculously immature. You have no concept of what a police state is .... I do. I've lived in police states, though fortunately, I had a path back home.

[...]
Pardon me for barging into this exchange but I have an increasing interest in the topic and I understand Buck's position.

While it is true the U.S. does not qualify as a police state in the purest academic sense of the term, that argument is rooted in its comparison with such examples as North Korea and most of the former Soviet states wherein a single centralized police agency, KGB, Stasi, et al, directly enforced the arbitrary and incontestable will of a centralized government. But in support of Buck's position it is plainly apparent that certain critical aspects of police state configuration have evolved in our Country within the past three decades as direct and imposing results of the War on Drugs.

One such development has been the virtual abandonment of the Castle Doctrine, which, is manifest in the unnecessary execution of more than one hundred "no-knock," early-morning residential break-ins which take place all across America every day, 365 days a year. Another is the rapidly increasing practice of asset forfeiture, which enables police to arbitrarily seize cash and property of persons arrested for even such petty offenses as marijuana possession. Some of this confiscated loot is divided up and distributed among the cops as bonuses.

So while it's true the U.S. is not emulating the full-blown character of the former East Germany there have been certain critical developments in the policies and general disposition of our civilian law-enforcement agencies which bear sufficient resemblance to things we've read and heard about KGB, Stasi and others to to justify borrowing on the term, police state, if only to more clearly describe what some of us see happening here.

Well written, well thought out post. Thank you for contributing.
 
First - no-knock warrants.

The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).

They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.

Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.

That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.

Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.

What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.

To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.

One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.

Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.

Escalation of force is not justifiable use of force.
If a cop wants to go home at night (just like the 1,000 + people who cops kill per year would like to do) they need to deescalate, not escalate the situation.

Cops rarely escalate force to "one level above". Most cops go zero to full force simply because they were disrespected; their perceived power/authority was questioned.

"One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation."
It is not the situation they are controlling - it is the human being the cop believes he has authority over the cop is controlling

No knock raids are an indication of a police state, and the U.S. is a police state. Full tilt. It might not be as obvious as in some other countries, but it is a police state none the less. More than 100 no knock raids in any given 24 hour period in the U.S. and most are for victimless crimes. When SWAT kicks in a door (often the wrong door) and flash bangs innocent people, including babies, shooting pets and people - all sanctioned by the government - you live in a police state. More than 99% of the time, there is no reason to kick in a door and cause physical and emotional suffering. Especially when there are children involved. Any sane person would prefer a low level pot dealer flush his weed than have children traumatized by a bunch of arm thugs, dressed as soldiers and armed with military weapons, their faces covered like bandits.

The use of excessive force by cops has been condemned by the United Nations as well as 117 member countries.

This is what happens in no knock raids:

 
[...]

The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).

They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.

[...]
In order to understand why the issue of no-knock, early morning break-ins has prompted the largely metaphorical reference to police state conduct by contemporary American cops one must first understand that the habit of breaking into the homes of Colonials, unannounced and during the early morning hours, by British Regulars was a major provocation for the American Revolution. For those who might not know this, I can recommend some very interesting reading material.

I am old enough to remember when (1940s/50s) the spirit of the Castle Doctrine was taken quite for granted by ordinary Americans. It was generally assumed that for police to break unannounced into the home of a citizen, whether rich or poor, the reason for doing so would necessarily be a life or death matter or something equally extreme. In my recollection such events were newsworthy and extremely rare.

I have personal recollection of the arrest of Willie Sutton, a notorious bank robber, which took place in 1952, two blocks from my home. The police knew where he lived and they staked out his apartment for two full days, arresting him when he stepped out. I recall reading that a judge refused to issue a break-in warrant because the reason for doing that was "not sufficiently exigent." Even though Willie Sutton was Public Enemy Number One at the time and was known to be armed with a Thompson submachine gun.

Today break-in warrants are issued on the mere suspicion of offenses as innocuous as marijuana possession. More than 100 of these no-knock, early morning break-in raids are executed every day, 365 days a year in the U.S.

Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
The fact that these break-ins have been made legal is a major reflection of the perverse effect the utterly failed and wholly counterproductive War on Drugs has had on our Criminal Justice system within the past three decades. As for their "value," considering that the vast majority of these break-ins involve minor drug issues, and that a significant percentage of them involve wrongful deaths and other forms of egregiously wrongful abuse, what "value" are you talking about?

That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Perhaps not in your way of thinking.
 
[...].

What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties.
More correctly, it is the actions of some police performing some duties which serves to convey the police state impression.

I watch the tv ride-along documentary series, COPS, whenever I can.
One thing this series reveals is most of the duties performed by most cops by far involves minor drug "offenses." What this means to me, and to many millions of other respectable, knowledgeable, taxpaying citizens, is this wasteful, victimless, counterproductive, often excessively forceful nonsense is not my idea of useful or honorable law-enforcement activity. And the fact that government is the motivating entity behind this activity is further cause to perceive it as having police state character.
 
First - no-knock warrants.

The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).

They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.

Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.

That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.

Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.

What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.

To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.

One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.

Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.

Escalation of force is not justifiable use of force.
If a cop wants to go home at night (just like the 1,000 + people who cops kill per year would like to do) they need to deescalate, not escalate the situation.

Cops rarely escalate force to "one level above". Most cops go zero to full force simply because they were disrespected; their perceived power/authority was questioned.

"One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation."
It is not the situation they are controlling - it is the human being the cop believes he has authority over the cop is controlling

No knock raids are an indication of a police state, and the U.S. is a police state. Full tilt. It might not be as obvious as in some other countries, but it is a police state none the less. More than 100 no knock raids in any given 24 hour period in the U.S. and most are for victimless crimes. When SWAT kicks in a door (often the wrong door) and flash bangs innocent people, including babies, shooting pets and people - all sanctioned by the government - you live in a police state. More than 99% of the time, there is no reason to kick in a door and cause physical and emotional suffering. Especially when there are children involved. Any sane person would prefer a low level pot dealer flush his weed than have children traumatized by a bunch of arm thugs, dressed as soldiers and armed with military weapons, their faces covered like bandits.

The use of excessive force by cops has been condemned by the United Nations as well as 117 member countries.

This is what happens in no knock raids:




Reality, wherefore art thou?

Your whole approach is skewed. You fail to recognize, or acknowledge, the frailties of the common citizen, and then compound that with ignoring the impact of evil people. you end up with flawed logic like this.

Your willingness to tolerate the evil of crime, while blithely ignoring the need for protective services, has significantly derailed any serious talk about police practices and policies. If, or when, reality ever returns to your neighborhood, we'll talk. Until then .... have a nice day
 
[...].

What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties.
More correctly, it is the actions of some police performing some duties which serves to convey the police state impression.

I watch the tv ride-along documentary series, COPS, whenever I can.
One thing this series reveals is most of the duties performed by most cops by far involves minor drug "offenses." What this means to me, and to many millions of other respectable, knowledgeable, taxpaying citizens, is this wasteful, victimless, counterproductive, often excessively forceful nonsense is not my idea of useful or honorable law-enforcement activity. And the fact that government is the motivating entity behind this activity is further cause to perceive it as having police state character.

Drug offenses are " ... wasteful, victimless, and counterproductive ... "?

Wow. I wonder if we should tell that to all the victims of drug related offenses. They probably didn't know that.
 
Drug offenses are " ... wasteful, victimless, and counterproductive ... "?
Please don't edit and misquote me.

I didn't say the drug "offenses" are wasteful, victimless and counterproductive. I said the related police activities are. If you doubt that I'd like you to tell us what the War on Drugs has managed to achieve over the past four decades in which it has been raging. Because you know as well as I do that drugs are no less available today than they were when Ronald Reagan and his ditzy, quaalude-addicted wife escalated Nixon's folly and transformed American society into a metaphorical police state complete with Prison Industrial Complex with a national prison census greater than all of the actual police states combined!

Wow. I wonder if we should tell that to all the victims of drug related offenses. They probably didn't know that.
The vast majority of victims of drug-related offenses would not be victims if the counterproductive drug war were ended tomorrow and replaced with a sensible system of federally supervised distribution and addiction treatment services.

Even if it didn't work the result couldn't be any worse than the drug war has been -- but it would be a hell of a lot less costly.
 
How we define a police state can be pretty vague. In my opinion, every state is a police state.

However it is exceptionally true in the United States of Terrorism.
 
[...]

No knock raids are an indication of a police state, and the U.S. is a police state. Full tilt. It might not be as obvious as in some other countries, but it is a police state none the less. More than 100 no knock raids in any given 24 hour period in the U.S. and most are for victimless crimes. When SWAT kicks in a door (often the wrong door) and flash bangs innocent people, including babies, shooting pets and people - all sanctioned by the government - you live in a police state. More than 99% of the time, there is no reason to kick in a door and cause physical and emotional suffering. Especially when there are children involved. Any sane person would prefer a low level pot dealer flush his weed than have children traumatized by a bunch of arm thugs, dressed as soldiers and armed with military weapons, their faces covered like bandits.

[...]
Well said!
 
Drug offenses are " ... wasteful, victimless, and counterproductive ... "?
Please don't edit and misquote me.

I didn't say the drug "offenses" are wasteful, victimless and counterproductive. I said the related police activities are. If you doubt that I'd like you to tell us what the War on Drugs has managed to achieve over the past four decades in which it has been raging. Because you know as well as I do that drugs are no less available today than they were when Ronald Reagan and his ditzy, quaalude-addicted wife escalated Nixon's folly and transformed American society into a metaphorical police state complete with Prison Industrial Complex with a national prison census greater than all of the actual police states combined!

Wow. I wonder if we should tell that to all the victims of drug related offenses. They probably didn't know that.
The vast majority of victims of drug-related offenses would not be victims if the counterproductive drug war were ended tomorrow and replaced with a sensible system of federally supervised distribution and addiction treatment services.

Even if it didn't work the result couldn't be any worse than the drug war has been -- but it would be a hell of a lot less costly.

Ok, I got it. You're saying that we shouldn't prosecute drug offenses, because all the prosecutions of drug offenses in the past have not eradicated the problem. Have I got that right? Are you also proposing that we ignore murders, because, after all, prosecutions of murder in the past have not eradicated THAT problem?

We should ignore the impact/harm of drugs on our society?

Police state?? LOL ---- you ain't got a clue what a police state is. Let me tell you some things I've seen in police states. I've seen people shot down in the street simply because they didn't get home from their job before the curfew started (that was South Korea). I've seen a whole family disappear from the face of the earth because the father made an off-hand comment about the government to the wrong person (that was the Soviet Union). I've seen a bartender thrown over the edge of a roof-top bar because he dared to ask the Vice Squad to pay for their drinks (that was the Philippines).

I have witnessed those personally - THAT is what a police state is. Until you see that kind of egregious actions, you ain't seen a police state.

But, clearly, you don't want the police interfering with your 'state'.
 
How we define a police state can be pretty vague. In my opinion, every state is a police state.
The academically correct definition of a police state is something along the lines of the former East Germany or any of the former Soviet satellites in which government laid down the law and the federal police (Stasi, KGB, etc.) enforced it. While it is true the United States does not fit that description, it is also true that certain aspects of that description are absolutely comparable to the academic examples of police state conduct and disposition on the part of some American police officials, thus the increasingly common metaphorical usage.

If you'd care to read about an outstanding example of American style police state activity, Google up the "Waco Massacre."
 
How we define a police state can be pretty vague. In my opinion, every state is a police state.
The academically correct definition of a police state is something along the lines of the former East Germany or any of the former Soviet satellites in which government laid down the law and the federal police (Stasi, KGB, etc.) enforced it. While it is true the United States does not fit that description, it is also true that certain aspects of that description are absolutely comparable to the academic examples of police state conduct and disposition on the part of some American police officials, thus the increasingly common metaphorical usage.

If you'd care to read about an outstanding example of American style police state activity, Google up the "Waco Massacre."



LOL!!!
 
How we define a police state can be pretty vague. In my opinion, every state is a police state.
The academically correct definition of a police state is something along the lines of the former East Germany or any of the former Soviet satellites in which government laid down the law and the federal police (Stasi, KGB, etc.) enforced it.

First off, I have heard more than one scholarly definition of a police state. There is no objective definition for such a relatively recent term.

Anyways, that definition absolutely fits the United States of Terrorism.
 
Ok, I got it. You're saying that we shouldn't prosecute drug offenses, because all the prosecutions of drug offenses in the past have not eradicated the problem. Have I got that right?
Yes. That's what I'm saying.

And you're saying we should continue to waste billions of dollars, create, torment and torture millions of individuals who have harmed no one, to achieve not one iota of productive result. Have I got that right? Or would you like to say drugs are less available today than they were thirty five years ago and usage has been reduced. Would you like to say that?

Dr. Albert Einstein is credited with saying, "Attempting to resolve a problem by repeating the same failed effort over, and over, and over, and over again, endlessly, while expecting a different result, is beyond stupidity. It is in fact one definition of insanity."

We should ignore the impact/harm of drugs on our society?
No.

We should stop banging our collective head against a metaphorical stone wall by abandoning the obviously failed and severely counterproductive law-enforcement approach to the problem. Even if we just decriminalize all recreational drug use the only difference will be the elimination of enormous waste, both in terms of money and in unnecessary human misery.

Portugal did exactly that and thus far the result has been favorable. But I suggest we follow the Swiss and the Netherlands examples and both decriminalize while extending addict treatment and aggressive public education -- which is the way we've managed to reduce cigarette smoking by more than 70% (without arresting anyone).

Police state?? LOL ---- you ain't got a clue what a police state is. Let me tell you some things I've seen in police states. I've seen people shot down in the street simply because they didn't get home from their job before the curfew started (that was South Korea). I've seen a whole family disappear from the face of the earth because the father made an off-hand comment about the government to the wrong person (that was the Soviet Union). I've seen a bartender thrown over the edge of a roof-top bar because he dared to ask the Vice Squad to pay for their drinks (that was the Philippines).

I have witnessed those personally - THAT is what a police state is. Until you see that kind of egregious actions, you ain't seen a police state.

But, clearly, you don't want the police interfering with your 'state'.
You've seen nothing in any of those places the bottom-line effect of which has not been somehow duplicated right here in the U.S. in the name of the drug war. The main difference is the apparent reasons for the actions are different and the physical size of the U.S. is a dozen times greater than those countries you've referenced.

If we could collect every little and every bit element of misery and torment inflicted in the name of the drug war the overall size of the effort would dwarf the size of the collective miseries and torments inflicted by the Gestapo during the rise of the Third Reich -- the ultimate police state.

So I didn't need to ship over for Embassy Duty while in the Corps to know what I'm talking about. It's a reality which isn't hard to learn about and to understand. All it takes is eyes, ears, and a reasoning mind.
 
First - no-knock warrants.

The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).

They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.

Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.

That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.

Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.

What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.

To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.

One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.

Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.

Escalation of force is not justifiable use of force.
If a cop wants to go home at night (just like the 1,000 + people who cops kill per year would like to do) they need to deescalate, not escalate the situation.

Cops rarely escalate force to "one level above". Most cops go zero to full force simply because they were disrespected; their perceived power/authority was questioned.

"One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation."
It is not the situation they are controlling - it is the human being the cop believes he has authority over the cop is controlling

No knock raids are an indication of a police state, and the U.S. is a police state. Full tilt. It might not be as obvious as in some other countries, but it is a police state none the less. More than 100 no knock raids in any given 24 hour period in the U.S. and most are for victimless crimes. When SWAT kicks in a door (often the wrong door) and flash bangs innocent people, including babies, shooting pets and people - all sanctioned by the government - you live in a police state. More than 99% of the time, there is no reason to kick in a door and cause physical and emotional suffering. Especially when there are children involved. Any sane person would prefer a low level pot dealer flush his weed than have children traumatized by a bunch of arm thugs, dressed as soldiers and armed with military weapons, their faces covered like bandits.

The use of excessive force by cops has been condemned by the United Nations as well as 117 member countries.

This is what happens in no knock raids:




Reality, wherefore art thou?

Your whole approach is skewed. You fail to recognize, or acknowledge, the frailties of the common citizen, and then compound that with ignoring the impact of evil people. you end up with flawed logic like this.

Your willingness to tolerate the evil of crime, while blithely ignoring the need for protective services, has significantly derailed any serious talk about police practices and policies. If, or when, reality ever returns to your neighborhood, we'll talk. Until then .... have a nice day


By your own admission, you have worked for the government for decades. I assume you are still working for the government as a 'shill'. Are you? You fit the profile perfectly.
Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt article comment sections
 
How we define a police state can be pretty vague. In my opinion, every state is a police state.
The academically correct definition of a police state is something along the lines of the former East Germany or any of the former Soviet satellites in which government laid down the law and the federal police (Stasi, KGB, etc.) enforced it. While it is true the United States does not fit that description, it is also true that certain aspects of that description are absolutely comparable to the academic examples of police state conduct and disposition on the part of some American police officials, thus the increasingly common metaphorical usage.

If you'd care to read about an outstanding example of American style police state activity, Google up the "Waco Massacre."

I believe the U.S. has been able to disguise their police state operations by actually using the police instead of the military. People are trained to trust the police. The police are always within close proximity to the people. Military isn't. People know the military was the force for the regimes and their police states. Best thing government can do (aside from childhood into adulthood indoctrination) is to educate the people to trust the police then militarize the police, whom the people trust.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top