to piss people off.
Second, police response to the law in question. A SWAT team is like a military unit. You can moan all you want about the militarization of the police and all of that but your tears will not change a thing. Get used to that theme, BTW. When I was on SWAT our view is that "We will always win....even if we have to burn down your entire house by bombing it....we will win". Losing is not an option. That again is reality....to expect less once the event kicks off is simply stupid. Period.
Found this over at Two-Four. And isn't it a fine example of "Screw being a peace officer, I'm an infantry grunt in enemy territory" attitude?
Which, by the way, makes pretty much anybody not a cop 'the enemy', doesn't it? I will leave off the various criticisms and comments I could make; you know them and if the author ever sees this, he wouldn't care. I'm undoubtedly in his '1776 type' and we all hate the cops, don't we(ignore everything I've ever written, that doesn't count)?
The quote that comes up at times from Battlestar Galactica is
"There's a reason we separate military and the police: one fights the enemy of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
And when the police become military? The same seems to be true.
Update: should have mentioned, what this idiot reminded me of was the Philadelphia Police raid on the MOVE nuts; they actually did bomb the house
A police helicopter then dropped a four-pound bomb made of C-4 plastic explosive and Tovex, a dynamite substitute, onto the roof of the house.
11 dead, and the whole damn block burned down. I wonder if the clown above considers that appropriate, or possibly a slight overreach?
And, of course, No one from the city government was charged criminally.
A commission that investigated found that Goode and two other officials, police commissioner Gregore Sambor and fire commissioner William Richmond, had been "grossly negligent." The deaths of the MOVE children "appeared to be unjustified homicide," it said. Police had not taken them out of the house when they had the chance. They had used excessive force in firing 10,000 rounds of ammunition into the house. The plan to drop explosives was "reckless" and "unconscionable." And they let the fire burn until it was too late to control.
4 comments:
When I was on SWAT our view is that "We will always win....even if we have to burn down your entire house by bombing it....we will win".
The more that attitude spreads, the more people are going to say, OK, your department may win — but at least one of you will die in every engagement. We may die too, but there's far more of us than you, and a lot of us have read our Solzhenitsyn. ["How we burned in the camps...."]
Solzhenitsyn also wrote in "a day in the life of...", that the atmosphere in the camp had changed for the better after a few guards had been found with their throats cut.
Regarding jack booted invaders;
Churchill proposed to launch the slogan: ‘You can always take one with you’
AJP Taylor, English History 1914-45
Stolen from here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/wars_conflict/home_front/the_home_front_13.shtml
Good post, good comments. "Burn your house down" reminds me of the siege of the house in Los Angeles where the Symbionese Liberation Army were cornered waaaaay back in 1974 (which, being before many cops were born makes it irrelevant to their pyromanical enforcement urges today, I guess). That house was not owned by any of the deceased at the time of its incineration, so the "your" is both rhetorical and incendiary (sorry).
Certain of these attitudes seem directed towards occupying the territory in order to subdue it. I guess the Third Amendment may not be such a dead letter after all.
What came to my mind was the MOVE raid in Philadelphia in 1985; the morons DID firebomb the house they were in; along with all the bodies, they burned the whole damn block down.
I need to add that to the post
Post a Comment