Background: it's long been known that law enforcement officers (LEOs) are _safer_ on the job than non-LEOs. Only an unfortunate few die in violent encounters with the criminal elements. When LEOs scream about how dangerous their job is, they're almost always asking for a pay raise.
Nonetheless, there was a time in the not-so-remote past when LEOs _consciously__accepted_ the possibility that they might die or be injured on the job. That attitude is fast disappearing.
Once one accepts the analogy that "battling crime" (where any "enemy" is poorly defined; those are civilians out there) is equivalent to warfare (where the enemy is well-defined and no quarter given), then one can almost unconsciously accept a "better him than me" attitude where the civilians' lives are, relative to LEO's, worthless.
The creeping acceptance of warfare's "better him than me" attitude by LEOs and police departments is the root of the problem.
You must live in the comfortable confines of tranquil suburbia americana. Stay there. Don't wake up. Be happy. It's better for you that way. Have another latte.
Like the rest who must escape to reality on a daily basis, I rather have a) My gun with me, and b) A cop by my side.
Making unsupported assumptions about someone usually not only produces incorrect conclusions but is also a poor form of argument. I fail to see how anything you said is relevant to this discussion.
FWIW I live inside a very large US city, am familiar with firearms and have worked in law enforcement for many years.
And now for something supported by the numbers: have you considered the likelihood that the cop by your side shares his/her bed with someone else?
I agree with everything you said. But I'm not following your point of "have you considered the likelihood that the cop by your side shares his/her bed with someone else". What do you mean with that statement?
I read the statement as:
If the dystopian future the gun wielding maniac above is waiting for comes then he must understand that said police officer could potentially have other priorities to protect.
They also have the opportunity to not enter the house.
There is a reason that burglary is dangerous: it invites a confrontation that doesn't have to exist.
I'm not so starry-eyed as to imagine that the cops never need to enter a house forcefully. But they can make this happen at a time and means of their choosing. They can watch to determine how many people are in the house. They can wait for some suspects to leave and detain them individually.
It's easy for me to second-guess from here. But the time to think through all these things is before you go into the house.
I once observed the cops break down a door. They knocked first, several times, loudly, and warned they would enter the house by force, before busting open the door. No grenades or guns were involved. That seems like the right kind of caution when violating a person's home. Yes, sure, in a drug raid that leaves time for flushing things down the toilet, but to me that seems like a reasonable trade-off.
Well sure, but the policy as it stands is to send SWAT into the house in the dead of night. Obviously, we need some sort of policy change.
My comments speculate upon the mindset of those involved in these raids regarding their choice of weapons and gear. They know they are going into a house, that much is given.
I'd appreciate if you'll find a flaw in the following:
1. Officer wants to return home no matter what.
2. He/she decides to use as much firepower as possible to achieve that - 50 cal guns, military grade armor, armored cards, explosives, grenades, rockets, whatever.
3. I have a risk of getting caught in the situation like this. I live in bad neighborhood, my brother sells weed, I had police encounters in the past, whatever.
4. I want to stay home alive.
5. What should I do to achieve #4 if police decided on the escalation of firepower? Logically I can conclude anything besides having thicker armor and higher caliber weaponry?
If someone declares war on you and not poised to take prisoners and determined to kill, what should you do?
Well if you are in the home of someone who deals drugs, then you are placing yourself at risk. To achieve (4), you must either a) move elsewhere or b) cooperate with police to arrest your brother. I'm assuming you are currently not doing anything overtly illegal yourself.
If you do (5), then the police simply bring that shiny new MRAP they got from the DoD and park it in your yard and turn on some spotlights. Then they get on the loudspeaker and have you come out with your hands up. If you fire up your heavy weaponry to oppose them, then you will surely fail to maintain (4).
Remember, this whole thing got started because the police thought they might face armed resistance. If you have a nice paper trail of armor and high caliber weapons leading to your door, then the police will simply bring the proper amount of firepower to assure their success. So, I disagree that escalation of arms gets you anything in the long run regarding this SWAT business.
That makes sense, thanks. I have an issue with 'police thought' though. I was flying through the US airspace once and the plane made a stop at Seattle. We get off the plane, had a snack (and smoke) and then boarded the plane again. I realized shortly afterwards that somebody confiscated my "Knife" magazine (I bought it at the departure airport and the mag was mostly about some survival bullshit and other "tactical" stuff). As I learned (with the help of the crew and reading stuff online later) DHS searches and confiscates "suspicious" items.
Now, do I have a trail or not? What if that magazine was about automatic weapons? Explosives? Controlled substance chemistry? Nuclear physics? Islam? Christianity? Patriotism? Tea party?..oh, shi...
I think that is the mentality they need. I rather have a dead criminal than a dead police officer. Unfortunately, mistakes will always happen, so this OP piece, while unfortunately, will continue to happen. This time it happened to be a baby, which makes matters a lot more terrible for all involved.
Last year 44 police officers were killed violently[1] in the line of duty, and over 400 innocent people were mistakenly killed by the police. I'm not going to complain much about the police shooting violent criminals, but we're well past the stage of worrying about that.
[1] EDIT: Many more are killed in vehicular accidents.
Given the opportunity to wear body armor and carry a rifle when confronting a perceived threat, many will take it.