Re: would you rather live in a society with a lax police force, or an overzealous one
Which has a huge variety of police forces. I mean, I'm not sure if you've ever moved, but I don't understand how the hell you can say that so broadly and assume they're all alike. Unless you're talking under the theory with the constitution.
Nobody said paramilitary state. I said, clearly, paramilitary police force. There is a difference.
Well, that's probably true. I meant "most people" as in a consensus, not a simple majority, though.
I have to agree with this. However, I'd say people breaking into your house, yelling and screaming, pointing weapons; out of nowhere, is not only grounds enough to assume that they intend to cause you harm, but also more than enough to justify the shooting as accidental, given the confusion such a situation would cause (not to mention, to 70 year old man).
I would agree with that statement if we're talking about someone wandering around your backyard. However, these are hardly cases of shooting first and asking questions later. I don't agree with the use of lethal force in any situation; however it's not exactly as easy to obtain effective non-lethal weapons as just buying a gun, at least where I live; and they aren't always as effective at stopping someone.
I think the better justification would be, why are raids like this needed, compared to much tamer ones (for example, knocking on the goddamn door and seeing if people answer before you tear it down) -- and much, much more importantly, why are such raids able to be conducted with little to no evidence (an anonymous tip, or someone smelling something funny is NOT evidence. Maybe watch the place for a week or two, see if there's any suspicious activity.)
And are the drugs (or whatever other criminal activity) involved really so dangerous that they justify the invasion of people's homes and privacy, and accidental killings of innocent people, more than other alternatives?
I'll agree that police do a better job of stopping crime than causing it in most places (at least in the USA. where bribery is common, all bets are off), but the ends don't always justify the means.
Originally posted by Murphie
View Post
Originally posted by Murphie
View Post
Originally posted by Murphie
View Post
Originally posted by Murphie
View Post
I would agree with that statement if we're talking about someone wandering around your backyard. However, these are hardly cases of shooting first and asking questions later. I don't agree with the use of lethal force in any situation; however it's not exactly as easy to obtain effective non-lethal weapons as just buying a gun, at least where I live; and they aren't always as effective at stopping someone.
Originally posted by Ziero
View Post
And are the drugs (or whatever other criminal activity) involved really so dangerous that they justify the invasion of people's homes and privacy, and accidental killings of innocent people, more than other alternatives?
I'll agree that police do a better job of stopping crime than causing it in most places (at least in the USA. where bribery is common, all bets are off), but the ends don't always justify the means.
Comment