I was curious as to whether this violated the second amendment. Apparently not; according to wikipedia, a 2008 ruling noted that:
I was curious as to whether this violated the second amendment. Apparently not; according to wikipedia, a 2008 ruling noted that:
the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"
Gives me an idea though. You can only kill precisely one person as a police officer. After that, you are barred from owning or weilding guns for life. The unarmed police can keep policing, at...
Gives me an idea though. You can only kill precisely one person as a police officer. After that, you are barred from owning or weilding guns for life.
The unarmed police can keep policing, at least till they hit another violation at which time they should be relegated to jobs currently reserved for prisoners...like fighting wildfires.
Replace SWAT with national guard-like unit that gets treated more like the military units they are. Insure even more oversight at a state/national level.
Replace SWAT with national guard-like unit that gets treated more like the military units they are. Insure even more oversight at a state/national level.
The national guard can't be deployed nearly that rapidly. They're reservists, which means most of them have civilian jobs that they can't just abandon within five minutes to run to the armory to...
The national guard can't be deployed nearly that rapidly. They're reservists, which means most of them have civilian jobs that they can't just abandon within five minutes to run to the armory to suit up.
The very point of a SWAT team is that it's usually a pre-planned, military-like deployment. In the cases of protests turned violent, perhaps it should take more than 5 min to deploy military-grade...
In the cases of protests turned violent, perhaps it should take more than 5 min to deploy military-grade riot gear. Again, emphasizing de-escalation over force.
The number of videos showing brutally violent overreactions by police forces is all the evidence needed of that.
The nature of situations where a SWAT team is needed necessitates a rapid response. In most cases that they're activated, the situation is already very bad. Mustering a national guard unit...
The nature of situations where a SWAT team is needed necessitates a rapid response. In most cases that they're activated, the situation is already very bad. Mustering a national guard unit literally takes days. In the case of an active shooter, that's a really, really bad thing.
Barring that the police unions would foam at the mouth and the NRA would be able to come back from bankruptcy on the back of such a decision, it would add a calculus you would not want to add...
Barring that the police unions would foam at the mouth and the NRA would be able to come back from bankruptcy on the back of such a decision, it would add a calculus you would not want to add while dealing with extremely dangerous situations. (And you could probably get better results if you actually let go of the officers racking up the most complaints, long as we're talking fantasy rules.)
Police unions should be dismantled, given the hypocritical nature of them, but yea that's an even bigger fantasy. The NRA, despite an injection of funding, wouldn't have much of a leg to stand...
Police unions should be dismantled, given the hypocritical nature of them, but yea that's an even bigger fantasy. The NRA, despite an injection of funding, wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on....murder is still a felony, we're just giving a lenient sentence. It's a shame about the NRA...they used to be a genuinely good organization, more of a hobbiest club that emphasized gun safety and training and less of the politicized lobbying group.
I'd wager the vast majority of dangerous situations become that way because engaging with lethal force is easier and not properly punished. Having a harsh line (you can defend yourself with force, but it ends your carear in policing) would result in drastically more emphasis on de-escalation.
As far as risk to officer's lives, I've always been of the opinion if they want to tout the 'most dangerous job' moniker, they need to provide hard stats that they're sacrificing themselves in the line of duty as much as they're killing.
I was curious as to whether this violated the second amendment. Apparently not; according to wikipedia, a 2008 ruling noted that:
Gives me an idea though. You can only kill precisely one person as a police officer. After that, you are barred from owning or weilding guns for life.
The unarmed police can keep policing, at least till they hit another violation at which time they should be relegated to jobs currently reserved for prisoners...like fighting wildfires.
Replace SWAT with national guard-like unit that gets treated more like the military units they are. Insure even more oversight at a state/national level.
The national guard can't be deployed nearly that rapidly. They're reservists, which means most of them have civilian jobs that they can't just abandon within five minutes to run to the armory to suit up.
The very point of a SWAT team is that it's usually a pre-planned, military-like deployment.
In the cases of protests turned violent, perhaps it should take more than 5 min to deploy military-grade riot gear. Again, emphasizing de-escalation over force.
The number of videos showing brutally violent overreactions by police forces is all the evidence needed of that.
The nature of situations where a SWAT team is needed necessitates a rapid response. In most cases that they're activated, the situation is already very bad. Mustering a national guard unit literally takes days. In the case of an active shooter, that's a really, really bad thing.
Barring that the police unions would foam at the mouth and the NRA would be able to come back from bankruptcy on the back of such a decision, it would add a calculus you would not want to add while dealing with extremely dangerous situations. (And you could probably get better results if you actually let go of the officers racking up the most complaints, long as we're talking fantasy rules.)
Police unions should be dismantled, given the hypocritical nature of them, but yea that's an even bigger fantasy. The NRA, despite an injection of funding, wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on....murder is still a felony, we're just giving a lenient sentence. It's a shame about the NRA...they used to be a genuinely good organization, more of a hobbiest club that emphasized gun safety and training and less of the politicized lobbying group.
I'd wager the vast majority of dangerous situations become that way because engaging with lethal force is easier and not properly punished. Having a harsh line (you can defend yourself with force, but it ends your carear in policing) would result in drastically more emphasis on de-escalation.
As far as risk to officer's lives, I've always been of the opinion if they want to tout the 'most dangerous job' moniker, they need to provide hard stats that they're sacrificing themselves in the line of duty as much as they're killing.
Anyone care to guess what information he was talking about that would potentially bring the Floyd family peace? That was interesting.