Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be too blunt, but that's why they call it law enforcement. What's causing all the cognitive dissonance is the fact that law enforcement was summoned inappropriately -- i.e. on a an innocent person in a situation where no laws were broken and no enforcement was needed. If the drug-lord whose assassins raped and killed your sister is confused and groggy in the middle of the night and gets shot accidentally or ev…
I have a huge conflict in my mind. I am a firm believer is due process and equal protection under the law for all. What you are suggesting is far from it, and a far cry from the ideal. SWAT teams, as heavily armored as they are, are still police, serving under the motto of protect and serve. If armor and automatic weapons are necessary to fulfill that goal, so be it. But SWAT teams are fundamentally not an extrajudic…
Nonetheless, and maybe I'm just jaded here, if the police show up anywhere, be it an Occupy protest or a carjacking, there is likely to be mayhem and bloodshed. They're a blunt tool with a single purpose. It's only after the smoke clears and the cuffs are on, that someone gets a formal legal proceeding. Cops always stand between you and a courtroom, in other words. Not sure I like it that way, but that's how it is.