Quote:
Quote by: Milton Bradley  We both know we are operating on the limited information available in the video. |
Actually, we're not. We know a great deal about the situation from outside the video - the Browns' story made a lot of news.
In particular, we know that the Browns were convicted of several crimes and had been sentenced and asked to turn themselves in. In short - the "state" had already used the nice approach.
We also know they had an arrest warrant - under the 4th Amendment don't forget that warrants CAN be issued upon probable cause. Anti-government types like to say "every" police action is unjustified, but according to the Constitution, the overwhelming majority of them are perfectly justified.
Being convicted of serious crimes and then not showing up for court to be sentenced and taken off to jail is de facto probable cause to issue an arrest warrant.
Quote:
This is precisely what I was criticising, Police protocols, for like the third time now.
I can understand that you disagree, or perhaps even dislike my opinion, but I still have the ability to voice it.
|
Well, maybe people would stop criticizing your opinion if you told us, in your infinite knowledge of perfect arrest tactics, HOW the police should have taken the Browns into custody.
Quote:
|
Well, that's probably true, however my intentions would be made absolutely clear, as one would expect on private property in a free society. Particularly when we are talking about the alleged "authories", whom you guys always say it is futile to fight, because of their technological superiority.
|
The tactics they used were with the intent of taking two people into custody without injury to anyone involved, and they accomplished that goal.
Quote:
|
See, this is why they do not have my respect, because not only do you have to understand the concept of respect, but you have to give a little, to get a little. They give none, so they shall get none.
|
Excuse me??? They DID respect the Browns. That's why they didn't just run in, guns blazing, and kill them. The government respected their abilities enough to be concerned that if they went in with a show of force, people would get hurt, and despite the fact that the Browns were flaunting the laws by their actions, the police were careful. They finally took them into custody using no force whatsoever, by posing as supporters and gaining entrance. What would you have suggested they do???
In this instance, the government gave the Browns every chance to resolve things peacefully and also gave them more than a fair crack at due process. The Browns, on the other hand, flouted the law at every turn and acted like their criminal behavior was some kind of "movement". Who was lacking in respect??????
Anti-government whiners like you just want any excuse to complain about government actions. When the government takes criminals into custody using swift decisive action (which often includes force), you complain about heavy-handedness. When they are careful and take people into custody after completely assessing the situation, you complain about "sneaky" tactics... Give me a break...
(This of course only applies to "causes" they agree with. As soon as people like this see something like a homeless man rummaging through their garbage they are on 911 screaming that the police don't respond quickly enough, because of course that is another opportunity to complain about "government")