Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
So it would be fine just to shoot everyone and arrest no one, wouldn't it? That would offer the quickest result with the least danger to the officer and third parties, and those are the only criteria that matter, according to you.
Security-think, which is what I call the value-set you commonly favor us with here, is basically driven by the criminal = enemy equation, with the instinctive motivation to destroy enemies utterly trumping all other considerations. The ideology concerns itself almost exclusively with technique with the goals of the technique hardly ever questioned, and thus an institutional bias toward brutality becomes codified. The liberal individual rights philosophy embodied in our constitution, that would hold that 'subjects' in the field have rights, and that their welfare matters, is simply off the radar, not a consideration.
I mean, Ike, do you see any drawback to the 'shoot them all' strategy, other than certain hassles with the legacy legal system?
|
Well, this entire diatribe merely highlights a lack of training in the particular field as well as a well codified misunderstanding of how firearms (not nearly as lethal as you might believe), safety (personal and professional), risk (measurement) and legal culpability (exposure) exist in the Real World.
Security-think
is a thing, a thing I favour in warfare, but the fact that officers bother to arrest stands as inherent evidence that it is not utilized as an in-house remedy to crime.
The crux of the matter rests in power to arrest. Once a decision to arrest has been made using a variety of criteria, then doing so as quickly as possible with as little risk evidenced to multiple categories is justified. The more potential risk in the arrest? The more you can bring The Heat(tm). Surrounded by students? Proverbially? Nuke'em. Overwhelm the arrestee. Win. Fast.
That's so easily justified as to not be worth discussing.
Unless you don't believe an arrest necessary after dismissing prior levels of compliance...