The matter of the militarization of the police is a serious one. None of us like it. However, if there are threats that can only be met with the sort of equipment they’re getting, you only have two choices: you can either respect their intrinsic right to protect themselves, which is identical to your own intrinsic right to do so as an average citizen, or you can actually call in the military. Would that be better, in your view?
I’ve seen no evidence that private property was breached unlawfully. Can you provide some credible evidence that there was? I’ve asked probably two hundred people the same question in the last two days, and so far no one has provided it. Few of them even know what the law is in this regard.
The other stuff is unconscionable where it occurs and must be dealt with strongly. They work for us, so it’s up to us to hold them to account.
These "exigent circumstances" you love to rely on are going to be interpreted more and more broadly by the police.
Will there ever be a point at which you will agree that the police have gone too far?
Or will you continue to rationalize such Tyranny on the basis of it being "settled law?"
I don’t have an opinion on this instance given the lack of information, but my points are generally relevant.
Regarding militarization, the idea of excellence has been traded for capacity at the expense of liberty. The notion of the classic detective, armed, ready, and intelligent is no longer a perceived reality — the remedy today is seemingly tactical, apathetic force.
I’m concerned about the policies that facilitate abuse, not necessarily the individual officer that we at times suspect is indifferent to Constitutional law. The latter can be prosecuted but not if sanctioned by the former.