I am in near-perfect agreement with RevDisks' assessment. (Reply #11,
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=53707.msg1094374#msg1094374)
I am not anti-LEO, but I am against all "Special Weapons And Tactics" operations unless there is a hostage/kidnap situation.
I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that would take some doing.
It seems like too often it's a case of "unbending" the rules, such that "Knock and announce" morphs into "Scratch on the door with a gloved fingernail and whisper 'Police, open up'."
And too often police weapons morph into toys.
And yes, there are some ancient legal principles where mere property can be considered "a criminal" in and of itself*, and can be "arrested," but this is another case of The Law being an ass. In and of itself. After all, can mere property hire its own lawyer?
Terry, 230RN
* Note: I read an authoritative monologue by an eminent attorney on this subject quite a while ago which laid out the principles behind this concept, but I cannot recapture it now. While the concept flies in the face of reality, it
is a legal principle on which the "strong-armed robbery" to which RevDisk refers is based.
I sometimes suspect The Law is in a fifth dimension beyond Space and Time. :D