[amrangaye]

What’re you talking about? We’re discussing how in this particular case it would be trivial for the police department to see that this house has been SWATed 47 (!) times, which obviously means there’s something going on. How do you get from that to a school shooter executing students (what a horrible image to use for your argument so it’s based on emotion, and accusing people who disagree with you of being OK with school shootings). There’s place for nuance, esp when guns and lives are involved.

[ethanbond]

Because the GGP, to whom I replied, made much broader claims which I’ve already cited above. The more immediate GP doubled down and clarified the (insane) belief that cops should NEVER be armed, except perhaps tasers and pepper spray.

[MeImCounting]

So to clarify its totally fine for police to act as judge jury and executioner if the crime is bad enough? Screw the whole legal process and the idea of trials, juries and the rule of law generally? At this point why do we even have a judicial apparatus? Just give cops carte blanche to do whatever they see fit, since we dont care about the rule of law anyway.

[ethanbond]

No

[MeImCounting]

So wait its not good for cops to execute people at will or what? Now I'm confused...

[ethanbond]

Of course it’s not good for cops to “execute people at will.” What are you confused about?

[MeImCounting]

I am confused about what the guns are for if not for killing people.

It seems like you already said you dont believe in just circumventing due process and the judicial system so I am just at a total loss in trying to understand why the police would need guns. Maybe killing dogs?