It seems the United States has managed to evolve the term "police state" into something new: in the traditional form the police are the enforcement arm of a political power. In the current United States, the police are seemingly beholden to no-one (I include district attorneys as part of that mechanism).
For lack of a better term, American police forces now operate largely 'extra-state'.
You could draw a parallel to a state overrun by terrorist groups, with a government that doesn't want to intervene for political reasons, and a public so terrorized out of its mind that it feels the safest thing to do is to not make eye contact.
> public so terrorized out of its mind that it feels the safest thing to do is to not make eye contact.
My goodness! I shuddered to note that this is not only very true but also almost unstoppable at the moment. Unless a miracle of unity comes by, that brings people together.
Acting so nonchalantly about it certainly doesn't help that fact. OP is right to get pissed off about it, it's an unbelievable injustice that is surpassed only by the magnitude of the failure of those in power who don't do anything about it.
This is a symptom of the ends-justify-the-means attitude that police departments around the US are fostering (along-side the holier-than-thou attitude), and one of the ways of showing them that it's unacceptable is by getting pissed off enough to do something about it.
It's a nasty little feedback loop. Law enforcement displays force, people who use words like "statist" increase their arsenals and their desire to use them against what they see as illegitimate government, law enforcement feels it needs more force, people use angrier rhetoric and buy more guns.
If you believe strongly that the government is an out-of-control terroristic undemocratic police state and We The People are divinely endowed with the right to bear arms against it (like so many people in this thread do), then you must recognize that an agent of that state would be taking an incredibly stupid risk by entering your home in a way that would give you an opportunity to shoot first.
Maybe you think that risk is the price of doing business with an unjust institution, but the officer serving a warrant against you probably doesn't.
There is just no truth to what you're saying at all, and it's hard for me to even know how to respond. I've written out several responses that I've deleted because your worldview seems so far removed from reality that I'm not sure how to address it.
If the police show up during the day and knock on the front door with a warrant at the house of the NRA-supporting, libertarian, "statist" terminology using person you allude to, he's not going to respond violently. He'll call a lawyer while reading the warrant, then maybe call the media if he thinks it will help. Please stop "othering" people who hold different views than you. Taking it to such an absurd extreme as to suggest that if someone supports the full bill of rights then they need to be treated as dangerous and dealt with like terrorists is just ridiculous.
If someone plans to murder a police officer, they probably don't really care whether the gun they use to do it is legally owned or not.
I think you're right, the US culture indeed favors these unfortunate developments. The 2nd amendment is a misguided idea.
I had an argument with Czech expat living in the US, who was a staunch libertarian. At one point he was "either I have my freedoms, or I will defend myself with the gun". I told him that there is no need for guns, we can also have a peaceful discussion and agree on compromise that everybody will hate. Couldn't explain value of that..
And Americans can change this culture. Respect to rights of others doesn't come from "natural rights" or "republic", but from cooperation among people. Respect to individuals doesn't come from having guns, but rather determination to face guns (or other problems) without having any.
(It doesn't mean that guns are never necessary. It only means that it's often much less hassle and blood to make opponent part of your in-group rather than have fight with him as your out-group.)
>So a level of force once reserved for hostage situations, bank robberies and active shooters is now being used on low-level drug offenders, people suspected of white-collar crimes, people who have unkempt property and to make sure the local bar is properly labeling its beer.
Now think about this - when the police go in a situation guns drawn when there isn't a reason to believe there would be a real threat to personal safety the THEY are being the aggressor and potentially escalating the situation. Which creates danger when there wouldnt otherwise be. Officers are supposed to protect the public, not threaten it. Eventually the police's relationship with the public degrades to a point that officer safety is now actually in much more jeopardy.
Police officers quest for safety also vastly increases the risks of unintentionally harming the people in the places they raid - people that are innocent until proven guilt, and people who are often not directly involved in the crime.
Most importantly it harms the respect and dignity of the society they are protecting. No non-threatening person should ever have AR-15s pointed at their heads, screamed at, their faces pushed into the ground, and handcuffed regardless of their potential criminality. Especially when the whole investigation is for non-violent crimes.
This hostility towards everyone generates more hostility and doesn't make any society more civilized and respectable - which is the over-arching intention of law and order.
Not that it helps at all, but if this is the same case, the police claimed the crib was positioned to block the door. So given a situation where the police thought they were after "evil" drug dealers, and they encountered something blocking the door, it's slightly less absurd sounding.
It's still utterly disgusting, from the drug laws down to the police themselves.
