Skarpen

Well it is a little easier when you can share the householdd work with someone.

I find Australian dangerous wildlife to be exaggerated. There is nothing that could oppose a simple rabbit.

Well it seems we will get Zack Snyder's version of Justice League next year.

Then why all remote jobs go to India?

Depends which kind of police we talk about. The regular kind or the political represion kind. Still I would be more focused on the government who uses police rather than police themselves. Police is usually reflection of government and politicians. As we now know even FBI can be corrupted to frame and destroy political opponents when corrupted government tells them to. I would hardly describe calling them murderers as being critical.

Less internet edgelord bedwetters attacking the police like they straigth from Compton.

LOL. Why would they compete if they could take those guaranteed employment, decent wage and benefits and maybe have their private business work off hours or during.

Isn't the power already in place? The argument is to remove it so the argument have to come from someone who wants to change the existing law. Well, yes. I don't see any problem with that. Maybe they should. Could solve some problems.

Can't help but have the image of a thug crying and wetting himself the moment the handcuffs are closing reading stuff like that.

But what if in revoking that power you would increase the number of people being hurt? Qualified immunity sounds like something completely idiotic.

They can know for example there are drug dealers but not all the details. If there is situation that always play the same then you can have narrow instructions. Entering an unknown house is not such situation.

Well I can comprehend that there are situations where there is no tell if there is an imminent danger to someones life beforehand.

What is far too many times? How often does this occur yearly in US for this to be a regular problem? Again you are blaming police for something that has nothing to do with them. I though USA is big on different branches of government. I'm pretty sure police is not legislative branch. They didn't got qualified immunity to themselves. Domestic violence, home invasion, burglary etc. You can have at least dozen other situations where it's better to have this option than not. But sure go with insults, very mature. I know what it means, I asked about how it's applicable and GD responded it's not. You cannot leave out situations as often there is no knowledge of what situation is or how it turns out. You have to have a protocol that is applicable in various situations. Having a protocol that is applicable in one and only one situation is a bad protocol. And who did that?

How's that applicable here? It's better that 100 hostages get killed than one other innocent person? It's not about if a guilty person gets away it's about what protocol will minimize the propability of innocents getting hurt. It seem you guys advocate to replace a protocol that have 0.1% chance of someone getting hurt if a mistake is made with protocol that gives 50/50 chance of someone getting hurt by default. Not a smart stance if you ask me.

That's how free market works.

Would work wonders in hostage situations and gang related raids. I can see headlines: "Police killed in raid because they annouced themselves before entering" "Kidnapper killed hostage after police annouced themselves before entering" Captain hindsight: "Duh, police should have no knock policy" But you just said they shouldn't... And of course there is this slight problem that police don't create their own rules but are chastise for following them...

The problem is people are jumping to conclusions that have no grounds based solely on the outcome. Police intervention caused someone harm? Patient didn't survive the surgery? Firefighters didn't rescued someone from the fire? "Let the torches out because they had to do something wrong!" And the truth the 99.9% of the time they followed protocol but some things are unavoidable and some outcomes unpredictable. Other thing is various captain hindsights are giving the solutions that only work in that specific situation: Bystander hurt in police entering without warrant - "Duh, police should always have warrant" Bystander hurt because police were waiting for the warrant - "Duh, police should be able to enter without warrant" Those statements are conflicting? Doesn't matter. Captain hindsight solved the problem and some ignorants are clapping.

If I was to guess I would bet on old west setting.

Probably why it sold so good and had good marks.

Well there are two very different accounts in most cases where there are two opposing parties I presume. Agree on the body cams, recent history shows it's the fastest way for them to clear their name after accused of wrongdoing. I'm surprised there is any opposition in law enforcement to that. I wouldn't call around 25 shots total a spray and pray tactic. That's about two mags of the standard Glock and there were few officers. And they were shot at. How's that relevant? And misuse of the military is slightly different topic then how solders behave, but no I don't recall your statements about this. Well I'm surprised. That's a very bad practice.

From what I understand she woke up and was beside the guy. How's that rant in any way relevant to the story? I'm pretty sure many people around the globe would say the same about the US military you seem to hold in high esteem. Especially many women and children they "liberated".

I hope there is a recording from police bodycams as there are opposing statements from both sides. And having a recording would clear the situation. For a crazy person for sure.

Every person that professionally deals in Law will tell you it isn't.