I've been thinking: are the police militarised?

[Alpha]

So you just called Rowan a liar, and accused his opinions of being a straw-man...

No, I said that he lied (not that he is a liar---as in, someone who consistently and habitually lies), and that his argument was in this instance logically fallacious. Neither of those things are aimed at Rowan's character, although I probably should have phrased that slightly better.

... Sometimes I actually want to be deployed again; it's an excellent way to vent primordial frustration invoked by the likes of this shit.

See, now this reads as if you're actually attacking my character. If you get three warnings in ID, you can't post here any more. Just FYI.

*Nuclear Facepalm* You lose all credibility for that one, my friend. (Truly speechless)

Try explaining why he loses credibility, in your opinion. For me, you neither gain or lose credibility for this statement, because you haven't actually expressed an opinion or justification on the subject.

... Civilians are people too, but when we feel threatened and commit murder, we're held responsible, and the steps are taken to investigate and determine whether it was justified or not.

But beyond common sense, Police do not have ultimate authority. In Order for a Cop to say, "Hands up, you're under arrest!" You must first Commit A Crime. Then the officer must have proof, or reasonable cause to investigate further. A cop in Victoria, Texas recently assaulted a 60-some year old man, tazzing him TWICE (He did not resist at all, only stood up for his innocence). It was over an expired vehicle registration... Which the man did not need by law, because he had a dealers permit. He had tried to explain this to the officer, but he would not listen.

If you have committed no crime, no officer in the world has the right to arrest, let alone lay 1 finger on you.

I have respect for the Law Enforcement field, and the courage of those men and women, but if any man ever tried to lay hands on me when I had done nothing wrong, I'd break his elbow, disarm and cuff his ass to his own squad car. I know my rights, and they protect me from being arrested until I've broken the law. I'll take the Assault on a Peace Officer charge in the name of my rights, because that's what people like me do. You know, the softy who took a 7.62x39 round to the shoulder in the name of your freedom and safety.

Holy content, Batman! Your post would have been better had it just contained this part.

That's a slogan written on cars, moron. Their job is to Enforce the Law, investigate and make justified, clean arrests, as well as keep the peace in certain situations such as protests, riots, etc.

Calling someone a moron is the definition of what you should not be doing if you want to make a good argument. I agree with the argument you express here, however. Every person killed by a police officer is by definition prejudicial. No one is guilty until they have been proven to be so by the courts. This is, naturally, a very hard thing to practice in all instances. A dude with a bomb is hardly going to wait to be arrested and tried in court. As a general rule, however, it is paramount. It's for this reason I do not support "beat cops" having access to firearms, only tasers. A taser should be sufficient to subdue a violent person in many cases. In the instances where the violent person has a firearm, specialist non-routine police can be called in. (In New Zealand, these are referred to as the Armed Offenders Squad. "Beat police" do have access to one firearm per patrol car, but this is kept in a locked safe inside the boot of their vehicle and is rarely used. I appreciate this is probably optimistic in the States. They key difference being, IMO, the simple % of people who actually own firearms.).In the specific instance of Michael Brown, a taser would have changed everything. The officer who killed Michael Brown stated that he didn't like wearing a taser, and only had a taser that did not have a dischargeable cartridge:

Wilson next recounts his thought process as he reached for a weapon. He considered using his mace, but at such close range, the mace might get in his eyes, too. He doesn't carry a taser with a fireable cartridge, but even if he did, "it probably wouldn't have hit [Brown] anywhere". Wilson couldn't reach his baton or his flashlight. So he went for his gun.

I'm no expert on tasers, but it can't be that hard to hit someone with one at close range. Moreover, before going further off this tangent: an officer's duty should be to make an arrest unless that is simply not possible, or someone's life is in danger. The recourse Police seem to make to violence, reflected in their get-ups, is truly concerning. In many cases it seems to trump the presumption of innocence.

What the **** is wrong with you people? Every time someone posts on this website (especially towards me), I lose a little more faith in the future of humanity.

Calling us stupid doesn't help with your argument that people shouldn't be calling people stupid.