SWAT team breaking down door in no-knock raid
How much police force is too much? That is a very difficult question to answer; the educated and informed opinions held by experts have great variety in their responses. I believe a correct answer may not always exist, much depends on the circumstances and the information law enforcement has available at the time. Law enforcement must be allowed to use every available option to mitigate the danger to themselves and the community when dealing with potentially violent criminals, but that force must be tempered by sound judgement and an adherence to the law.
There is no doubt law enforcement in the US is under constant threat by every maniac, thug, or fool with having a bad day and a bad attitude. There are countless stories of police getting killed on the job, even when doing the most mundane of duties, such as serving a court summons or conducting a traffic stop. Criminals are sometimes armed and ready for a gunfight, such as the North Hollywood, California bank robbery of 1997. Two bank robbers in body armor gave the local police a very bad morning. The handguns and shotguns used by the police could not penetrate the suspects' body armor, and the police eventually raided local gun shops in order to find rifles of sufficient power to get the job done. This incident caused police departments across the nation to begin issuing AR-15 rifles to patrol officers, in case they ever again encounter such a scenario. However, law enforcement walks into potentially dangerous scenarios every day, especially when raiding the homes of suspected drug dealers or when dealing with members of organized crime. There is no question about it, law enforcement must be allowed to use the correct tools to get their job done safely.
On the other hand, when dealing with non-violent criminals law enforcement should keep the use of force to a minimum. There are many stories of law enforcement using too much force in a given scenario. Some political leaders, with plenty of political courage, have voiced strong objections to heavy handed police tactics. Members of law enforcement claim they can never be certain and therefore must remain vigilant at all times. However, there are limits to what law enforce can do. These limits are in place to protect innocent citizens from overly zealous law enforcement. One recent example is that of Trump ally Roger Stone. The FBI raided the home of Mr. Stone with 29 agents consisting of: heavily armed special tactical units; 17 vehicles with 2 armored personnel carries; 2 amphibious watercraft which unloaded some agents; and a helicopter armed with a specially trained long range sniper. In contrast, the US military sent far fewer Navy SEALS to capture Osama Bin Laden. Mr. Stone has been cooperating with Congressional investigators and Robert Mueller's special investigation for some time. According to legal expert, Judge Andrew Napolitano, prosecutors are very well acquainted with both Roger Stone and his attorneys; and there is no reason for anyone to suspect the elderly Roger Stone, who happens to be a bit of a dandy with no criminal record, would suddenly become violent and pose a threat to anyone.
 |
| CNN was there, evidence of possible political influence over FBI investigation of Roger Stone |
Why did the FBI send such overwhelming forces to arrest one elderly and nonviolent man that had been cooperating with prosecutors? The FBI claims it was done to ensure Stone did not have a chance to destroy any incriminating evidence. What evidence would that be? The FBI's reasoning might be acceptable bu for two caveats, the ridiculously overwhelming quantity of men and materials that were used and a CNN news crew was part of the FBI's raid. These facts suggest that there were political considerations in this matter, and someone wanted to make an example our of Roger Stone; otherwise the prosecutor's office would have contacted Stone's attorney to request Stone turn himself in, as is normally done in such matters.
There is much debate on this matter, of course. Some Republican voices have come out against the FBI and it's tactics, while Democrat voices have supported the FBI, Robert Mueller, and the endless fishing expedition looking for evidence to support the idea that President Trump has in some way violated the law.
I do not know what the correct answer is for every situation, but I am certain it is best to always question the motives of those in positions of power, whether it is the Global Elite, the bankers, the politicians, or members of the legal system. The old adage is still true "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our nation and it's Constitution were set up by the Founding Fathers in such a way to ensure no person or institution would attain absolute power. The moment we lose sight of the fact that as Americans we are all equal in the eyes of the law, is the moment some have acquired more power than others because men of bad character will always crave power over others.
