The thing is, their work really ISN'T so dangerous that they need those tactics to survive.
If police officers -- who wear body armor, are festooned with weapons ranging from the non-lethal to the painful to the deadly -- are in such great danger that they must employ SWAT teams to deliver paperwork, to perform safety inspections and to make arrests for mere drug possession, doesn't that amount to an official statement that our streets are so dangerous that those who lack armor and half a dozen weapons are in immediate and deadly danger?
If every officer is in that degree of danger, then those who are less armored, less armed and less trained are obviously in FAR greater danger!
If police need a SWAT team, John Q. Public needs a tank!
Just imagine the police reaction if a group of citizens started going grocery shopping, delivering newspapers, eating out, maybe even doing a first amendment audit on a police station in full tactical gear, scary black rifles and armored vehicles?
Would the police claim it was just every day business, nothing to worry about? Or would they open fire on sight and claim later they were attacked by terrorists or a rebel militia?
What I think would be fun, is to file an asset forfeiture case against a government agency, such as a police department.
Anything you can win a 42 USC 1983 case on is also a criminal act under 18 USC 241 and/or 242. Therefore any department that has lost multiple rights violation cases has shown that they habitually use their property to violate the law. It would be much more difficult for a criminal organization to commit crimes without their building, cars, weapons, etc.
Once the suit is filed, it would fall to the police department to prove in court that their cars, police stations and guns didn't aid them in breaking the law -- something they cannot do.
Just imagine the LAPD or NYPD being bankrupt and evicted?
Or, more likely, there would be a 'mysterious accident' involving a Predator drone and a Hellfire missile, and the CIA would give a Glomar answer as to how that missile came to intersect the house the guy suing them was sleeping in.
Ok, having dug into it a bit, it appears to have been an attempt at civil asset forfeiture on the grounds that the guy who had it couldn't possibly be the owner, therefore it was the proceeds of a crime.
The original federal government argument in court was that only the federal government could give away moon rocks, and they didn't give one to him, therefore it was not his.
Eventually it came to light that the rock in question had been stolen from the actual owner and passed through more than one set of hands before arriving in the possession of the guy who it was being forfeited from. But that discovery came later than the initial court filing.
So while there isn't in fact such a statute, the US government acts as if there were.
I wonder, could you file suit against Google in some other country than the US for something illegal where the lawsuit is filed, and ask for a global injunction phrased in such a manner that if Google complied with it in Canada, it would violate Canadian law?
If Canadian courts truly believe they can reach into other nations and compel companies in those nations, they shouldn't have a problem with other nations doing it to Canada, right?
After all, our Center is the Constitution he swore to defend, and radicals are those who exist on the outer fringe. His repudiation of his oath makes him precisely one of the radicals he wants interned.
What do you suppose a domestic enemy of the Constitution looks like, if not a uniformed man who has betrayed his oath?
I hope Senator Whitehouse doesn't have a lock on the door of his house...
After all, if he's right about the civil liability risks of locking your property securely, he could be in real trouble if someone needs to illegally enter his house in some difficult to foresee emergency and can't because he locked the door when he left for work that morning.