Fifty years ago, before SWAT: -cops carried nightsticks and used them; -bulletproof vests weren't available; -cops carried way more than six rounds, as they had dump pouches, speed loaders, even ammo belts. Only a desk officer carried a moldy six-gun with no reloads. Any patrol officer carried as many rounds as possible, and backup weapons if they could afford them; -no civil service protection existed; -no medical benefits, no insurance, five days sick time; -pay was about the same as an entry-level manufacturing job; -patrol cars were not the overwhelming norm in cities, foot patrols were; -rural towns had shotguns or deer rifles for deputies of elected sheriffs; -prosecutors were even more likely to take an officer's word over a suspect; -no-knock warrants happened then, too, but good luck finding as many stats on them.
It's a better job than it was then. However, an officer had a pension and respect, was taught restraint because the dangers were more immediate and fatal, and had the backing of most of the population because of this. Debatable? Sure, but it fits the overall pattern of the job in 1965.
I know many, many people who were there. I'm all for thought experiments, but first-hand accounts trump them.
... why JetBlue is now constricting seats and introducing fees for bags. JetBlue isn't intentionally trying to make lives miserable, but their shareholders will take away their capital if they don't. Can JetBlue tell them to GFY? Sure, but it won't be long before an activist shareholder pulls a stunt to force JetBlue's compliance.
The 1% are immune to these things, of course, which is why they are always implemented by them.
Given a choice between the cop coming home, and the fat turd resisting arrest, I pick the cop every time. Comply, and nothing bad happens. Resist, and get thrown down and arrested. Oh, you were asthmatic? Then I guess resisting arrest was a bad decision on your part Eric.
It was death, it was a homicide, it was an accident, and too bad. I'd rather have people obey the law.
but only if your "Entropic" character string isn't in a dictionary. Twelve characters in a dictionary is not the same as twelve non-word characters -- in any language. Dump a dictionary in English and then next four most used languages into your rainbow tables and you're still more successful than not.
The armchair experts of law enforcement come out again to deride a legitimate use of machinery for the protection of others, because oh no, camouflaged steel!
... so if one rolled up during an active shooter call, and parked it right outside a first-floor window to provide an armored cover for escaping people, you'd what, have a problem with that?
You're only problem is that the use cases are being cherry-picked from the news to make yourselves look good, because the most likely use case is the one I just showed you, and my bet is it never occurred to you.
Stop-and-frisk was awesome. If you feel targeted, it's probably because you look and act like a shitbird. You think NYC innovated this? Try that act in a small Southern town and you'll see stop-and-frisk in action for real. It's a logical and useful response to bullshit in the streets... alternate responses CLEARLY not forthcoming from second-guessers like yourselves.
You don't even live in the worlds you pass judgement upon.
1) What you call a bad cop is likely a good cop with a bad set of circumstances. 2) Unless you have done the job or supported the job, your actual knowledge of how it works is insufficient to judge them. 3) Newark PD, to take a specific instance, should always be allowed to punch their non-compliant suspects. I live near Newark, worked in Newark, went to school in Newark. Newark PD is, if anything, too restrained with some of the walking crap that lives there. 4) If police don't deserve a union, that's fine. See who you can get to work that kind of job without protection from political interference and tell me how the crime rates are then.
It's nice that your world-view has sheltered many of you from what real urban life is. I'm happy that you have that. Please, though, don't apply your model to places like Newark, or NYC, or other large urban centers where you would be scared to live.
The bomb-sniffers will catch your explosive-laden devices. Having your cellphone on means the TSA can browse your phone's data. Turned off, they can't without powering it up and presumably bypassing your passcode.