8bitagent wrote:While I agree with those on here rolling there eyes at the "see! evidence of a martial law trial balloon" sentiments, c'mon...you don't think *any* of what we saw/heard was in any way showboat/over the top?
In all of our collective years on earth, when have we ever seen a dangerous suspect on the run met with what we saw last week?
I can't remember any. But I also can't remember any searches for suspects where one of the dangers was that they might take out the lives and/or limbs of 180 people at a time with each additional strike, assuming that they were able to make it to some town where people were still out milling about in public and living free.
I don't know if that was a real possibility. But I don't see how it would have been good police-work to assume it wasn't, after they knew he was on the loose with nothing to lose. If it was my job to make that call as a shot in the dark under those circumstances, I'd err on the side of too-much rather than too-little, too.
That doesn't say anything about how they conducted themselves, though. It just explains the size and strength of the response. If they were storming homes for no reason and forcing people out of them with their hands up (a la that video), that's another story.
The thing is that it should really be one, if that's what happened. I mean, speaking personally, if my innocent neighbors were hauled off by the cops and I videotaped it, I wouldn't just post it to YouTube with a generic title to that effect. I'd make all the details as public as I possibly could. Wouldn't you?
Anyway. Back to your question: I can't remember a precedent for a response of that size to one suspect, in terms of manpower. But I also can't remember an equivalent situation involving one. They always shut down whatever streets, blocks or neighborhoods they're chasing suspects on when they think there might be shots fired. (Ten miles of freeway for OJ, for example.) That's not always just out of the goodness of their hearts or their zeal to protect and serve. And sometimes it's the reverse, I don't doubt. But in itself, fwiw, it's SOP for those circumstances,
I guess the answer is that I don't know. I don't see a clear, obvious case that it was showboating for public spectacle's sake only, with absolutely no other imaginable justification. But it''s obviously good for the brand for them to do that. And they do it all the time on a smaller and more local scale. So it's not like I think it's an outrageous accusation. I just think it's being hyped and misrepresented for shady reasons by some. And since that would basically be terrorism. I don't like it.
I could be wrong, though. It's just what I think.