AZ - Jose Guerena Shot 60 Times By SWAT Team

[n1oty]

You're going to believe what you want to believe, but you have zero first hand experience in the matter of using firearms as tools of a trade. There's nothing superhuman about it.


We weren't there that night. But I'm willing to bet that they didn't shoot Jose because they were overexcited. I'm betting they shot him because he pointed his gun at them. A tragic misunderstanding that could have been avoided with proper announcing procedures by the police. But that doesn't mean it went down because they were overexcited.

And dozens of innocent victims of LE errors over the past 20 years is actually a smaller percentage than I thought. Considering the population of our nation, that's really quite low. I'm not defending it, and the low numbers doesn't make it right. Just 1 innocent victim is 1 too many. But if this were truly a militarized police state that number would be MUCH MUCH higher.

Anyway, I've tried to make my points logically. I'm out of this thread until relevent news about Jose's family or that LEA comes up.

You fight as you train and you train as you fight. The sad reality of modern law enforcement is that the trainers are jazzing these young guys up in the manner that drgrant mentioned. Unfortunately, in many communities, there is a lack of proper training. The end result is you get really stupid errors that kill people. The Framingham SWAT raid is a classic bumbling, Barney Fife moment.

 

[Terminator03]

I don't have a problem with the cops having body armor, machine guns, or armored personnel carriers, with a few of provisios:

-There should be NO LAWS barring me from obtaining exactly what they have, as a free citizen.

-I still get to tell them to **** off as a Taxpayer for wasting my tax money if I think their spending is exhorbitant. I think you will find that this is where a LOT of the objection comes from. Most cities and towns, and even counties simply DO NOT NEED a heavily formalized SWAT team.

-One fundamental thing you are forgetting- These agencies are supposed WORK AT THE BEHEST OF THE CITIZEN. If the citizens don't want their police looking like jackbooted thugs or the military, I'm trying hard to find the fault in that. The citizens are ultimately the boss of these people- if we tell them they have to wear pink camo, they should wear pink camo. If they don't like it they can quit and stop sucking off the trough.



This begs the question, why would you be entering one of our homes, exactly? For some bulls**t malum prohibitum reason like they made up for Jose? The fundamental problem is we now live in a country where the authorities come up with the thinnest of excuses to justify invading someone's home. The way I look at it there'd better be a message from a kidnapped kid, a terrorist bomb factory, or a hostage situation inside a building to warrant a "no knock" type of response. Someone "possibly maybe" having drugs does not rise to the level of exigency required to justify putting people's lives at risk. It's pure bulls**t. Think about it for a minute- you're going to smash down someones door, with a dozen guys armed with rifles, because he possibly maybe might have a plant or a chemical inside his house that the government doesn't like?



Bulls**t. They are a HUGE waste of taxpayer money, and rarely if ever get used for anything other than pomp and circumstance. There are probably less incidents in the country yearly that you can count on one hand, even in a big city where an APC would have been useful for anything. As a taxpayer I would rather have my town/city have something like an extra fire truck or something that might actually get used, instead of the law enforcement equivalent of a gigantic sex toy. Hell, even some of the other garbage that PDs buy (like boats) are potentially way more useful than an APC or armored car is. I talked to one LEO from an MA town, that got an APC a few years ago.... that shall remain nameless, and he basically told me that he was ashamed that the department even owned the thing, that it's presence in their lot made the town look bad. It's a symbol of unchecked waste. Further, why the **** are towns buying APCs when in any given state like half the LEOs serving there can't even handle a handgun competently? Where do you think the money is going to be better spent... training that will keep a LEO alive on the things that they are likely to encounter - or a rolling tactical dildo that basically will serve no purpose whatsoever? (except to make the average citizen/taxpayer thinking that they've been taken to the cleaners AND that they live in a police state.... )

-Mike

Mike, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here, with the exception of a few things you pointed out that I hadn't really put that much thought into such as the costs involved with running an APV. I was just speaking in a very general sense of pointing out that some people here are sounding a bit like moonbats with regard to what police should be allowed to carry for weapons, body armor, etc. It does seem like there is beginning to be a cold war style arms race between the civilians and the police at this point. The sad fact is that we really can't have it both ways. If we want the cops to only be able to carry nightsticks and whistles, what do people think is going to happen to our rights to keep and bear arms? This is a completely separate issue from the no-knock bs though, and I agree that those need to be gone. Sure they might have people flush a bag or 2 before they get in, but big deal, at least innocent people or dogs aren't going to die.

 

[calsdad]

A little testy are we? Thank you for clearing that up. If you'll re-read my post, I did hint at his uniform being wrong, but I also explicitly asked the questions about why he was wearing said ribbons/medals. I was genuinely curious why he was wearing them. I should not have suggested that he wear the uniform the way it is supposed to be worn. However, instead of the attitude, you could have merely stated the rules and regulations regarding Mass State Trooper uniforms.

As for the "new militarization of the police", I don't really see a militarization of the police. In regards to the original topic of the thread, I understand that eliminating no-knock searches would make LEO's jobs more difficult and would allow some suspects to get free or destroy evidence. However, this is the United States and citizens should be afforded proper notice before search and seizure. Sometimes you just have to accept that some bad guys will slip through the cracks to make sure that innocent citizens are not treated wrong.

You really don't pay much attention - or like what this country stands for - do you?

 

[calsdad]

Jose, I don't see APCs and tactical teams to be militarization. Sure, they look scary, but that's it. APCs are invaluable when approaching barracaded suspects. And tactical teams help to eliminate risk to the officers when attempting to arrest said barracaded suspects. That M2 .50 on the top of that one APC is troubling, but it's the first time I've ever seen police with a .50 MG. When police start setting up sectors of fire with machine guns and implementing suppressive fire while executing platoon attacks, then we'll talk about militarization. Just having advantageous tools does not make it military.

Seriously - you really need to pay attention a little bit better. Maybe you ought to come to a better understanding of what POLICE are supposed to be for.

Since when do they need APC's and all the other assorted MILITARY hardware that they have been acquiring?

Police - State Police especially, have always been a militaristic organization. You can see it in their uniforms, their training, the rank structure, the coloring of everything their uniforms to their vehicles - etc.

What has been going on over the last ten or more years - is a pretty severe turn towards making them even more militaristic - and tying police down to the local level into the Federal government - often thru cooperation with the military.

Police used to be called "Peace Officers" - when was the last time you heard a police officer called that?

 

[economist]

This is a very sticky debate for sure, because on one hand, none of us feel that the current trend of militarization is warranted, but we also have to look at this from our own viewpoint of discrimination. We are always up in arms when politicians, and the general public cry for the banning of our beloved "assault weapons", but then some of us turn around and say the same thing about the police. To me this is silly because it's the same type of argument that the antis use saying "who needs those type of guns". It is a very slippery slope. Same goes with body armor. Why is anyone ON THIS SITE of all places even remotely opposed to that, and why? If I was a LEO entering the home of almost any member of this site I sure as hell would be wearing body armor, and a kevlar helmet! Same goes with APCs, why is this a problem? Once again, it is simply another level of protecting the lives of the officers. Should it be used in a situation where someone is a "dealer" with an ounce of pot? No way, but then do you ever know what you are going to face when you kick someone's door down? I guess I'm a bit confused because this whole debate seems really contrary to what this site stands for (or my understanding of that). Maybe it's just that the rules should ONLY apply to us, but no one else? Maybe we would be ok if the body armor and attire were blue, instead of tactical black, or desert camo?

There is a difference between the people and the government. The balance should yield to the power of the citizenry to defend itself and to remain above its own government. Right now that power is shifted the other way, with government superior in rights and weaponry. To equate police with the citizenry fails to recognize this necessary difference.

We don't need a militarized police unless we empower government to monitor our private lives and to declare mere possession of arbitrarily banned substances to be criminal. These entry teams are designed to do one thing: protect evidence when crime can only be established by proving possession. Crime absent victims necessitates the police state. Abandon this practice and the lives of police become far safer along with the lives of the people.

What you can't do is jump into the situation as it is and then defend the militarization of police. That supposes all manner of problems created by government in the first place. Sure, if we are going to have police issuing no-knocks (or the practical equivalent) routinely, then one can see why the police are preparing like an invading force in a hostile environment. Take the home invasions away and it immediately becomes clear that much of police militarization is unwarranted.

Finally, we don't want a society like this at all. If the only way to police America is decked out like the military then America is done. A standing army over the people is the end of liberty, and that is where we are headed. Even if we accept the need, which we shouldn't, the presence of this force is bound to result in mistakes as seen here. A man was killed in his home for reasons yet explained and without any measurable culpability. That cannot stand as acceptable in America, at least not without destroying liberty in the process.

 

[calsdad]

Nope. A platoon attack would involve them having a team just mowing down the area near the barracaded suspects with heavy suppressive fire. They would then continue to fire, but shift fire as other members approached and cleared the area. I don't see police shooting up neighborhoods willy-nilly with belt feds.

APCs are not inherently offensive. I am personally fine with a police department using an APC to approach an aggressive and barracaded suspect. If that armored vehicle means that a man who has volunteered to serve his community gets to go home to his family that night, then I'm okay with it. Police should not have belt fed machine guns or anything like that, but an armored vehicle by itself is only there to protect the policemen. Just like their individual soft armor and plates. I guess I just don't understand what the objection is to a weaponless APC. Is it the tracks or is it the fact that it's armored?

Waco was a very unique cluster****.



Me too. I think it hits me so hard because I can imagine myself in this man's situation. Unknown individuals coming into your house so you try to defend your family.

Dude seriously - this is just getting funny now.

If you think that Waco was a very unique clusterfork - you've really been keeping yourself outside the loop and staying willfully blind.

You need a serious education on the reality of the world you're currently living in.

Start reading William Grigg:

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/

and Vin Suprynowicz - who has covered this sort of stuff for years:

http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=562


Or start reading thru the pages of NES - where police abuse and militarization has been covered extensively.

 

[calsdad]

I smell a troll

Ignorance and trolling aren't necessarily the same thing.

I think he's ignorant of reality.

 

[calsdad]

I don't have a problem with the cops having body armor, machine guns, or armored personnel carriers, with a few of provisios:

-There should be NO LAWS barring me from obtaining exactly what they have, as a free citizen.

-I still get to tell them to **** off as a Taxpayer for wasting my tax money if I think their spending is exhorbitant. I think you will find that this is where a LOT of the objection comes from. Most cities and towns, and even counties simply DO NOT NEED a heavily formalized SWAT team.

-One fundamental thing you are forgetting- These agencies are supposed WORK AT THE BEHEST OF THE CITIZEN. If the citizens don't want their police looking like jackbooted thugs or the military, I'm trying hard to find the fault in that. The citizens are ultimately the boss of these people- if we tell them they have to wear pink camo, they should wear pink camo. If they don't like it they can quit and stop sucking off the trough.



This begs the question, why would you be entering one of our homes, exactly? For some bulls**t malum prohibitum reason like they made up for Jose? The fundamental problem is we now live in a country where the authorities come up with the thinnest of excuses to justify invading someone's home. The way I look at it there'd better be a message from a kidnapped kid, a terrorist bomb factory, or a hostage situation inside a building to warrant a "no knock" type of response. Someone "possibly maybe" having drugs does not rise to the level of exigency required to justify putting people's lives at risk. It's pure bulls**t. Think about it for a minute- you're going to smash down someones door, with a dozen guys armed with rifles, because he possibly maybe might have a plant or a chemical inside his house that the government doesn't like?



Bulls**t. They are a HUGE waste of taxpayer money, and rarely if ever get used for anything other than pomp and circumstance. There are probably less incidents in the country yearly that you can count on one hand, even in a big city where an APC would have been useful for anything. As a taxpayer I would rather have my town/city have something like an extra fire truck or something that might actually get used, instead of the law enforcement equivalent of a gigantic sex toy. Hell, even some of the other garbage that PDs buy (like boats) are potentially way more useful than an APC or armored car is. I talked to one LEO from an MA town, that got an APC a few years ago.... that shall remain nameless, and he basically told me that he was ashamed that the department even owned the thing, that it's presence in their lot made the town look bad. It's a symbol of unchecked waste. Further, why the **** are towns buying APCs when in any given state like half the LEOs serving there can't even handle a handgun competently? Where do you think the money is going to be better spent... training that will keep a LEO alive on the things that they are likely to encounter - or a rolling tactical dildo that basically will serve no purpose whatsoever? (except to make the average citizen/taxpayer thinking that they've been taken to the cleaners AND that they live in a police state.... )

-Mike

There's an awful lot of people missing the trend here.

Think back to cop shows from the 60's, 70's and 80's. What was one of the "staple" scenes?

Some bad guy in a house - yelling out the window "you'll never get me copper" - and the cops just surround the house and either wait the guy out or somebody starts shooting and then there's a gun battle.

I remember reading an account of an incident where the cops surrounded a house full of Black Panthers (who were armed with M1 carbines) - and pretty much that exact thing happened.

What happens these days?

A SWAT team rolls up in the middle of the night, on a no-knock raid, because some kid has supposedly sold an ounce of pot, all the "cops" are armored up, potentially carrying full auto weapons, there might be snipers placed strategically around the area, if there's a dog outside - it probably gets picked off early so it won't alarm anybody, flash bangs or chemical grenades get thrown in the house - and then, when it all goes down - there's a HIGH likelihood that somebody in that house is going out in a body bag.

GUILTY OR NOT.

The tactics employed are MILITARY HOUSE CLEARING TACTICS.

Police agencies train regularly - with the military.

In case you haven't noticed - the military has also been turned into more of a police agency as our beloved government has taken it upon themself over the last few decades to go around the world telling people how to live their lives.

And what is most of this over? Citizen paranoia - and drugs.

Like one of the previous posters said - sometimes over drugs sold by freaking high school kids. Whose stepfathers end up dead.

 

[Boghog1]

Just want to mention this has been going on a long time, the bombing of the MOVE house in the 80's is another example

 

[PappyM3]

Ignorance and trolling aren't necessarily the same thing.

I think he's ignorant of reality.

Having a dissenting opinion does not make one ignorant. I stay very well apprised of both domestic and international news, and conduct appropriate analysis. I have stated my opinion and reasoning, you have stated yours. Given your reasoning and substantiation, you are not going to convince me of your side. It appears that my reasoning cannot convince you. Let's leave it at that.

So, you're basing changes in the police tactics off of movies from the 60s, 70s, and 80s? You mention the gun battle. The police DO NOT WANT a gun battle where barricaded suspects are shooting in ways that could hurt bystanders. Their current tactics have evolved from experience in what doesn't work. And the police weren't all peaches and cream back in those golden years. They used to carry around repeater-beaters. Yeah, real pleasant.

Regarding house clearing tactics, before GWOT, it was the police that would teach the military. So you could say that the military uses police house clearing tactics. The military, over 10+ years of war, have adapted the tactics to suite military needs.

 

[calsdad]

Having a dissenting opinion does not make one ignorant. I stay very well apprised of both domestic and international news, and conduct appropriate analysis. I have stated my opinion and reasoning, you have stated yours. Given your reasoning and substantiation, you are not going to convince me of your side. It appears that my reasoning cannot convince you. Let's leave it at that.

Regarding house clearing tactics, before GWOT, it was the police that would teach the military. So you could say that the military uses police house clearing tactics. The military, over 10+ years of war, have adapted the tactics to suite military needs.

The way you have expressed that opinion seems to indicate that you are ignorant of what is really going on.

The other alternative would be that you actually accept it and think that it's ok - which is actually worse than ignorance.

 

[namedpipes]

.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Timber again.

I'll get you back soon buddy.

 

[drgrant]

Mike, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here, with the exception of a few things you pointed out that I hadn't really put that much thought into such as the costs involved with running an APV. I was just speaking in a very general sense of pointing out that some people here are sounding a bit like moonbats with regard to what police should be allowed to carry for weapons, body armor, etc. It does seem like there is beginning to be a cold war style arms race between the civilians and the police at this point. The sad fact is that we really can't have it both ways. If we want the cops to only be able to carry nightsticks and whistles, what do people think is going to happen to our rights to keep and bear arms? This is a completely separate issue from the no-knock bs though, and I agree that those need to be gone. Sure they might have people flush a bag or 2 before they get in, but big deal, at least innocent people or dogs aren't going to die.

I was going to come up with a response, but basically Timber just said everything I wanted to say in a more eloquent fashion. So just read his post, twice.

-Mike

 

[diatribe]

The 2nd amendmant loses all meaning and intent once the police have access to superior firearms than the people do.

 

[Terminator03]

Ok. Here goes.



The intent of 2A is to ensure that the people have the access to any and all arms that will keep them from becoming enslaved by a government. Whether it be a foreign body or their own. Keep in mind that a citizens militia had just defeated the greatest military on earth when this was written, and the founders were keenly aware of the need of the people to keep and bear arms that would allow them to do so again. People can debate how that applies today all they want, but that's what 2A was written to ensure.

Given that context, law abiding citizens,- to whom the government and governing bodies are supposed to answer to-, have every right to own any piece of equipment that those they employ to serve and protect them possess. Especially when it comes to "law enforcement" which as an entity has mutated from a body that was established to keep the peace, into one that proactively snoops out infractions. Even when said infractions threaten no physical harm to anyone else.

I have no problem with law enforcement having the equipment they need to do their jobs. What I don't like is a situation where law enforcement gets increasingly sophisticated weaponry in states where citizens are increasingly deprived of the right to own the same stuff.

Ok, I can see what you are saying here, but for the most part we can have most of the same weapons, just some require special permits/licensing to have. For the most part it just comes down to what you can afford in most states (I realize that this isn't necessarily the case in a craphole like MA, though).



What is it about members of this site that makes you think you should be wearing body armor and a kevlar helmet if you were to enter their home? You seem to imply that members here are trigger happy renegades itching for a chance to cut down legitimately employed civil servants with that statement. It also begs a second question: Under what circumstances would you deem it necessary to be entering a members home? I can think of only a couple of examples.

Example 1: A member, for whatever reason, has gone off the deep end, is holding a hostage or hostages. There is a clear and present threat to an innocent individuals life. Or - and this is extremely rare- presents a clear and present danger to him or herself after a stand off has ensued. Honestly, situations like this are so rare, that it's nearly a moot point, and I don't think the state has any business saving you from yourself if you decide to end your own life.

Example 2: Warranted search after said member has been properly arrested off premise.



Again, under what circumstances other than a hostage situation should law enforcement ever be kicking down someone's door? People leave their houses, compounds, etc. Proper surveillance and good police work allows for opportunities where almost anyone can be picked up without incident. David Koresh went shopping every week and could easily have been nabbed in town rather than confronted, etc.

That statement about wearing kvlar when entering the home of an NESr was just tongue in cheek humor. I was not saying that entering anyone's home was ever really warranted. Sorry for the misunderstanding here.



Just so you don't assume I'm some knee jerk anti-LEO, I work actively everyday to provide equipment that allows officers from the patrol level to SWAT/ SRT to carry the carbines, launchers, and other equipment they need to do their jobs properly and effectively. I write proposals for boards of selectmen, municipal governing bodies, provide demonstrations, attend meetings, trade shows, etc., working to help officers who are towns where the governing bodies are scared of black rifles acquire them.

I do not like the disparity of force that's grown between law enforcement and citizenry in nearly every state, and I despise bad law enforcement tactics as much as I admire and praise good police work.

Hope that makes a little more sense of my previous statement.

It does, thank you for taking the time to explain your perceptive better. I certainly agree with most of what you are saying here.

 

[OfficerObie59]

The real answer is that the only excuse to go in strong is true "exigency," immediate threat to life and limb. Otherwise, issue a summons. If you are there because of a prior summons, then set a spell and wait (obviously a stand-off is a different issue, but there notice was given). If waiting is expensive, then add that to the penalty for failure to appear requiring a warrant and arrest.

We have so perverted this process that we are using swat to do what Sheriffs all over the country used to do with a wrap on the door and two guys (sometimes one). We literally have a case where a door was kicked because a flushing toilet was heard and the courts had no problem with that...

There are 100's of years of common law here that work just fine. This is not Fallujah.

By far the most reasoned response and approach to the issue.

Known around these parts more for his 2nd Amendment legal analysis, CATO's Dave Kopel did a good law journal article on militarization of the police: http://davekopel.org/Waco/LawRev/CanSoldiersBePeaceOfficers.htm#fnb99

 

[cekim]

By far the most reasoned response and approach to the issue.

Known around these parts more for his 2nd Amendment legal analysis, CATO's Dave Kopel did a good law journal article on militarization of the police: http://davekopel.org/Waco/LawRev/CanSoldiersBePeaceOfficers.htm#fnb99

Yeah, "the Right" needs to rethink its stance on prohibition II as much, perhaps more than the left.

 

[Jamie]

Not forgotten.

 

[Admin]

Nope

 

[Exousia]

Not forgotten.

The sad thing is the majority of people haven't even heard of Jose and many of those who have heard about him assume he got what he deserved.

 

[jshooter]

The sad thing is the majority of people haven't even heard of Jose and many of those who have heard about him assume he got what he deserved.

The only advantage to that statement is that the same sheep will also forget about the whole Tray/Zim crap. I'll also bet that most of the same sheep don't, nor have they ever voted.

 

[economist]

There is no justice.

 

[MassMark]

Not forgotten.

Nice bump for Jose - he is not forgotten. In fact, I think about that tragedy every time I see/hear about another no-knock...

There is no justice.

There isn't especially for Jose and his surviving family. Jose was murdered - plainly and tragically. From the commanding officer who ordered the hit, to every officer who pulled the trigger. All in my view are no better than a common back alley murderer...They should be viewed and treated as such, but sadly never will...

 

[MetalgodZ]

I thought the same thing today, Mark, as I was reading about the homeless guy that got beaten to death (source was Balko / The Agitator, not bothering to link from a smartphone) and the botched raid by Arpaio's (sp?) guys that resulted in a burned house, a dead dog, a car crushed by an APC they forgot to throw in park (seriously!) and an arrest on a misdemeanor charge for failing to appear for a traffic ticket (source linked by Claire Wolfe over at Backwoods Home).

Every time I read another one, I come back to this one.

Edit: At least the Danziger Bridge thing got settled recently. Broken [strike]clock[/strike] system being correct, probably, but I'm always hopeful.

 

[Terminator03]

I thought the same thing today, Mark, as I was reading about the homeless guy that got beaten to death (source was Balko / The Agitator, not bothering to link from a smartphone) and the botched raid by Arpaio's (sp?) guys that resulted in a burned house, a dead dog, a car crushed by an APC they forgot to throw in park (seriously!) and an arrest on a misdemeanor charge for failing to appear for a traffic ticket (source linked by Claire Wolfe over at Backwoods Home).

Every time I read another one, I come back to this one.

Holy crap, talk about a disparity of force! For a misdemeanor charge no less...

 

[MassMark]

This shit needs to end...yesterday....

 

[hk-sigman]

I'm not a fan of SWAT teams. It seems that every small town is starting to set up their own team. It's a dangerous situation for the public, very dangerous! I truly believe that the Feds are funding all of these small departments teams with an endgame in sight. We are being setup for a police state. That's why even the smallest police departments are becoming heavily armed..

 

[cekim]

I truly believe that the Feds are funding all of these small departments teams with an endgame in sight. We are being setup for a police state. That's why even the smallest police departments are becoming heavily armed..

The important thing to understand is that no evil intent is required for this "natural progression."

Violent crime has been dropping for a long time - it will never reach 0 and in fact as it drops, that which remains will either appear or even be more significantly anti-social behavior.

As such, the logical progression is if more enforcement lowered crime, then even more can drive it to zero. While "logical" it ultimately fails because the reduction in crime reaches an asymptotic minimum beyond which "the law of diminishing returns," means that even infinite enforcement will not stop crime.

In fact, we've seen numerous examples where near "infinite enforcement" actually begins to create more crime as black markets expand once everyone is a defacto criminal.

Government is at least as dumb as the people who elect them - often even more so because of the motives of the elected. So, they aren't going to stop enforcing and announce, "hey, you know, we've reduced crime to what we consider a bare minimum, we will stop expanding the role of enforcement and you just have to accept this baseline amount of crime."

I assure you, no politician will ever say that. As such, things always tend towards the police state and it is only periodic resets that can keep the median point on that spectrum at something tolerable. There need not be an evil plan, dictator or even evil intentions at work for this to happen.

 

[Terminator03]

The important thing to understand is that no evil intent is required for this "natural progression."

Violent crime has been dropping for a long time - it will never reach 0 and in fact as it drops, that which remains will either appear or even be more significantly anti-social behavior.

As such, the logical progression is if more enforcement lowered crime, then even more can drive it to zero. While "logical" it ultimately fails because the reduction in crime reaches an asymptotic minimum beyond which "the law of diminishing returns," means that even infinite enforcement will not stop crime.

In fact, we've seen numerous examples where near "infinite enforcement" actually begins to create more crime as black markets expand once everyone is a defacto criminal.

Government is at least as dumb as the people who elect them - often even more so because of the motives of the elected. So, they aren't going to stop enforcing and announce, "hey, you know, we've reduced crime to what we consider a bare minimum, we will stop expanding the role of enforcement and you just have to accept this baseline amount of crime."

I assure you, no politician will ever say that. As such, things always tend towards the police state and it is only periodic resets that can keep the median point on that spectrum at something tolerable. There need not be an evil plan, dictator or even evil intentions at work for this to happen.

Very thought provoking analysis! I have to admit that even though I hadn't thought of some of your points, they definitely make sense on an intellectual level. I do believe that this progression is part of a bigger picture, though that involves the UN, and 1 world currency, as well as leadership. At one time people of that mindset were scoffed at as wearing tin foil hats, but it is very easy to see the progression if you take the time to really look at what's happening not only here, but around the rest of the world.