All else aside, personally I've grown weary of hearing the "Post 9/11 world" statement. You can't justify totalitarian behavior, civil rights violations (Not saying these occurred) and the like by simply dropping that line in there. While you _might_, might be able to reasonably use it about a suspected terrorist, it's certainly not reasonable to hold a 'suspected drug bust' to the same standard.

I'm not speaking to any details of the situation, but of the attitude that "9/11" justifies any behavior on the part of law enforcement. This is wrong and fallacious.

What's wrong with a warm welcome? 'Howdy! Mind if I ask you a couple questions? This isn't really a request...'? It works for some of the most effective police forces in the civilized world, and it's worked in this country, on-and-off, for years. Mentally disarming a suspect by barraging them with shouted orders is certainly appropriate in some situations. It most certainly is not appropriate in all situations--failure in civility is a basic failure in discretion.

I've seen "post 9/11 world" used as justification in escalation of force situations that resulted in the death, injury, or arrest of innocent people who in some way failed to properly comply with officer instructions. When you have four armed officers shouting at you, often with conflicting orders, and you haven't the foggiest clue why, confusion is an obvious response.

Anyway, I'm not trying to hij... er.. 7500 this thread, but personally I feel that law enforcement, based on their position and power, should be held to the highest standard of civility and discretion, and hired accordingly. It is regrettable that the LE establishment has placed different priorities on the hiring of personnel.

I do not know the details of the situation in SB beyond the original article, and I do not watch 'podcasts'--My response is based solely on the "post 9/11 world" comment.

~Fox