In 1927, when submissiveness had not yet softened our brains to such a degree, two Chekists tried to arrest a woman on Serpukhov Square during the day. She grabbed hold of the stanchion of a streetlamp and began to scream, refusing to submit. A crowd gathered. (There had to have been that kind of woman; there had to have been that kind of crowd too! Passers-by didn't all just close their eyes and hurry by!) The quick young men immediately became flustered. They can't work in the public eye. They got
into their car and fled. (Right then and there she should have
gone to a railroad station and left! But she went home to spend the night. And during the night they took her off to the Lubyanka.)
Pg. 15-16
Defense does have benefits but one thing lacking in this example was the drawing of blood. The arrest was called off due to resistance but with none of the fatal kind. I think your viewing those carrying out the arrests as having principles. If there was stiff enough resistance those expecting an easy job would balk at having to put their lives on the line to do their job. If enough people had resisted violently enough, since the vast majority were dead anyway if hauled off the gulags, the security apparatus could have fallen apart due to desertion. It’s all hypothetical speculation though since that never happened.
The ones carrying out the future arrest will have the strongest of principles: Hatred. You are a Nazi, after all you post on Nazi forums like KIA2.win. You are personally responsible for the deaths of 6 million of the Chosen Ones. They will HATE you. Additionally, they will have 100 years of added experience in making arrest of all kinds. The US mission in Afganistan wasn't to deal with some goatfucking terrorist or establish a democracy in a land where that will never work. It was to develop methods to deal with arrest of hostile, and possibly armed individuals.
Edit: I should point out, the woman referenced successfully defended the first time, and thus got another chance to defend herself, where she failed and was taken to a camp.
Defense does have benefits but one thing lacking in this example was the drawing of blood. The arrest was called off due to resistance but with none of the fatal kind. I think your viewing those carrying out the arrests as having principles. If there was stiff enough resistance those expecting an easy job would balk at having to put their lives on the line to do their job. If enough people had resisted violently enough, since the vast majority were dead anyway if hauled off the gulags, the security apparatus could have fallen apart due to desertion. It’s all hypothetical speculation though since that never happened.
The ones carrying out the future arrest will have the strongest of principles: Hatred. You are a Nazi, after all you post on Nazi forums like KIA2.win. You are personally responsible for the deaths of 6 million of the Chosen Ones. They will HATE you. Additionally, they will have 100 years of added experience in making arrest of all kinds. The US mission in Afganistan wasn't to deal with some goatfucking terrorist or establish a democracy in a land where that will never work. It was to develop methods to deal with arrest of hostile, and possibly armed individuals.
Edit: I should point out, the woman referenced successfully defended the first time, and thus got another chance to defend herself, where she failed and was taken to a camp.