CDZ A Problem With Police

[JoeMoma]

I think you missed one - accountability. One of the core problems here is that there is a perception that the police are killing people that they should not and getting away with it entirely. Some of the more public cases have been baring this out. I hate to think of what happens when no one even notices.

Also:

While we're on the subject, stop local police departments from arming themselves like a military junta. It's too expensive and unnecessary. We have State National Guards. Put that money into gear that protects the officer.

Is not true. The reason that police are using military gear is precisely because it is cheaper. Free as a matter of fact. The military gives them the equipment as they pull it out of service and we have an amazing surplus of military gear after winding down Iraq. I actually agree with the overall point - military gear is meant to intimidate and make better killers out of soldiers and is not suited for police work but it is not price that is the problem. It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Once in awhile the police do need some of the military equipment.

 

[Howey]

There are good cops and there are bad apples...but you don't go around randomly shooting cops over the bad apples. BLM and the others are doing themselves no favors doing that. Public sentiment is with blue.

I remember just a couple of years ago conservatives were up in arms over police unions.

That has nothing to do with blacks randomly shooting police officers.

Neither does this thread.

 

[Howey]

I think you missed one - accountability. One of the core problems here is that there is a perception that the police are killing people that they should not and getting away with it entirely. Some of the more public cases have been baring this out. I hate to think of what happens when no one even notices.

Also:

While we're on the subject, stop local police departments from arming themselves like a military junta. It's too expensive and unnecessary. We have State National Guards. Put that money into gear that protects the officer.

Is not true. The reason that police are using military gear is precisely because it is cheaper. Free as a matter of fact. The military gives them the equipment as they pull it out of service and we have an amazing surplus of military gear after winding down Iraq. I actually agree with the overall point - military gear is meant to intimidate and make better killers out of soldiers and is not suited for police work but it is not price that is the problem. It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Theyre not all free. The money could be better spent training officers.

War Gear Flows to Police Departments

 

[oldsoul]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?

Or even this?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Want to end all these shootings?

Instead of making the tax payers responsible for payout make the pay outs come from their Retirement funds.

You'll see cops with a brand new attitude next day

 

[oldsoul]

Want to end all these shootings?

Instead of making the tax payers responsible for payout make the pay outs come from their Retirement funds.

You'll see cops with a brand new attitude next day

What payout are you referring to? For the military-type equipment, or the fall-out from an officer involved shooting?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Want to end all these shootings?

Instead of making the tax payers responsible for payout make the pay outs come from their Retirement funds.

You'll see cops with a brand new attitude next day

What payout are you referring to? For the military-type equipment, or the fall-out from an officer involved shooting?

The payouts from shootings

 

[oldsoul]

Want to end all these shootings?

Instead of making the tax payers responsible for payout make the pay outs come from their Retirement funds.

You'll see cops with a brand new attitude next day

What payout are you referring to? For the military-type equipment, or the fall-out from an officer involved shooting?

The payouts from shootings

In that case, I would agree, there would be a vastly different attitude the next day. I don't think that is the best answer though. Unless, of course, you mean that the payout would come from the individual officers' "accounts" that are involved. That I would consider as a viable option.

 

[depotoo]

Closed Caption, what departments do you see as having an inherent problem?

Want to end all these shootings?

Instead of making the tax payers responsible for payout make the pay outs come from their Retirement funds.

You'll see cops with a brand new attitude next day

 

[oldsoul]

I think you missed one - accountability. One of the core problems here is that there is a perception that the police are killing people that they should not and getting away with it entirely. Some of the more public cases have been baring this out. I hate to think of what happens when no one even notices.

Also:

While we're on the subject, stop local police departments from arming themselves like a military junta. It's too expensive and unnecessary. We have State National Guards. Put that money into gear that protects the officer.

Is not true. The reason that police are using military gear is precisely because it is cheaper. Free as a matter of fact. The military gives them the equipment as they pull it out of service and we have an amazing surplus of military gear after winding down Iraq. I actually agree with the overall point - military gear is meant to intimidate and make better killers out of soldiers and is not suited for police work but it is not price that is the problem. It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Once in awhile the police do need some of the military equipment.

And that is where the National Guard should step in and ASSIST. Is that not a part of their larger "mission"? Isn't that part of why we have a National Guard, for domestic circumstances where military action MAY be warranted? To quell "armed insurrections" such as (but not limited to) gang wars, militant drug trade, "militias" actively rebelling with arms?

 

[Howey]

I think you missed one - accountability. One of the core problems here is that there is a perception that the police are killing people that they should not and getting away with it entirely. Some of the more public cases have been baring this out. I hate to think of what happens when no one even notices.

Also:

While we're on the subject, stop local police departments from arming themselves like a military junta. It's too expensive and unnecessary. We have State National Guards. Put that money into gear that protects the officer.

Is not true. The reason that police are using military gear is precisely because it is cheaper. Free as a matter of fact. The military gives them the equipment as they pull it out of service and we have an amazing surplus of military gear after winding down Iraq. I actually agree with the overall point - military gear is meant to intimidate and make better killers out of soldiers and is not suited for police work but it is not price that is the problem. It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Once in awhile the police do need some of the military equipment.

And that is where the National Guard should step in and ASSIST. Is that not a part of their larger "mission"? Isn't that part of why we have a National Guard, for domestic circumstances where military action MAY be warranted? To quell "armed insurrections" such as (but not limited to) gang wars, militant drug trade, "militias" actively rebelling with arms?

This is a problem with today's police. They've forgotten their mission.

po·lice
pəˈlēs/
noun

1. 1.
   the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
   synonyms: police force, police officers, policemen, policewomen,officers of the law, law officers, authorities, constabulary;

 

[FA_Q2]

I think you missed one - accountability. One of the core problems here is that there is a perception that the police are killing people that they should not and getting away with it entirely. Some of the more public cases have been baring this out. I hate to think of what happens when no one even notices.

Also:

While we're on the subject, stop local police departments from arming themselves like a military junta. It's too expensive and unnecessary. We have State National Guards. Put that money into gear that protects the officer.

Is not true. The reason that police are using military gear is precisely because it is cheaper. Free as a matter of fact. The military gives them the equipment as they pull it out of service and we have an amazing surplus of military gear after winding down Iraq. I actually agree with the overall point - military gear is meant to intimidate and make better killers out of soldiers and is not suited for police work but it is not price that is the problem. It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Once in awhile the police do need some of the military equipment.

No they do not.

The police and military fill fundamentally different roles that do not intersect/.

 

[FA_Q2]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

 

[320 Years of History]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

Red:
That must be one hell of a huge discount the local cops get on those bear-cats. Those darn things run from ~$190K to $300K or so bought new.

I think for the assertion that it's comparatively less expensive to use (1) bear-cats than to use modified Crown Vics, Chargers, Tauruses, Impalas, etc., and (2) to stop using bear-cats, you're going to need to put some credible figures out to show the accuracy of your claim.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's quite hard accept that you are right as goes the accounting points of fact -- objectively cheaper/not cheaper -- you've made.

 

[Howey]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

I've already shown they're not.

 

[FA_Q2]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

Red:
That must be one hell of a huge discount the local cops get on those bear-cats. Those darn things run from ~$190K to $300K or so bought new.

I think for the assertion that it's comparatively less expensive to use (1) bear-cats than to use modified Crown Vics, Chargers, Tauruses, Impalas, etc., and (2) to stop using bear-cats, you're going to need to put some credible figures out to show the accuracy of your claim.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's quite hard accept that you are right as goes the accounting points of fact -- objectively cheaper/not cheaper -- you've made.

It really is not a 'discount.' It is quite literally free.

1033 program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation."

All they have to do is pay to get it to them and that can be as simple as sending an officer to go get it. The operating costs are more but the up front cost is tens of thousands less. That is a lot of gas.

 

[FA_Q2]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

I've already shown they're not.

No, you simply stated that they are not.

 

[Muhammed]

The biggest problem with the police today is the abuse of anabolic steroids.

 

[Howey]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

Red:
That must be one hell of a huge discount the local cops get on those bear-cats. Those darn things run from ~$190K to $300K or so bought new.

I think for the assertion that it's comparatively less expensive to use (1) bear-cats than to use modified Crown Vics, Chargers, Tauruses, Impalas, etc., and (2) to stop using bear-cats, you're going to need to put some credible figures out to show the accuracy of your claim.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's quite hard accept that you are right as goes the accounting points of fact -- objectively cheaper/not cheaper -- you've made.

It really is not a 'discount.' It is quite literally free.

1033 program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation."

All they have to do is pay to get it to them and that can be as simple as sending an officer to go get it. The operating costs are more but the up front cost is tens of thousands less. That is a lot of gas.

"Hey, Joe. Run to Washington and pick up that tank they're giving us!"

While it seems the police departments may not pay for some of the equipment, it's also apparent from your wiki link that the free items are more mundane...

Interesting, I found this as one of the sources cited:

The real reason Ferguson has military weapons (Opinion) - CNN.com

 

[FA_Q2]

It would be more expensive to stop using that equipment.

Explain to me exactly how it is that it would be cheaper for a police department to continue having and using equipment such as a "bear-cat"

Does this type of equipment seem cheaper to maintain and operate that this?
View attachment 82517
Or even this?
View attachment 82518

Yes, they are because they are acquired from the military without the up front cost.

Red:
That must be one hell of a huge discount the local cops get on those bear-cats. Those darn things run from ~$190K to $300K or so bought new.

I think for the assertion that it's comparatively less expensive to use (1) bear-cats than to use modified Crown Vics, Chargers, Tauruses, Impalas, etc., and (2) to stop using bear-cats, you're going to need to put some credible figures out to show the accuracy of your claim.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's quite hard accept that you are right as goes the accounting points of fact -- objectively cheaper/not cheaper -- you've made.

It really is not a 'discount.' It is quite literally free.

1033 program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation."

All they have to do is pay to get it to them and that can be as simple as sending an officer to go get it. The operating costs are more but the up front cost is tens of thousands less. That is a lot of gas.

"Hey, Joe. Run to Washington and pick up that tank they're giving us!"

While it seems the police departments may not pay for some of the equipment, it's also apparent from your wiki link that the free items are more mundane...

Interesting, I found this as one of the sources cited:

The real reason Ferguson has military weapons (Opinion) - CNN.com

No, it is apparent that they are getting a lot of mundane items along with those military vehicles (and clothing BTW is not all mundane).

The FACTS are that they receive this equipment free from the military - period. You are all over the place trying to avoid that fact because you were incorrect.