Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The academically correct definition of a police state is something along the lines of the former East Germany or any of the former Soviet satellites in which government laid down the law and the federal police (Stasi, KGB, etc.) enforced it. While it is true the United States does not fit that description, it is also true that certain aspects of that description are absolutely comparable to the academic examples of police state conduct and disposition on the part of some American police officials, thus the increasingly common metaphorical usage.How we define a police state can be pretty vague. In my opinion, every state is a police state.
If you'd care to read about an outstanding example of American style police state activity, Google up the "Waco Massacre."
I believe the U.S. has been able to disguise their police state operations by actually using the police instead of the military. People are trained to trust the police. The police are always within close proximity to the people. Military isn't. People know the military was the force for the regimes and their police states. Best thing government can do (aside from childhood into adulthood indoctrination) is to educate the people to trust the police then militarize the police, whom the people trust.
The academically correct definition of a police state is something along the lines of the former East Germany or any of the former Soviet satellites in which government laid down the law and the federal police (Stasi, KGB, etc.) enforced it. While it is true the United States does not fit that description, it is also true that certain aspects of that description are absolutely comparable to the academic examples of police state conduct and disposition on the part of some American police officials, thus the increasingly common metaphorical usage.How we define a police state can be pretty vague. In my opinion, every state is a police state.
If you'd care to read about an outstanding example of American style police state activity, Google up the "Waco Massacre."
I believe the U.S. has been able to disguise their police state operations by actually using the police instead of the military. People are trained to trust the police. The police are always within close proximity to the people. Military isn't. People know the military was the force for the regimes and their police states. Best thing government can do (aside from childhood into adulthood indoctrination) is to educate the people to trust the police then militarize the police, whom the people trust.
Disguise it? You mean you've never actually seen this? That you've just been making shit up?
Why am I not surprised?
It's funny how reality doesn't quite fit your perception --- so, obviously, it must be disguised, right?
Looney tunes!
Pledge of Allegiance, grade school. Punished if you didn't.
First - no-knock warrants.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).
They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.
Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.
What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.
To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.
One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.
Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
First - no-knock warrants.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).
They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.
Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.
What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.
To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.
One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.
Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
A couple questions. Why is the police officers life more valuable than the lives of the citizens? The argument for no knock warrants and your force continuum argument is based on the premise that the police officer is more valuable to society and is worthy of these special protections.
Let me explain. Your argument for no knock is based upon two flawed premises. First that the evidence may be destroyed. If there is such a small amount of drugs in the house as can be processed by a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet then a SWAT team is overkill. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilet can barely handle a bowel movement without choking.
The second argument is that it minimizes the opportunity for resistance. That is also nonsense. It eliminates the opportunity for compliance. Further it tells the officers that resistance is expected thus placing them in a frame of mind where lethal force is going to be triggered by any action. The person in the house is thus not worthy in your mind of living. The safety of the police officer invading the house is paramount in your calculation.
So what is the reason that the police officer going home to see his family is a more valid reason that anyone else going home to their family? In Georgia fully half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed when they were killed. Why is the life of the cop so valuable that shooting people in the back is in any way justifiable?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
First - no-knock warrants.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).
They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.
Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.
What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.
To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.
One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.
Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
A couple questions. Why is the police officers life more valuable than the lives of the citizens? The argument for no knock warrants and your force continuum argument is based on the premise that the police officer is more valuable to society and is worthy of these special protections.
Let me explain. Your argument for no knock is based upon two flawed premises. First that the evidence may be destroyed. If there is such a small amount of drugs in the house as can be processed by a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet then a SWAT team is overkill. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilet can barely handle a bowel movement without choking.
The second argument is that it minimizes the opportunity for resistance. That is also nonsense. It eliminates the opportunity for compliance. Further it tells the officers that resistance is expected thus placing them in a frame of mind where lethal force is going to be triggered by any action. The person in the house is thus not worthy in your mind of living. The safety of the police officer invading the house is paramount in your calculation.
So what is the reason that the police officer going home to see his family is a more valid reason that anyone else going home to their family? In Georgia fully half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed when they were killed. Why is the life of the cop so valuable that shooting people in the back is in any way justifiable?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Your logic is flawed.
The purpose of the no-knock warrant is, in the expectation of violent resistance or destruction of evidence, the judge has determined that the most expeditious and safest method of entry.
All the rest of your post? Bullshit. Nobody claimed one was more important than the other. In fact, the no-knock probably saves lives.
First - no-knock warrants.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).
They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.
Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.
What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.
To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.
One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.
Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
A couple questions. Why is the police officers life more valuable than the lives of the citizens? The argument for no knock warrants and your force continuum argument is based on the premise that the police officer is more valuable to society and is worthy of these special protections.
Let me explain. Your argument for no knock is based upon two flawed premises. First that the evidence may be destroyed. If there is such a small amount of drugs in the house as can be processed by a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet then a SWAT team is overkill. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilet can barely handle a bowel movement without choking.
The second argument is that it minimizes the opportunity for resistance. That is also nonsense. It eliminates the opportunity for compliance. Further it tells the officers that resistance is expected thus placing them in a frame of mind where lethal force is going to be triggered by any action. The person in the house is thus not worthy in your mind of living. The safety of the police officer invading the house is paramount in your calculation.
So what is the reason that the police officer going home to see his family is a more valid reason that anyone else going home to their family? In Georgia fully half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed when they were killed. Why is the life of the cop so valuable that shooting people in the back is in any way justifiable?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Your logic is flawed.
The purpose of the no-knock warrant is, in the expectation of violent resistance or destruction of evidence, the judge has determined that the most expeditious and safest method of entry.
All the rest of your post? Bullshit. Nobody claimed one was more important than the other. In fact, the no-knock probably saves lives.
that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
The argument you used is that it is supposedly safer for police. So the police lives must matter more if concern for their safety is paramount.
First - no-knock warrants.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).
They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.
Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.
What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.
To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.
One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.
Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
A couple questions. Why is the police officers life more valuable than the lives of the citizens? The argument for no knock warrants and your force continuum argument is based on the premise that the police officer is more valuable to society and is worthy of these special protections.
Let me explain. Your argument for no knock is based upon two flawed premises. First that the evidence may be destroyed. If there is such a small amount of drugs in the house as can be processed by a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet then a SWAT team is overkill. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilet can barely handle a bowel movement without choking.
The second argument is that it minimizes the opportunity for resistance. That is also nonsense. It eliminates the opportunity for compliance. Further it tells the officers that resistance is expected thus placing them in a frame of mind where lethal force is going to be triggered by any action. The person in the house is thus not worthy in your mind of living. The safety of the police officer invading the house is paramount in your calculation.
So what is the reason that the police officer going home to see his family is a more valid reason that anyone else going home to their family? In Georgia fully half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed when they were killed. Why is the life of the cop so valuable that shooting people in the back is in any way justifiable?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Your logic is flawed.
The purpose of the no-knock warrant is, in the expectation of violent resistance or destruction of evidence, the judge has determined that the most expeditious and safest method of entry.
All the rest of your post? Bullshit. Nobody claimed one was more important than the other. In fact, the no-knock probably saves lives.
Nearly half the 184 Georgians shot and killed by police since 2010 were unarmed or shot in the back, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Channel 2 Action News investigation has found.
Those findings emerged from the most extensive review of police shootings ever undertaken in Georgia, and cast doubt on claims by police that deadly force was always justified. The AJC and Channel 2 reported in October that every police shooting case since 2010 had been deemed lawful in the state’s criminal justice system.
First - no-knock warrants.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).
They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.
Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.
What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.
To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.
One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.
Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
A couple questions. Why is the police officers life more valuable than the lives of the citizens? The argument for no knock warrants and your force continuum argument is based on the premise that the police officer is more valuable to society and is worthy of these special protections.
Let me explain. Your argument for no knock is based upon two flawed premises. First that the evidence may be destroyed. If there is such a small amount of drugs in the house as can be processed by a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet then a SWAT team is overkill. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilet can barely handle a bowel movement without choking.
The second argument is that it minimizes the opportunity for resistance. That is also nonsense. It eliminates the opportunity for compliance. Further it tells the officers that resistance is expected thus placing them in a frame of mind where lethal force is going to be triggered by any action. The person in the house is thus not worthy in your mind of living. The safety of the police officer invading the house is paramount in your calculation.
So what is the reason that the police officer going home to see his family is a more valid reason that anyone else going home to their family? In Georgia fully half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed when they were killed. Why is the life of the cop so valuable that shooting people in the back is in any way justifiable?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Your logic is flawed.
The purpose of the no-knock warrant is, in the expectation of violent resistance or destruction of evidence, the judge has determined that the most expeditious and safest method of entry.
All the rest of your post? Bullshit. Nobody claimed one was more important than the other. In fact, the no-knock probably saves lives.
The information you claim is bullshit is the truth.
OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia
Nearly half the 184 Georgians shot and killed by police since 2010 were unarmed or shot in the back, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Channel 2 Action News investigation has found.
Those findings emerged from the most extensive review of police shootings ever undertaken in Georgia, and cast doubt on claims by police that deadly force was always justified. The AJC and Channel 2 reported in October that every police shooting case since 2010 had been deemed lawful in the state’s criminal justice system.
So is it still bullshit that cops shoot unarmed people or shoot them in the back? Is it still bullshit that half the people killed by cops in Georgia were either unarmed or shot in the back?
The cop wanting to go home to his family is not an excuse to shoot people.
First - no-knock warrants.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).
They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.
Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.
What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.
To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.
One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.
Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
A couple questions. Why is the police officers life more valuable than the lives of the citizens? The argument for no knock warrants and your force continuum argument is based on the premise that the police officer is more valuable to society and is worthy of these special protections.
Let me explain. Your argument for no knock is based upon two flawed premises. First that the evidence may be destroyed. If there is such a small amount of drugs in the house as can be processed by a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet then a SWAT team is overkill. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilet can barely handle a bowel movement without choking.
The second argument is that it minimizes the opportunity for resistance. That is also nonsense. It eliminates the opportunity for compliance. Further it tells the officers that resistance is expected thus placing them in a frame of mind where lethal force is going to be triggered by any action. The person in the house is thus not worthy in your mind of living. The safety of the police officer invading the house is paramount in your calculation.
So what is the reason that the police officer going home to see his family is a more valid reason that anyone else going home to their family? In Georgia fully half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed when they were killed. Why is the life of the cop so valuable that shooting people in the back is in any way justifiable?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Your logic is flawed.
The purpose of the no-knock warrant is, in the expectation of violent resistance or destruction of evidence, the judge has determined that the most expeditious and safest method of entry.
All the rest of your post? Bullshit. Nobody claimed one was more important than the other. In fact, the no-knock probably saves lives.
The information you claim is bullshit is the truth.
OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia
Nearly half the 184 Georgians shot and killed by police since 2010 were unarmed or shot in the back, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Channel 2 Action News investigation has found.
Those findings emerged from the most extensive review of police shootings ever undertaken in Georgia, and cast doubt on claims by police that deadly force was always justified. The AJC and Channel 2 reported in October that every police shooting case since 2010 had been deemed lawful in the state’s criminal justice system.
So is it still bullshit that cops shoot unarmed people or shoot them in the back? Is it still bullshit that half the people killed by cops in Georgia were either unarmed or shot in the back?
The cop wanting to go home to his family is not an excuse to shoot people.
Yep --- it's bullshit. But, hey, if it makes you feel better .....
First - no-knock warrants.
The purpose of a no-knock warrant (court granted authority to enter the property without notification of the tenant) is two-fold. If there is an expectation that the evidence being sought can be destroyed before the police an effect the warrant (i.e., flush the drugs down the toilet) or an expectation of violent resistance (where the element of surprise is deemed a viable and appropriate tool for the police).
They are a useful tool for the police. Since it is court granted, it, by definition, falls outside the definition of police state tactics.
Have we had no-knock warrants go awry? Absolutely - particularly, entering the wrong location is the most common. But that in no way negates the value, or the legality of them.
That hardly constitutes gestapo-like, police state tactics.
Having spent some time in police states (I was assigned to the embassy in Moscow, and served in Libya and Turkey), I would suggest that your definition of 'police state' is flawed. Absolute, and unmonitored, police actions are a hallmark of a police state. They operate with complete impunity, and have no concern for individual rights. Our police have no such autonomy.
What I think you consider "police state tactics" are, simply, the actions of the police while performing their duties. Given the constant oversight by the government, and by individuals, their actions GENERALLY conform to accepted practice.
To explain - any police officer will tell you that are taught a judgement mechanism called the "force continuum". Simply, it is the sequencing of the escalation of force driven by the force being demonstrated against the officer. He is allowed one level above that being demonstrated in order to maintain control of the situation. For example, if you take a swing at him, he is authorized to use a baton to control you, if you pull a knife, he is authorized to pull a gun, if you attempt to stab him - well, bang, band, you're dead.
One of the biggest problems today is the failure of the citizen to contribute to remaining calm and allowing the officer to control the situation. He makes you stay in the car - he makes you raise your hands. You refuse his commands, he has to go up the force continuum in order to establish absolute and complete control of the situation. You get all pissed off because he stopped you for going 5 mph over the speed limit. You jump out of your car, and you are going to give him a piece of your mind!!! Well, he perceives you as a threat - and moves up the force continuum.
Is that police state tactics? No ---- that's wanting to go home to his wife that night.
A couple questions. Why is the police officers life more valuable than the lives of the citizens? The argument for no knock warrants and your force continuum argument is based on the premise that the police officer is more valuable to society and is worthy of these special protections.
Let me explain. Your argument for no knock is based upon two flawed premises. First that the evidence may be destroyed. If there is such a small amount of drugs in the house as can be processed by a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet then a SWAT team is overkill. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilet can barely handle a bowel movement without choking.
The second argument is that it minimizes the opportunity for resistance. That is also nonsense. It eliminates the opportunity for compliance. Further it tells the officers that resistance is expected thus placing them in a frame of mind where lethal force is going to be triggered by any action. The person in the house is thus not worthy in your mind of living. The safety of the police officer invading the house is paramount in your calculation.
So what is the reason that the police officer going home to see his family is a more valid reason that anyone else going home to their family? In Georgia fully half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed when they were killed. Why is the life of the cop so valuable that shooting people in the back is in any way justifiable?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Your logic is flawed.
The purpose of the no-knock warrant is, in the expectation of violent resistance or destruction of evidence, the judge has determined that the most expeditious and safest method of entry.
All the rest of your post? Bullshit. Nobody claimed one was more important than the other. In fact, the no-knock probably saves lives.
The information you claim is bullshit is the truth.
OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia
Nearly half the 184 Georgians shot and killed by police since 2010 were unarmed or shot in the back, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Channel 2 Action News investigation has found.
Those findings emerged from the most extensive review of police shootings ever undertaken in Georgia, and cast doubt on claims by police that deadly force was always justified. The AJC and Channel 2 reported in October that every police shooting case since 2010 had been deemed lawful in the state’s criminal justice system.
So is it still bullshit that cops shoot unarmed people or shoot them in the back? Is it still bullshit that half the people killed by cops in Georgia were either unarmed or shot in the back?
The cop wanting to go home to his family is not an excuse to shoot people.
Yep --- it's bullshit. But, hey, if it makes you feel better .....
So the result of the investigation by the news is bullshit. I linked to it. So what do you call someone who refuses to see what is right before them?
Edit. Also the findings were accepted by police and were called alarming by the head of the GBI. Perhaps you should call them and tell them it's bullshit.
Nah. You'll keep telling people the truth is totally different.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
A couple questions. Why is the police officers life more valuable than the lives of the citizens? The argument for no knock warrants and your force continuum argument is based on the premise that the police officer is more valuable to society and is worthy of these special protections.
Let me explain. Your argument for no knock is based upon two flawed premises. First that the evidence may be destroyed. If there is such a small amount of drugs in the house as can be processed by a 1.6 gallon per flush toilet then a SWAT team is overkill. The 1.6 gallon per flush toilet can barely handle a bowel movement without choking.
The second argument is that it minimizes the opportunity for resistance. That is also nonsense. It eliminates the opportunity for compliance. Further it tells the officers that resistance is expected thus placing them in a frame of mind where lethal force is going to be triggered by any action. The person in the house is thus not worthy in your mind of living. The safety of the police officer invading the house is paramount in your calculation.
So what is the reason that the police officer going home to see his family is a more valid reason that anyone else going home to their family? In Georgia fully half of the people killed by police were shot in the back, or unarmed when they were killed. Why is the life of the cop so valuable that shooting people in the back is in any way justifiable?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Your logic is flawed.
The purpose of the no-knock warrant is, in the expectation of violent resistance or destruction of evidence, the judge has determined that the most expeditious and safest method of entry.
All the rest of your post? Bullshit. Nobody claimed one was more important than the other. In fact, the no-knock probably saves lives.
The information you claim is bullshit is the truth.
OVER THE LINE: Police shootings in Georgia
Nearly half the 184 Georgians shot and killed by police since 2010 were unarmed or shot in the back, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Channel 2 Action News investigation has found.
Those findings emerged from the most extensive review of police shootings ever undertaken in Georgia, and cast doubt on claims by police that deadly force was always justified. The AJC and Channel 2 reported in October that every police shooting case since 2010 had been deemed lawful in the state’s criminal justice system.
So is it still bullshit that cops shoot unarmed people or shoot them in the back? Is it still bullshit that half the people killed by cops in Georgia were either unarmed or shot in the back?
The cop wanting to go home to his family is not an excuse to shoot people.
Yep --- it's bullshit. But, hey, if it makes you feel better .....
So the result of the investigation by the news is bullshit. I linked to it. So what do you call someone who refuses to see what is right before them?
Edit. Also the findings were accepted by police and were called alarming by the head of the GBI. Perhaps you should call them and tell them it's bullshit.
Nah. You'll keep telling people the truth is totally different.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Atlanta (CNN)The past week has not been a kind one to Georgia's small-town police officers.
Six days. Six officers shot. Two deaths.
The shootings, which happened in three unrelated incidents, highlight a particularly brutal stretch in a year where at least 64 law enforcement officers have died across the United States.
Those shootings, in Georgia and beyond, have placed 2016 well ahead of last year's 12-month total for police fatalities, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Georgia has had one of the worst years in terms of police fatalities.
Six days, six Georgia officers shot - CNN.com
------------------------------------------------------
Now, I don't want to hear any more about your police state, and how the cops are killing everybody. It's time for you to grow the fuck up and know just what in the hell is going on out there. There are evil people - and you want cops to handle them - but you don't want cops to do it in a way that keeps them safe.
I am sick and tired of liberal assholes who think their only way to get attention is to talk absolute garbage on websites like this. You come in here, twisting facts, misrepresenting the truth - all to so you can puff out your chest and brag about how you really put it to some anonymous guy on the internet last night. Frankly, people like you make me sick. Just shut the hell up, go crawl under some rock somewhere, and leave decent people alone.
Better yet, you go tell their kids what a mean man their dad was. Go ahead ... you want to talk bullshit, maybe it's time you waded in it.
What a steamy pile of dung. You, like all immature blowhards, have a misunderstanding of police duties and base all your arguments on it. No, cities do not hire and train people to make sure your precious ass never gets hurt, that's the thinking of a toddler.Oh dear me. The police are getting killed instead of the other people. Why, that's just not fair. How awful for you.
Police shootings 2016 database
907 people have been killed by police so far this year. The police aren't out there protecting us. That is the argument they made before the Supreme Court who agreed that the Police have no constitutional duty to protect anyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ve-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0
Not my words, the response of the police themselves who let two little girls die because they were too busy writing tickets to be bothered with it.
Now you are pissed at me because I don't worship at the alter of the thin blue li(n)e. Worse I have reasons for my outrageous claims. So you throw dead bodies at me and pretend it's my fault. Bullshit to use your words.
I have never called on anyone to be harmed. I don't want to see anyone die. But you wonder why people are angry with police and I can tell you that. You denounce it as bullshit and get furious when I post the facts.
I don't know if you wear the badge, or if it's a family member, or a friend. I don't really care. But let's be honest. Cops lie all the time. It's called Testilying. Police perjury: It's called 'testilying'
If you are mad at me for knowing this, then you are angry at the wrong person. Respect is never deserved. It is earned. Distrust is also earned. It's earned by the police who break the rules and lie about it.
If I rob a bank, even if I only rob one, I a a bank robber. It doesn't matter if I did not rob a thousand banks, if I robbed one I am a criminal. Even if I am never caught or prosecuted, I am still a bank robber. If you plant evidence once. If you lie under oath once. If you cover up for a crooked fellow cop even once, you are a criminal wearing a badge. Even if you are never charged or convicted. Once is enough.
The Los Angeles Sheriffs department had a hundred violations of the constitution. Justice Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Agree to Policing Reforms and Settlement of Police-Related Fair Housing Claims in the Antelope Valley
Let me guess. More bullshit. The citizens should be thankful their rights are regularly violated. Thank god the police were there to abuse them. Imagine the horrors they would have endured without the police there to use excessive force during an illegal search and seizure. Of course the police using lie and deny landed several of them in jail. But come on the citizens deserve that kind of abuse.
I've had so much smoke blown up my ass by the cop groupies that I could fart smoke rings for a week. It's always the same. Oh it's a dangerous job and you have to understand that. Lumberjacks have dangerous jobs but that doesn't give them the right to beat the shit out of an innocent man and then charge him with bleeding on their uniforms. Commercial fishermen have dangerous jobs but we don't let them shoot people in the back and claim it was self defense.
I don't call the cops. Ever. I have called for an ambulance a few times for injured people, but never the cops.
What a steamy pile of dung. You, like all immature blowhards, have a misunderstanding of police duties and base all your arguments on it. No, cities do not hire and train people to make sure your precious ass never gets hurt, that's the thinking of a toddler.Oh dear me. The police are getting killed instead of the other people. Why, that's just not fair. How awful for you.
Police shootings 2016 database
907 people have been killed by police so far this year. The police aren't out there protecting us. That is the argument they made before the Supreme Court who agreed that the Police have no constitutional duty to protect anyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ve-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0
Not my words, the response of the police themselves who let two little girls die because they were too busy writing tickets to be bothered with it.
Now you are pissed at me because I don't worship at the alter of the thin blue li(n)e. Worse I have reasons for my outrageous claims. So you throw dead bodies at me and pretend it's my fault. Bullshit to use your words.
I have never called on anyone to be harmed. I don't want to see anyone die. But you wonder why people are angry with police and I can tell you that. You denounce it as bullshit and get furious when I post the facts.
I don't know if you wear the badge, or if it's a family member, or a friend. I don't really care. But let's be honest. Cops lie all the time. It's called Testilying. Police perjury: It's called 'testilying'
If you are mad at me for knowing this, then you are angry at the wrong person. Respect is never deserved. It is earned. Distrust is also earned. It's earned by the police who break the rules and lie about it.
If I rob a bank, even if I only rob one, I a a bank robber. It doesn't matter if I did not rob a thousand banks, if I robbed one I am a criminal. Even if I am never caught or prosecuted, I am still a bank robber. If you plant evidence once. If you lie under oath once. If you cover up for a crooked fellow cop even once, you are a criminal wearing a badge. Even if you are never charged or convicted. Once is enough.
The Los Angeles Sheriffs department had a hundred violations of the constitution. Justice Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Agree to Policing Reforms and Settlement of Police-Related Fair Housing Claims in the Antelope Valley
Let me guess. More bullshit. The citizens should be thankful their rights are regularly violated. Thank god the police were there to abuse them. Imagine the horrors they would have endured without the police there to use excessive force during an illegal search and seizure. Of course the police using lie and deny landed several of them in jail. But come on the citizens deserve that kind of abuse.
I've had so much smoke blown up my ass by the cop groupies that I could fart smoke rings for a week. It's always the same. Oh it's a dangerous job and you have to understand that. Lumberjacks have dangerous jobs but that doesn't give them the right to beat the shit out of an innocent man and then charge him with bleeding on their uniforms. Commercial fishermen have dangerous jobs but we don't let them shoot people in the back and claim it was self defense.
I don't call the cops. Ever. I have called for an ambulance a few times for injured people, but never the cops.
Cops are paid to enforce the laws, and that includes writing a speeding ticket if you speed. How a traffic cop is supposed to prevent a child from being murdered is beyond my human powers. Nor can a patrol cop stop it, they too are human with only human powers.
No, we don't let cops shoot people in the back for self defense. What tripe. 800,000 cops interacting with the public, often with frequent flyers, and you think the few that go wrong are the norm? They do get prosecuted, maybe you need a better news source.
