MILITARIZE Baby! MILITARIZE!

[SavannahMann]

I have no problem with the police having the best equipment possible to do their jobs effectively, while minimizing the risks to them. However, I think there needs to be a balance, especially with the day to day police officer, and how they dress, and act. I do get a sense there is more of an intimidation factor today, in how they are perceived. That may do with more, and more wearing "SWAT" type gear, and wielding some of the military equipment they have a little too freely.

Some units are beginning to look like a Standing Army instead of civilians that "Protect, and Serve".

I'm more concerned with safety and saving lives, than what things look like.

The problem is that the cops like most people have an idea. If we have it we might as well use it.

They tossed a flash bang grenade in and maimed a baby. Why did they need it? It was standard because they had them.

SWAT was sold to the public as needed for terrorism and hostage situations. Then it became a case of every problem looking like a nail because the cops had a big hammer. Every warrant service became a SWAT task because there was one chance in a thousand it might be dangerous. The cops have to shoot first because one chance in ten thousand that the person might be reaching for a gun.

The same thing has happened time and time again. The cops got pepper spray and were using it constantly. Then bad press about situations where it was not warranted meant that the cops then had to show some restraint. They hate that.

When the Tasers became common same thing. They would zap a guy for asking what did you stop me for.

If you give them the hammer they will find a way to view the problem as a nail. The bigger the hammer the more likely the nail will appear big enough to warrant it.

The cops want to show the money they spent training with the hammer was well invested. So the hammer comes out for even minor situations.

They could buy a used armored car from Brinks. They could but the armored car isn’t bad enough. It doesn’t look intimidating. And it doesn’t have a top hatch to get your machine gunner up on the roof with.

The Secret Service uses armored limos and armored Suburban trucks. There are companies that will armor plate a Hyundai if you want. But the cops “need” a MRAP.

It’s all bullshit. All the excuses are bullshit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Then, in that case, you simply didn't understand it. The suspect in the case you mentioned was also unarmed, meaning he was not a threat to the officers or others.

Try getting some help with that reading problem.

NO, YOU didn't understand it. The idea of the fleeing felon rule is it is permissible (and required) to shoot the suspect (unarmed, in the back) to prevent his escape, because as a felon (and a violent one), he poses a harm to the community if he were to escape. The "threat" has to do with what he at do AFTER the escape.

If later, Walter Scott were to fight with somebody else (like he fought with Slager), Scott might injure or even kill that person. Then, Slager would be at fault, and legally liable, for letting him escape, and the injured person could even sue Slager for not havng done his job properly, as cited by the fleeing felon rule.

A lot of people are being snookered into thinking justice was done by locking up Slager, when in fact it is a massive INjustice against a cop who did his job according to the book, and has been railroaded by politicians and a judge, who are responding to an irrational and racist black majority community, upon whose VOTES they need to preserve their careers.

You've got enough information now to see it clear, If you continue to disagree, you'll just be displaying stupidity.

Go ask any cop on the street if he can choose to shoot a fleeing felon. You are dead wrong!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have no problem with the police having the best equipment possible to do their jobs effectively, while minimizing the risks to them. However, I think there needs to be a balance, especially with the day to day police officer, and how they dress, and act. I do get a sense there is more of an intimidation factor today, in how they are perceived. That may do with more, and more wearing "SWAT" type gear, and wielding some of the military equipment they have a little too freely.

Some units are beginning to look like a Standing Army instead of civilians that "Protect, and Serve".

I'm more concerned with safety and saving lives, than what things look like.

The problem is that the cops like most people have an idea. If we have it we might as well use it.

They tossed a flash bang grenade in and maimed a baby. Why did they need it? It was standard because they had them.

SWAT was sold to the public as needed for terrorism and hostage situations. Then it became a case of every problem looking like a nail because the cops had a big hammer. Every warrant service became a SWAT task because there was one chance in a thousand it might be dangerous. The cops have to shoot first because one chance in ten thousand that the person might be reaching for a gun.

The same thing has happened time and time again. The cops got pepper spray and were using it constantly. Then bad press about situations where it was not warranted meant that the cops then had to show some restraint. They hate that.

When the Tasers became common same thing. They would zap a guy for asking what did you stop me for.

If you give them the hammer they will find a way to view the problem as a nail. The bigger the hammer the more likely the nail will appear big enough to warrant it.

The cops want to show the money they spent training with the hammer was well invested. So the hammer comes out for even minor situations.

They could buy a used armored car from Brinks. They could but the armored car isn’t bad enough. It doesn’t look intimidating. And it doesn’t have a top hatch to get your machine gunner up on the roof with.

The Secret Service uses armored limos and armored Suburban trucks. There are companies that will armor plate a Hyundai if you want. But the cops “need” a MRAP.

It’s all bullshit. All the excuses are bullshit.

The MRAP is used because it performs the function well. Ever try to get out of a Hyundai wearing body armor?

 

[Pilot1]

The MRAP is used because it performs the function well. Ever try to get out of a Hyundai wearing body armor?

I have no problem with special units using MRAPs. My problem is when my little local police force that never needs this type of vehicle has to maintain, and operate them, well just because.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The MRAP is used because it performs the function well. Ever try to get out of a Hyundai wearing body armor?

I have no problem with special units using MRAPs. My problem is when my little local police force that never needs this type of vehicle has to maintain, and operate them, well just because.

Maintenance is not very costly unless you operate them. If you aren't operating them, they would just collect dust. Your argument lacks some detail.

 

[Pilot1]

[
Maintenance is not very costly unless you operate them. If you aren't operating them, they would just collect dust. Your argument lacks some detail.

They have to train with them, so they do operate them. If they have them, I agree they must know how to operate them, and be practiced. As you know it is better to operate equipment than let it sit.

The only time they use them is for training and community fairs where they show them off.

 

[jc456]

post up a link then.

Academy and police training materials cannot be posted on social media. However, if you care to familiarize yourself with the case law on which they were developed. I refer you to

Tennessee v Gardner 1985
Graham v Conner 1989
Nelson v City of Davis 2004
Plumhoff v Rickard 2014

The case law all uphold the principle of ‘objective reasonableness’ must be considered in every use of force.

Why police shoot to kill - CNN

"CNN interviewed several law enforcement experts to gain a better understanding of police officers' use of deadly force from their perspective. They said that every situation presents officers with a unique set of challenges. And every officer must make split-second decisions, under tremendous pressure, about whether or not to fire their weapon."

That use of deadly force results in deaths isn’t under dispute.

The question being discussed is the legal justification for use of force.

Use of force by police must always be mitigated by the principle of ‘necessary force’.

Military in a combat situation will not be required to prove every combatant in the area was an immediate threat.

Military are not required to identify themselves and demand compliance prior to using deadly force.

Military are not required to use all means necessary to compel surrender prior to the use of deadly force.

Police are.

It is the difference, legal and ethical, between shooting to kill and shooting to stop.

well the discussion that you and I were having was concerning someone shooting at a cop. And I'm sorry, the cop will always shoot to kill. If they didn't they'd be fools. And, that is not any different than the military.

 

[protectionist]

The problem is that the cops like most people have an idea. If we have it we might as well use it.

They tossed a flash bang grenade in and maimed a baby. Why did they need it? It was standard because they had them.

SWAT was sold to the public as needed for terrorism and hostage situations. Then it became a case of every problem looking like a nail because the cops had a big hammer. Every warrant service became a SWAT task because there was one chance in a thousand it might be dangerous. The cops have to shoot first because one chance in ten thousand that the person might be reaching for a gun.

The same thing has happened time and time again. The cops got pepper spray and were using it constantly. Then bad press about situations where it was not warranted meant that the cops then had to show some restraint. They hate that.

When the Tasers became common same thing. They would zap a guy for asking what did you stop me for.

If you give them the hammer they will find a way to view the problem as a nail. The bigger the hammer the more likely the nail will appear big enough to warrant it.

The cops want to show the money they spent training with the hammer was well invested. So the hammer comes out for even minor situations.

They could buy a used armored car from Brinks. They could but the armored car isn’t bad enough. It doesn’t look intimidating. And it doesn’t have a top hatch to get your machine gunner up on the roof with.

The Secret Service uses armored limos and armored Suburban trucks. There are companies that will armor plate a Hyundai if you want. But the cops “need” a MRAP.

It’s all bullshit. All the excuses are bullshit.

So Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, et al race hustlers go around demonizing cops, just to incite blacks to riot and hate the cops, and thereby vote for th Democrt in the 2016 election, you fall for it, and then come in here and spill it all out to us (with zero sources/substantiation). Well gee. Aren't we so well informed now ?

The bullshit is your cop-hater, source-hollow rag, which tells us nothing other than your hatred of cops, and weakness, when it comes to anti-cop propaganda. And >> "cops have to shoot first because one chance in ten thousand that the person might be reaching for a gun" Well, where did you come with that illustrious number ? Actually, the cops DO have to shoot first, in instances when suspects hands go out of view, and yes, they COULD be reaching for a gun.

So if YOU were the cop, you would gamble (with your life as the stakes) that when he reaches into a car (like Terrence Crutcher who was shot by Officer Betty Shelby), that he's NOT reaching for a gun ? And every time a suspect reaches into his jacket (like Philado Castille), or like the guy who reached behind him, you're going to gamble ? YOU would do that, when it's YOUR life on the line ?

 

[protectionist]

Go ask any cop on the street if he can choose to shoot a fleeing felon. You are dead wrong!

I don't consult a cop about the law. I consult the law itself. And you've seen it right here. Now you're just making a complete ass out of yourself.

The Slager/Scott shooting was POLITICAL, connected to a black majority voting district, and you're just too much of a dum dum to figure that out.

 

[protectionist]

The MRAP is used because it performs the function well. Ever try to get out of a Hyundai wearing body armor?

If you're going to use a term like MRAP, spell it out. It's not common enough to use with just letters. My guess is about 95% of American would not know the meaning without looking it up.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Illinois should order 20 of those armored cars for the City of Chicago and 5 for the rest of the State of Illinois.

Ordering a couple of M1A1 Abrams for dealing with Chicago's South and West Sides is probably a good idea, as long as we're at it.

When they're not in-use, they can lend 'em to places like Ferguson, Missouri.

Another dumb post.

s'amatter? You like riots or something?

 

[protectionist]

I have no problem with special units using MRAPs. My problem is when my little local police force that never needs this type of vehicle has to maintain, and operate them, well just because.

When you get stuck somewhere, and they come to get you out, then you'll know how needed they are. Or if you were a cop inside of one, and bullets were bouncing off of it.

 

[protectionist]

The only time they use them is for training and community fairs where they show them off.

Try reading the OP before you post (and make a dunce out of yourself)

 

[protectionist]

well the discussion that you and I were having was concerning someone shooting at a cop. And I'm sorry, the cop will always shoot to kill. If they didn't they'd be fools. And, that is not any different than the military.

See Post # 252.

 

[Some Guy]

IMO, if you need a practical argument for why the war on drugs is so fucking stupid (as opposed to the easy moral argument), look no further than the militarization of the police as a result. These specialized vehicles to (in part) facilitate raids on drug houses which are necessitated by the violence that surrounds the drug trade. It's almost directly led to millions of kids and adults to view the police as the enemy when they should be a friend and servant to a law-abiding populace.

 

[protectionist]

s'amatter? You like riots or something?

I would guess he does, indeed. Maybe a participant,as well.

 

[protectionist]

IMO, if you need a practical argument for why the war on drugs is so fucking stupid (as opposed to the easy moral argument), look no further than the militarization of the police as a result. These specialized vehicles to (in part) facilitate raids on drug houses which are necessitated by the violence that surrounds the drug trade. It's almost directly led to millions of kids and adults to view the police as the enemy when they should be a friend and servant to a law-abiding populace.

That's the fault of those people who "view" wrongly, and the media (and posters like you) who feed their misperception. It's not the cops' obligation to defer to foolish thinkers. It is the foolish thinkers obligation, to adopt thinking that's not foolish.

 

[jc456]

In my second year of policing, I rendered first aid to a drug overdose on a very hot day. He was unresponsive and febrile.

An ambulance attended in 15 mins and he died in hospital a day later.

This is considered a death in police custody even though the victim was not under arrest.

I was formally questioned by homicide and had to give testimony to a coroner inquest before my partner and I were cleared of any wrongdoing.

This is just a single example of how police are held to a higher standard of conduct than the general public.

you certainly don't know the military side. because they have to do exactly the same thing.

 

[Pilot1]

Try reading the OP before you post (and make a dunce out of yourself)

Please do enlighten me. I was speaking about my local community. Do you live here too?

 

[Some Guy]

That's the fault of those people who "view" wrongly, and the media (and posters like you) who feed their misperception. It's not the cops' obligation to defer to foolish thinkers. It is the foolish thinkers obligation, to adopt thinking that's not foolish.

You're right, it's not their job to ignore the law in favor of people who want to smoke weed or shoot up. They're hired to do a job and they try to do it. The problem lies in the flaws of the law and where it leads the police to.

Let's focus on cannabis. Federal (and still many state's) law says it's illegal to grow, possess and distribute. But that doesn't mean demand isn't there, and where there is demand, there's money to be made. People break the law to meet that demand and reap the benefits of it while assuming the risks. The cut-throat nature of the business begets violence, which the police are charged with handling as well as actual drugs being moved. In the process of that, all these various lines about what's right and what's wrong get blurred together in favor of the goal at hand (making money vs. enforcing the law), and that gets mixed together with citizens' and cops' prejudices and pre-conceptions to create bad situations where kids and/or cops get shot, or people get thrown in jail by just getting caught up in something that got out of hand. Fathers get thrown in jail by ambitious policemen which forever distorts childrens' view of said police, perpetuating a cycle of dis-trust and confrontation between citizens and police.

Your post seems to suggest the the methods that cops use to enforce the laws on the books cannot be called into question. That people are supposed to see the cops as friends and servants even when their own experiences say otherwise. If not, please correct me. What i'm saying is that drug prohibition (cannabis in particular) has created this complex situation whereby a lot of good people can find themselves doing a lot of bad things in the name of whatever side they fall on, which only exacerbates the bad things going forward.