House Democrat Readies Bill To Demilitarize Local Police

[nodoginnafight]

Irrelevant. I didn't challenge the quote, I challenged what you inferred from it. Namely that assault rifles represented anything significant whatsoever with criminal activity or that there was some significant threat of criminals with rifles. The simple reality is that the VAST majority of all crime is with handguns.

I inferred nothing of the sort.

Yup 1991

But yeah, I'm pretty sure criminals have downsized their arsenals since then.

So that was not a sarcastic comment that inferred those rifles were a significant threat or that they represented an arsenal that police are running into.

Please explain what you meant then because I cant think of any reason you would bother to quote the report if you were not inferring anything.

That was a sarcastic comment in response to a complaint about the age of the study.

If you'd rather just go ahead and write my posts for me .... and then argue with them .... knock yourself out.

 

[FA_Q2]

I inferred nothing of the sort.

Yup 1991

But yeah, I'm pretty sure criminals have downsized their arsenals since then.

So that was not a sarcastic comment that inferred those rifles were a significant threat or that they represented an arsenal that police are running into.

Please explain what you meant then because I cant think of any reason you would bother to quote the report if you were not inferring anything.

That was a sarcastic comment in response to a complaint about the age of the study.

If you'd rather just go ahead and write my posts for me .... and then argue with them .... knock yourself out.

*sigh*
If you are not going to state why you bothered to cite the study then what do you expect us to do?

You are being cryptic without purpose. how about you simply state WHAT point you are trying to make with the study. What you think it means and how it supports your contention.

 

[martybegan]

[MENTION=23094]martybegan[/MENTION]: I'm not relying on anything. I quoted the report verbatim.
If you feel the need to scramble to discredit the study because it doesn't fit your assumptions, that's your business - not mine.

From the study:

In 1991, Sheley and Wright
surveyed 835 serious juvenile offenders
incarcerated in 6 facilities in 4
States. In the Sheley and Wright
study, 35% of the juvenile inmates
reported that they had owned a
military-style automatic or semiautomatic
rifle just prior to confinement.

My criticism of the information still stands.

 

[nodoginnafight]

[MENTION=23094]martybegan[/MENTION]: I'm not relying on anything. I quoted the report verbatim.
If you feel the need to scramble to discredit the study because it doesn't fit your assumptions, that's your business - not mine.

From the study:

In 1991, Sheley and Wright
surveyed 835 serious juvenile offenders
incarcerated in 6 facilities in 4
States. In the Sheley and Wright
study, 35% of the juvenile inmates
reported that they had owned a
military-style automatic or semiautomatic
rifle just prior to confinement.

My criticism of the information still stands.

No sweat.

Since I've been accused of being cryptic, I'll just say where I stand and try to be as clear as possible.

IMHO: The problem is not that police departments have "military gear" at their disposal. The problem is that excessive force investigations are not transparent and give me the impression of "cops covering for other cops."

I want police officers to have the weaponry they need (or the ability to get it pretty quickly) when they need it.

I want a truly independent panel to review excessive force claims and individual officers held accountable.

This is not an issue of weaponry, it's an issue of responsibility and accountability.

MHO

 

[Boss]

The events in Ferguson, Missouri seem to have two distinct issues in play. First is the issue of the incident which sparked all the protests, and secondary, the issue of police response to the protests. Nothing is ever totally 'black or white' and it should be important for us to keep that in mind, but we seem to be unable to do so when things like this happen. Immediately, we want to let our emotions get the best of us and jump to conclusions, then we want the government to act on those emotions.

Totally unrelated issue, Robin Williams commits suicide, the very next day we have people supporting an initiative to increase funding for mental health in the name of Robin Williams. Well, Williams didn't commit suicide because we're not spending enough money to help people who have mental health issues, and he didn't commit suicide because he couldn't afford mental health assistance. We've just gotten into this habit of running to government to fix all our problems, whether there is a solution or not.

Ferguson is hardly a metropolis, it's an average-sized town, similar to most average-sized towns across America. It is large enough that their police are equipped with resources to handle civil upheaval. Should they be? Well, this incident seems to indicate it probably isn't a bad idea. What happens when order breaks down and chaos happens in the streets? Do you just let your town be burned to the ground by lawless thugs? Today, people are posting videos of the Ferguson police launching tear gas into crowds of supposedly 'peaceful' protesters, but the night before, these same crowds were allowed to do their thing and it resulted in riots and looting. I think the police have a responsibility to the businesses and community to act preemptively to prevent chaos in the streets. They simply must control order.

This whole thing has exploded into an emotional response to a shooting of an unarmed young black man, reminiscent of the Trayvon Martin case. But as the evidence is beginning to show, this is nothing like the Martin case. The victim was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery caught on video. He allegedly assaulted the officer who shot him after he attempted to go for his gun. What is the cop supposed to do here? When did we change the rules? So now, if I have a gun and a badge and you are unarmed, you can basically attack me in any way you please and I can't respond with lethal force? You're kidding me, right?

Some are clamoring for "an investigation" but I think that's exactly what has been happening the past few days. Investigations take time. You don't just snap your fingers and get a thorough and complete investigation, it doesn't work that way. It takes a few days at least, to get all the information, to do the various interviews, to review the various bits of evidence and make an informed evaluation. But we seem to live in a crazy time... We want instant gratification! In the meantime, we want to run out there and demand government pass some kind of new law or something, just so we feel better about things.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I agree with this:

Immediately, we want to let our emotions get the best of us and jump to conclusions, then we want the government to act on those emotions.

This, not so much. You are committing the sin you outlined above. The facts are yet to be revealed.

The victim was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery caught on video. He allegedly assaulted the officer who shot him after he attempted to go for his gun.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Never let a death or good crisis GO TO WASTE the Democrat/lib/progressive motto

You must be sleeping with EdwardBaiamonte. When JakeStarkey (Today), LadyGunSlinger (Today), Sallow (Today), The2ndAmendment (Yesterday) in support of this bill, and you spout the crap above, you look absolutely idiotically parnoid.

 

[Boss]

I agree with this:

Immediately, we want to let our emotions get the best of us and jump to conclusions, then we want the government to act on those emotions.

This, not so much. You are committing the sin you outlined above. The facts are yet to be revealed.

The victim was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery caught on video. He allegedly assaulted the officer who shot him after he attempted to go for his gun.

Well I am happy you agree with me on the former, but not sure what you mean in your disagreement on the later. The victim was indeed a suspect in a strong-arm robbery, the video of which is all over the Internet. According to the police officer, the victim assaulted him, he received medical treatment for injuries, so that seems to be corroborated. Allegedly... important word there... the victim went for the officer's gun. I don't know, I wasn't there, but since the officer was treated for injuries consistent with an assault, I can presume he was assaulted. If this is the case, he has the right to use deadly force.

What's really troubling is, the officer is black... therefore, this probably isn't going to be turned into some exasperating "racial" thing that we have to endure for months and months. It's as if we have two different standards depending on if the officer in question is black or not. Had he been white, none of his statements can be believed, we have to assume he was racially profiling and killed the victim because the victim was a black guy.

Now look... If we have white police officers out there shooting unarmed black men for no other reason than they are black... we've got a really big ******* problem in America. I just don't believe THAT is the case. I think there are race baiters who WANT that to be the case, and they want to pretend that's what is happening.

Based on the knee-jerk emotionalism so far, I can deduce we need to adopt the following policies: 1.) unarmed black men can no longer be detained by police, even when there is video evidence of them committing a crime. 2.) police officers aren't ever allowed to use their weapons if a person is unarmed, even if they are attacked and assaulted. 3.) white officers can't ever attempt to question or detain black unarmed suspects. 4.) police departments can't attempt to control mobs of protesters. 5.) Internal department investigations need to happen quicker than an iPhone can post a Tweet. And we all need to get crackin' on lobbying our politicians to pass a flurry of knee-jerk emotive laws to make this all happen NOW! Because, apparently, we all suffer from ADHD and a childhood of instant gratification through video games and diets of fruit loops!

 

[martybegan]

[MENTION=23094]martybegan[/MENTION]: I'm not relying on anything. I quoted the report verbatim.
If you feel the need to scramble to discredit the study because it doesn't fit your assumptions, that's your business - not mine.

From the study:

In 1991, Sheley and Wright
surveyed 835 serious juvenile offenders
incarcerated in 6 facilities in 4
States. In the Sheley and Wright
study, 35% of the juvenile inmates
reported that they had owned a
military-style automatic or semiautomatic
rifle just prior to confinement.

My criticism of the information still stands.

No sweat.

Since I've been accused of being cryptic, I'll just say where I stand and try to be as clear as possible.

IMHO: The problem is not that police departments have "military gear" at their disposal. The problem is that excessive force investigations are not transparent and give me the impression of "cops covering for other cops."

I want police officers to have the weaponry they need (or the ability to get it pretty quickly) when they need it.

I want a truly independent panel to review excessive force claims and individual officers held accountable.

This is not an issue of weaponry, it's an issue of responsibility and accountability.

MHO

The problem is military gear leads to a military mindset. If PO's see themselves not as peace officers out to help the public, but as semi-soldiers out to get the bad guys, then you have a serious serious problem.

How many times have officers actually been outgunned by the bad guys? There was that once case in LA but those nutters wore enough armor to stop machine gun round (not the pistol rounds fired by cop submachine guns like MP-5's).

I agree that responsibility has to be increased. That also includes stopping the whole "cops can get away with small stuff" like parking in front of hydrants and the occasional DWI. Resentment sets in when cops appear to have special privileges they do not deserve.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Cops don't want to get shot, so they get armored vehicles.
Cops don't want to miss if they shoot back, so they use 5.56 rifles instead of pistols or shotguns.
Cops don't want to get hit in the head with rocks or bottles, so they wear a helmet.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but what the **** does it matter?

If people would stop shooting at police, stop burning down gas stations, stop looting car rim stores, stop throwing maltov cocktails......well, maybe cops wouldn't feel the need to mimic the military.

Because the military is GREAT at protecting themselves from bullets, and being very accurate with the ones they shoot back. So can you blame the police for wanting to get the BEST protection possible and best defense capabilities as well?

Local police forces have gotten progressively out of hand. Instead of friendly neighborhood cops trying to protect and serve - they've become tough guys (militant). It's time to reverse the trend.

As a former Atlanta Police officer, 8 years, in Zone 3 (South Atlanta) let me just say.......YOU go try to be the "friendly neighborhood cop" like Andy Griffith.

You go get spit on. You get sucker punched. You have your family threatened, and have the felon show up on your front lawn; You go out to dinner with your wife and have a felon recognize you; You GET SHOT AT, or worse, get hit.

Go do the job for a ******* month, and tell me how that Andy Griffith bullshit works out.


Hell yes they've become tough guys. They always have been. They tried the "friendly neighborhood police officer" who hugs babies and gives out candy. How did society react? With all the above bullshit I listed. SO now they aren't playing that game anymore.

Don't like it? DONT commit crimes; If cops tell you do stop doing something, just stop doing it. Don't try to talk back and resist or any of that shit. Just follow the rules. This whole mess started because some smart ass kids walking in the middle of the road talked back and didn't want to get out of the road (which is illegal). A tragedy occurred, hell, maybe even a crime because they cop may have committed murder.

But regardless, a stupid act started it.

America isn't Mayberry anymore.

No. Cops need to follow the rules and get off the dope they've been mainlining lately, acting like our lords and masters, rather than the public servants that they are. When law-abiding, middleclass America is pissed off over the increasingly apparent arrogance of badges—badgering, bullying, intrusive questions at the drop of a hat, interior checkpoints, TSA checkpoints, DUI checkpoints, Highway, stop-and-grab checkpoints, blanket stop and frisk—something's seriously wrong. When guys like me who have always been very supportive of law enforcement officers is pissed off something's seriously wrong.

I've had three encounters with cops in the last several years that would have never occurred two decades ago, and they weren't pleasant. When I politely refused to answer their questions, as is my right, they got all ugly and stupid with me, as if I were their child, as if they were going to intimidate this former combat soldier.

That's your attitude? You want to play victim, start sniveling like a little girl: Us against them! Fine. "Am I being detained or am free to go, asshole?"

Cops who can't politely handle citizens who politely assert their rights don't belong on the force. Such are dangerous and unruly yahoos.

I'm fed up with paternalistic law enforcement and the militarization of law enforcement. I'm also fed with cops in the larger cities of the Northeast, especially, but also elsewhere, lobbying against the Second Amendment rights of the people.

It's the people who are primarily responsible for defending the common welfare of the Republic. Police organizations are supposed to be supplemental agencies whose primary task is to investigate real crime and apprehend the culprits. An armed citizenry is the first line of defense against crime, not the police.

And therein lies the rub, the underlying cause of rising tensions between law enforcement agencies and the people. Things have gotten ass backwards in that regard, and lefty is mostly to blame. It's the cities controlled by Democrats where the abuses of Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights are most prevalent, as paternalistic law enforcement is lefty's default position in those cities where he has severely curtailed the peoples' right to keep and bear arms.

We don't need more cops, but less. We've got too many. That's the problem with law-and-order hysteria and the vote-buying pandering of politicians to law-enforcement unions. Policing is a serious profession. Too many cops nowadays are not psychologically fit to handle the job.

We need more armed citizens. And since lefty doesn't get that, I'm not all that impressed by his hand wringing over the militarization of the police.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I agree with this:

Immediately, we want to let our emotions get the best of us and jump to conclusions, then we want the government to act on those emotions.

This, not so much. You are committing the sin you outlined above. The facts are yet to be revealed.

The victim was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery caught on video. He allegedly assaulted the officer who shot him after he attempted to go for his gun.

Well I am happy you agree with me on the former, but not sure what you mean in your disagreement on the later. The victim was indeed a suspect in a strong-arm robbery, the video of which is all over the Internet. According to the police officer, the victim assaulted him, he received medical treatment for injuries, so that seems to be corroborated. Allegedly... important word there... the victim went for the officer's gun. I don't know, I wasn't there, but since the officer was treated for injuries consistent with an assault, I can presume he was assaulted. If this is the case, he has the right to use deadly force.

What's really troubling is, the officer is black... therefore, this probably isn't going to be turned into some exasperating "racial" thing that we have to endure for months and months. It's as if we have two different standards depending on if the officer in question is black or not. Had he been white, none of his statements can be believed, we have to assume he was racially profiling and killed the victim because the victim was a black guy.

Now look... If we have white police officers out there shooting unarmed black men for no other reason than they are black... we've got a really big ******* problem in America. I just don't believe THAT is the case. I think there are race baiters who WANT that to be the case, and they want to pretend that's what is happening.

Based on the knee-jerk emotionalism so far, I can deduce we need to adopt the following policies: 1.) unarmed black men can no longer be detained by police, even when there is video evidence of them committing a crime. 2.) police officers aren't ever allowed to use their weapons if a person is unarmed, even if they are attacked and assaulted. 3.) white officers can't ever attempt to question or detain black unarmed suspects. 4.) police departments can't attempt to control mobs of protesters. 5.) Internal department investigations need to happen quicker than an iPhone can post a Tweet. And we all need to get crackin' on lobbying our politicians to pass a flurry of knee-jerk emotive laws to make this all happen NOW! Because, apparently, we all suffer from ADHD and a childhood of instant gratification through video games and diets of fruit loops!

Boss, I hear you, and I'm with you. That's why my comments have not touched on the incident that sparked this uproar. From everything I can gather, I don't necessarily buy the story that this cop was out of line. In any event, the FBI will investigate the incident, and let the chips fall where they may. What's got me pissed is Sharpton's antics, the rioters and the behavior of the cops toward peaceful demonstrators and toward the journalists covering the story.

Also, are you saying that the officer was black? The officer was white. Also, bear in mind, the initial contact between the officer and Brown had nothing to do with Brown's alleged involvement in a robbery. According to the Ferguson police chief, the officer had no knowledge of Brown's alleged involvement in that crime. The officer stopped Brown because he was walking down the middle of the street.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It isn't one-size-fits-all. Intelligent people know when and where SWAT tactics are called for.

When rioters are burning down gas stations, smashing windows and looting business, throwing maltov cocktails and pulling guns on cops..........

Yeah, that's SWAT time.

I can see your agenda, so I won't split hairs with you. You obviously really like militarized jackbooted thugs in unform.

Also, the Ferguson Mayor said the burning and looting were done by out-of-towners. So why should the peaceful 1st Amendment protesters of Ferguson be treated like animals?

Uh, what? To be fair to bucs90, he has a pretty solid point there. Those who rioted were way out of line. It was outrageous. Something's seriously wrong if we can't agree on that much. I didn't read anything in bucs90's post where he defended the use of SWAT against peaceful demonstrators, and neither did you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When rioters are burning down gas stations, smashing windows and looting business, throwing maltov cocktails and pulling guns on cops..........

Yeah, that's SWAT time.

I can see your agenda, so I won't split hairs with you. You obviously really like militarized jackbooted thugs in unform.

Also, the Ferguson Mayor said the burning and looting were done by out-of-towners. So why should the peaceful 1st Amendment protesters of Ferguson be treated like animals?

Of course he said that. But were they ID'ed? Nope. It could have been anyone, out of towner or not.

I don't like it. But it is a necessary element of society these days. Just how it is. Society has become very violent and unstable. As a left winger, you often have mentioned the big ass assault rifles that the NRA and right wing have supported and flooded our streets with.

Well, now you criticize the police for armoring themselves against the very weapons whose existence you have damned?

But here you are wrong. The people have every right in the world to own militia-grade weapons, and in those cities where the people are generally armed violent crime is the lowest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Never let a death or good crisis GO TO WASTE the Democrat/lib/progressive motto

he Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Lakhota For This Useful Post: Remove Your Thanks
JakeStarkey (Today), Jarlaxle (Yesterday), LadyGunSlinger (Today), LordBrownTrout (Yesterday), PoliticalTorch (Today), R.C. Christian (Yesterday), Sallow (Today), The2ndAmendment (Yesterday)

Check the names, Stephanie, and go put a sack over your head.

 

[Yarddog]

The gangs are also well armed. So we let them take over?

Yeahm thats a good point as now gangs hve access to military style weaponry. Not to mention, out actual military has been cut by the feds. in the event we were ever hit internaly by synchronized jehadi actions, we are pretty soft i would say.

 

[Yarddog]

Sounds good to me.

The problem here is that the guy sponsoring this legislation is also the one who feared that Guam would tip over if we put too much military materiel on the island.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orswrcoZieU]The island will tip over and capsize! - YouTube[/ame]

The problem here is that Guam is unrelated to his proposed legislation.

If Guam tips over then they can all buy crabbie paddies on bikini Bottom, whats the problem!!!??? Say hi to Sponge Bob for me Mr Congressman!

 

[Yarddog]

the scary thing is, what i just wrote previously, makes just about as much sense as what he said.

 

[Jarlaxle]

When rioters are burning down gas stations, smashing windows and looting business, throwing maltov cocktails and pulling guns on cops..........

Yeah, that's SWAT time.

No, that's National Guard time.

No. There is nothing worse than trying to use a military force as a police force. The training, equipment, job and entire purpose of the 2 agencies are completely at odds. Want to destroy something and control an entire populous - call up the military. Want to protect the safety and rights of your citizens - those are the FIRST things that a military sacrifices.

When people are protesting, bring in the local (or state) police to keep order. When thousands of feral thugs are rampaging through the streets...call in the National Guard, and make very clear that the policy is that looters will be shot.

 

[Stephanie]

This is the games these politicians play on the people in this country

they help created THIS PROBLEM now they're going to ride IN to SAVE US

Democrats are the worse for this BS

 

[Jarlaxle]

I think the Turner Diaries crowd is just hoping to tilt the battlefield in their direction.

Where did that come from?

The dark, fetid depths of his recto-cranial inversion.