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.
well for areas of the country that are combat zones, I'd want em. I dare you to just drive through south Chicago at night. Don't you watch the news? And it's baltimore, and it's Ferguson, Detroit, LA and on and on. yep, the cops in those zones need something more. sorry dude. combat is combat.There has been some criticism of the use of military equipment and vehicles the , by police departments. Just one example is the
Lenco Bearcat, multi-purpose, wheeled, armored personnel carrier. It is in use by numerous military forces and law enforcement agencies around the world. But some libertarians see the Bearcat as overdoing it, in the law enforcement area.
All in all, I'd say, the characterization of the use of military type vehicles like the Bearcat, and maybe even tanks, is the overkill, and these things are a good idea to quell riots, protect police, manage hostage situations, and rescue citizens in distress.
I prefer my police STAY police. And the military stay military. It's bad enough they now call SWAT out for just about everything. All these pretty little toys cost money, not only do we pay for all that shit but we don't need it at the community level---- it is just one more thing to invite theft and abuse---- most likely against the citizens they are there for to serve and protect.
This is all refuted in the OP. In pictures as well as text.I prefer my police STAY police. And the military stay military. It's bad enough they now call SWAT out for just about everything. All these pretty little toys cost money, not only do we pay for all that shit but we don't need it at the community level---- it is just one more thing to invite theft and abuse---- most likely against the citizens they are there for to serve and protect.
dude, you can call it what ever you want, but they are combat zones. ask the cops. I know their families worry every night on the job in those cities.well for areas of the country that are combat zones, I'd want em. I dare you to just drive through south Chicago at night. Don't you watch the news? And it's baltimore, and it's Ferguson, Detroit, LA and on and on. yep, the cops in those zones need something more. sorry dude. combat is combat.There has been some criticism of the use of military equipment and vehicles the , by police departments. Just one example is the
Lenco Bearcat, multi-purpose, wheeled, armored personnel carrier. It is in use by numerous military forces and law enforcement agencies around the world. But some libertarians see the Bearcat as overdoing it, in the law enforcement area.
All in all, I'd say, the characterization of the use of military type vehicles like the Bearcat, and maybe even tanks, is the overkill, and these things are a good idea to quell riots, protect police, manage hostage situations, and rescue citizens in distress.
I prefer my police STAY police. And the military stay military. It's bad enough they now call SWAT out for just about everything. All these pretty little toys cost money, not only do we pay for all that shit but we don't need it at the community level---- it is just one more thing to invite theft and abuse---- most likely against the citizens they are there for to serve and protect.
I can't say, I don't live in a combat zone (crime ridden area) and no area of the USA ought to be a "combat zone," that points to a total failure of the government to create and maintain control of their city and are just trying to keep a lid now on a situation they are responsible for letting get totally out of control.
police are trained to shoot to kill sorry. post up a link then.Sure are a lot of cops going to court for killing people.Center mass take em down
You’d be surprised to learn just how often that is not the case. Eighty per cent of those shot be police survive.
Police are only legally authorized to shoot to stop aggression, not to kill. Once aggressive behavior ceases, we are legally obligated to stop shooting.
We are trained to shoot center mass not because it is the most lethal, we do so because it is, by far, the easiest to hit.
This is all refuted in the OP. In pictures as well as text.I prefer my police STAY police. And the military stay military. It's bad enough they now call SWAT out for just about everything. All these pretty little toys cost money, not only do we pay for all that shit but we don't need it at the community level---- it is just one more thing to invite theft and abuse---- most likely against the citizens they are there for to serve and protect.
bearcat rescues victims in mud - Bing video
neither is the military allowed just to kill. just isn't. there are rules of engagement.police are trained to shoot to kill sorry. post up a link then.Sure are a lot of cops going to court for killing people.Center mass take em down
You’d be surprised to learn just how often that is not the case. Eighty per cent of those shot be police survive.
Police are only legally authorized to shoot to stop aggression, not to kill. Once aggressive behavior ceases, we are legally obligated to stop shooting.
We are trained to shoot center mass not because it is the most lethal, we do so because it is, by far, the easiest to hit.
I’m a law enforcement officer in my 3rd year and I was trained to shoot to stop.
That doesn’t mean it’s not a possibility that the person I shoot will not die. It means I cannot legally shoot a person when they no longer pose an immediate threat.
Were I to continue to shoot a person that wasn’t a threat I could face prosecution.
The training I’ve received on use of force, both lethal and non lethal, has been very consistent. If you use force you had better be prepared to justify it.
post up a link then.
Why police shoot to kill - CNNpost 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 do they blow their noses with their right hands? WTF does that have to do with what I said?Then why do they act like assholes in all white neighborhoods?Most of our cops could probably be safe walking around unarmed if we had an all-white population. Instead you need an assault squad when entering some negrohoods.
Why police shoot to kill - CNNpost 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.
"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."
1. 4 X 4s tried. They failed.My 4X4 could have gotten through that. And it doesn't take armor plating to drive on bad streets. So OK, worthwhile for the CITY to have one of these on hand to loan out to communities in the area on a as-needed basis for those rare emergencies. Still, my township doesn't need to own one. Any wheel loader, etc., could have worked as well.
The TOPIC has gotten pushed aside here. Thread is about Military EQUIPMENT use by first responders (like the Bearcat), not protocols.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.
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.
There has been some criticism of the use of military equipment and vehicles the , by police departments. Just one example is the
Lenco Bearcat, multi-purpose, wheeled, armored personnel carrier. It is in use by numerous military forces and law enforcement agencies around the world. But some libertarians see the Bearcat as overdoing it, in the law enforcement area.
One example is the Cato Institute, a libertarian think thank, which considers the Bearcat to be synonomous with SWAT team raids against nonviolent drug offenders, which sometimes mistakenly target the wrong residence. This then seems to be blown up to a framing of the Bearcat (and general militarization of police tactics) to be akin to fascist, big brotherism.
Generally, BearCats are typically referred to by law enforcement agencies as being "armored rescue vehicles" with their primary use being to transport tactical officers to and from hostile situations, and to assist with the recovery and protection of civilians in harm's way during terrorist threats, hostage incidents, or encounters with large gatherings of aggressors. The Bearcat is designed to provide protection from a variety of small arms, explosives, and IED threats. It also is fitted with devices making it capable of engaging in a variety of actions to rescue people in distress (ex. moveable elevated platform systems called the Liberator and ARC to enable cops to access a variety of elevated structures such as multi-story buildings, ships at docks, or aircraft during hostage or terrorist situations).
View attachment 194433
So, what has actually occurred with this militarization of police ? The answer is >> some darn good things. Lenco BearCats have been credited with saving the lives of officers in armed confrontations on numerous occasions. In 2010 in Athens, Texas, an armed offender fired more than 35 rounds from a semi-automatic AK-47 rifle (their bullets known for being able to penetrate metal), at tactical police. Not one round penetrated the Bearcat.
In November 2015, a BearCat was used by police to rescue civilians during the Colorado Springs planned Parenthood shooting. The Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office Bearcat was shot between four and seven times with a rifle, during an incident on December 29, 2015. Sheriff Whetsel was quoted as saying the Bearcat saved the Deputies' lives. On June 12, 2016, a Bearcat was used to breach the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, FL, after a the terrorist Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 clubgoers, and injured 53 others.
All in all, I'd say, the characterization of the use of military type vehicles like the Bearcat, and maybe even tanks, is the overkill, and these things are a good idea to quell riots, protect police, manage hostage situations, and rescue citizens in distress.
Another imbecile's dopey post, thoroughly refuted by the OP. Ho hum.Another useless thread displaying the opinion of a halfwit. These vehicles were completely useless in my rural neck of the woods. They were also eventually returned. Many departments have no use for them.
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.
View attachment 194928
Racist much?!Most of our cops could probably be safe walking around unarmed if we had an all-white population. Instead you need an assault squad when entering some negrohoods.
https://nypost.com/2017/09/26/all-that-kneeling-ignores-the-real-cause-of-soaring-black-homicides/Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.
totally irrelevantNow when was the last time a black kid shot up a school?Most of our cops could probably be safe walking around unarmed if we had an all-white population. Instead you need an assault squad when entering some negrohoods.
Shhh! If it doesn't make breaking news at CNN, he doesn't know about it.totally irrelevantNow when was the last time a black kid shot up a school?Most of our cops could probably be safe walking around unarmed if we had an all-white population. Instead you need an assault squad when entering some negrohoods.
blacks murder over 4 times the rate of whites
see post # 258
