MILITARIZE Baby! MILITARIZE!

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

[
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.

Better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Google is you friend. We are talking military surplus vehicles.

 

[Pilot1]

Better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

In general I agree with you. I'd rather they be better equipped, than under equipped. However, people tend to act how they are dressed, and outfitted, and I have seen a progressing attitude of intimidation among some police. I don't like that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

In general I agree with you. I'd rather they be better equipped, than under equipped. However, people tend to act how they are dressed, and outfitted, and I have seen a progressing attitude of intimidation among some police. I don't like that.

Does your vagina hurt too?

 

[protectionist]

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

And I was speaking about your Post # 266, which doesn't say a word about your local community. The whole post is written in a generic mode, that states conditions in general, that would apply anywhere. If you want to be understood as confining to just your local community, you have to SAY THAT.

 

[SavannahMann]

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 ?

I have. I did it in Iraq. Not only that but I walked up on people unarmed to search them for weapons. They might have a weapon, but I had dropped all of mine before approaching them. I walked into bunkers and buildings knowing someone might be inside and knowing I was not to shoot unless I saw a weapon.

Are you telling me that the streets of Milwaukee are more dangerous than a war zone? Are you really going to claim that it is more dangerous on the highways of Oklahoma than in the cities and bunkers of Iraq? Are the people the cops are facing trained to kill?

You are so completely full of shit it must be squirting out of your ears.

 

[Pilot1]

Does your vagina hurt too?

No, I had that taken care of. I thought you knew that.

 

[DrLove]

Whatever blows your skirt up - Just know that police militarization is what autocracies do.

But you seem to be comfortable with that too, so ---> Meh

 

[SavannahMann]

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 ?

I wish you all would make up your minds. When people object to police abuse and misconduct, we are told that the events of the use of force are one in a thousand or even less often. We are told of the thousands of interactions between the public and the police that are not in anyway violent or whatever. We are told this to show how passive and professional the police are when dealing with the public, thus the events we object to are rare occurrences.

Now, when the numbers are turned around, we are told that those numbers are bullshit by the same folks who would be proclaiming them to show the police are innocent of abuse and the events we object to are not part of a pattern.

Make up your ******* mind already. You can’t have it both ways. Either it is a random and rare occourance, or it is a common occourance.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Plug a Thug

The rules necessary for the security of a free state must be:

1. Anyone who verbally assaults a policeman gets maced and billyclubbed.

2. Anyone who physically assaults a policeman gets shot dead.

That's what happened to Officer Michael Slager, but the black guy (Walter Scott)who attacked him, started getting the worst of the fight. Seeing that he was going to get his ass handed to him (and get arrested), he ran away, and got shot in the process.

Then, Slager wound up in jail and is still serving time (20 years) for what the judge David C.Norton, said he saw it as a murder. That's strange, when the law sees it as a cop doing his job, to prevent a fleeing felon from escaping and thereby endangering the community (Fleeing Felon Rule)

Whole thing smells of nasty politics, in a black majority district, where judges and politicians careers depend on VOTES.

Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia

Savages Now Set the Pace

Rule #3: Bring back the "Stop or I'll Shoot" policy. The Police Academy is not a training facilities for Olympic runners. That goes for car chases, too.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Their experience DON'T say otherwise. Barrack Obama says otherwise. Al Sharpton says otherwise. Jesse Jackson says otherwise. nd it's up to us to be smart enough to not fall for their politically-driven con job talk.

As for drug prohibition, I like the idea that with it, less people are out on the roads stoned to the gills, and causing accidents. I smoked pot for about 8 years when I was much younger, I did some other drugs too. About all it ever did for me was to impede my progress of moving ahead in life. Want something to give you a lift, make you feel good, and its fully legal ? I found it with these >>

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

In general I agree with you. I'd rather they be better equipped, than under equipped. However, people tend to act how they are dressed, and outfitted, and I have seen a progressing attitude of intimidation among some police. I don't like that.

Misfits Merit Misery

The criminals like it even less. They are subhuman and must be exterminated. They must live in fear of their lives, not the police.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What’s different from an enemy shooting at the military?

If an enemy shoots at a soldier, it’s the mission of the soldier to shoot back and eliminate him.

When someone shoots at a cop, the mission of the cop is two-fold...

... stop his actions
... bring him before a court for judgment

The cop is obligated by law to use only reasonable force to do so.

Completely different missions and rules of engagement.

The "Rule of Law" Is the Law of the Rulers

The sheltered upper class forced thughugging laws on us to distract us from our democratic duty to take it down. The designs of that protected clique must be exposed and their laws nullified. Crush the skulls of those snakes; make our own laws that treat criminals like a virus that must be eradicated as quickly and thoroughly as a well-placed bullet.

 

[Some Guy]

Their experience DON'T say otherwise. Barrack Obama says otherwise. Al Sharpton says otherwise. Jesse Jackson says otherwise. nd it's up to us to be smart enough to not fall for their politically-driven con job talk.

As for drug prohibition, I like the idea that with it, less people are out on the roads stoned to the gills, and causing accidents. I smoked pot for about 8 years when I was much younger, I did some other drugs too. About all it ever did for me was to impede my progress of moving ahead in life. Want something to give you a lift, make you feel good, and its fully legal ? I found it with these >>

View attachment 195056

Good for you for overcoming that, but it shouldn't be the government's job to tell you what you can/should or can/should not do with your life. All you're really saying is that "drugs are bad, mkay, and i think the government should force you, against your will, not to do drugs."

Clearly the government didn't stop you from doing drugs. You only stopped cause you eventually realized that it impeded your progress and you could/should be doing something more productive with their lives. Others can be more responsible about using drugs (namely talking cannabis here), just like how some are alcoholics while others (like me) enjoy having a beer or two every once in a while. If you really want to stop people from doing drugs, at the end of the barrel of a gun is not a good way to do it. It's done best through education about the dangers of them, just like with alcohol.

 

[protectionist]

I wish you all would make up your minds. When people object to police abuse and misconduct, we are told that the events of the use of force are one in a thousand or even less often. We are told of the thousands of interactions between the public and the police that are not in anyway violent or whatever. We are told this to show how passive and professional the police are when dealing with the public, thus the events we object to are rare occurrences.

Now, when the numbers are turned around, we are told that those numbers are bullshit by the same folks who would be proclaiming them to show the police are innocent of abuse and the events we object to are not part of a pattern.

Make up your ******* mind already. You can’t have it both ways. Either it is a random and rare occourance, or it is a common occurance.

My mind has never not been made up. You talked of a "one chance in ten thousand that the person might be reaching for a gun" You offered no source to back that up. I'll offer the source of common sense. ANYTIME a suspect's hand disappears from view of the police officer, suspect could be reaching for a gun. I will wager that is a whole lot more often than 1 time in 10,000.

So WHAT numbers are "turned around" ?

As for "both ways", I don't see any 2 different ways here. Your post isn't clear. Yes, use of force (with a gun) are relatively rare. Yes, 1000's of interactions with police are not violent. I don't hear anyone calling police shooting a common occurance. So who is saying that WHAT conditions are bullshit ?

 

[protectionist]

Savages Now Set the Pace

Rule #3: Bring back the "Stop or I'll Shoot" policy. The Police Academy is not a training facilities for Olympic runners. That goes for car chases, too.

It already IS the policy >>> Fleeing felon rule - Wikipedia ever since the Tennessee vs Garner SCOTUS case of 1985.

It is just a problem of judges and politicians ignoring the policy (law), and doing what they think will help get them re-elected (as in the Slager/Scott case)

 

[jc456]

Their experience DON'T say otherwise. Barrack Obama says otherwise. Al Sharpton says otherwise. Jesse Jackson says otherwise. nd it's up to us to be smart enough to not fall for their politically-driven con job talk.

As for drug prohibition, I like the idea that with it, less people are out on the roads stoned to the gills, and causing accidents. I smoked pot for about 8 years when I was much younger, I did some other drugs too. About all it ever did for me was to impede my progress of moving ahead in life. Want something to give you a lift, make you feel good, and its fully legal ? I found it with these >>

View attachment 195056

Good for you for overcoming that, but it shouldn't be the government's job to tell you what you can/should or can/should not do with your life. All you're really saying is that "drugs are bad, mkay, and i think the government should force you, against your will, not to do drugs."

Clearly the government didn't stop you from doing drugs. You only stopped cause you eventually realized that it impeded your progress and you could/should be doing something more productive with their lives. Others can be more responsible about using drugs (namely talking cannabis here), just like how some are alcoholics while others (like me) enjoy having a beer or two every once in a while. If you really want to stop people from doing drugs, at the end of the barrel of a gun is not a good way to do it. It's done best through education about the dangers of them, just like with alcohol.

or perhaps caring about family and your own life.

 

[protectionist]

I have. I did it in Iraq. Not only that but I walked up on people unarmed to search them for weapons. They might have a weapon, but I had dropped all of mine before approaching them. I walked into bunkers and buildings knowing someone might be inside and knowing I was not to shoot unless I saw a weapon.

Are you telling me that the streets of Milwaukee are more dangerous than a war zone? Are you really going to claim that it is more dangerous on the highways of Oklahoma than in the cities and bunkers of Iraq? Are the people the cops are facing trained to kill?

You are so completely full of shit it must be squirting out of your ears.

I don't know if you are full of shit or not, but I do know that what you just said is one of the craziest and absolutely IDIOTIC things I've ever read..

If you acted in Iraq (and I was there 2 years ago) or anywhere, like what you said, you'd either be one of 2 things: dead, or incredibly lucky. Your post is trying to tell us that it is not OK to shoot somebody when their hands disappear. Dude, that is idiocy. That is gambling with your life, especially in the case of a cop who is dealing with somebody trying to avoid being arrested.

And you say you dropped all your weapons. Oh, that's just brilliant. You're either the dumbest clown in town, or you're nuttier than a fruitcake. All I can say is I wonder if the nuttier than a fruitcake Obama policies weren't at work here. I don't know what would drive somebody to act this crazy way, but the way police do it, is correct.

They inform a suspect to keep his hands visible and empty. If he doesn't comply, he gets shot. Cop is self-defense acquitted every time, especially when there is video to back him/her up, as in the Crutcher and Castile cases.

As for Milwaukee, or anywhere else, no place is any more dangerous than any other place. You could be shot anywhere, and it could take a fraction of a second from when the person's hand disappears from your view. If it does, you either shoot, or you're a dead idiot.

 

[dblack]

protectionist does love a good jack boot.

 

[protectionist]

Good for you for overcoming that, but it shouldn't be the government's job to tell you what you can/should or can/should not do with your life. All you're really saying is that "drugs are bad, mkay, and i think the government should force you, against your will, not to do drugs."

Clearly the government didn't stop you from doing drugs. You only stopped cause you eventually realized that it impeded your progress and you could/should be doing something more productive with their lives. Others can be more responsible about using drugs (namely talking cannabis here), just like how some are alcoholics while others (like me) enjoy having a beer or two every once in a while. If you really want to stop people from doing drugs, at the end of the barrel of a gun is not a good way to do it. It's done best through education about the dangers of them, just like with alcohol.

I agree that educating people about the harms of drugs is a positive thing. Trouble is, not everybody responds to that. Those who don't, and then drink and drive, drug and drive, they get people killed. This is why the government and police (who have better things to do) are forced to step in.

Smoking pot, like smoking anything is bad for your lungs, and when you get to my age (72), you will know how the things you did 50 years earlier, come back to haunt you, and at the late stage, there's not much you can do to correct it.

Best policy is to not put anything into your body other than clean air, clean water, and good nutritious foods.