unixknight

Of course the men and women who serve in the military are part of the community... But the military does not exist to enforce civil law. The primary purpose of the military is to destroy enemies of the United States. Typically that means military personnel aren't to be found on the job driving down Elm Street. What about wearing an X-Wing T-shirt when I don't have an X-Wing? I'M DOING IT RIGHT NOW. COME AT ME. @anatess2 Explains what...?

What do you mean? I don't understand.

My cube was a solid steel box that came up to about my waist, sitting on the ground. The wooden ladder was standing off to the side next to a horse just standing there wearing a saddle and some saddlebags. I had a small handful of desert flowers near the cube. The storm was distant and a bit comforting.

To choose one of the main two options, even if you dislike both, just lets them off the hook. "Hey <insert your party name here> don't worry about giving me a candidate I can trust and believe in. I'll just settle for whomever you dredge up and parade across the stage at convention time." Apply that lesson to both of the big parties collectively and it's the same logic. You aren't holding them to any standard at all. How in the world can you expect better candidates than this when you're not willing to hold out for better? It's like all that absolute brand loyalty for companies like Chevrolet and Ford. Know why most American cars were so awful in the '80s? It's because car manufacturers counted on people being loyal to their brand no matter how much of a rattletrap they rolled off the assembly line. "I'd rather push my Ford than drive a rice-burner" is a phrase I heard a lot. So let me get this straight; you'd prefer a 3,000 lb. paperweight to a functional car that can get you to work just because of the brand name on the emblem? What right do you have to expect them to build great cars when you'll buy anything with their logo on it? Presumably at one time they did build really good cars and earned that loyalty, but what good is it if they can't maintain it? They don't care whether you drive that car or push it around as long as you keep coming back to their dealerships they have no real reason to change. American cars are way better now because suddenly they started losing massive sales to better quality companies so they had to get their act together. So it's the same now. "Well I guess I gotta vote for either Trump or Clinton... both are awful." Well then DON'T vote for either. What do you think's gonna happen in 4 years? Better candidates? Based on what? You picked one of the candidates they presented last time so what reason do they have to change? They don't care whether you liked the candidate or not. You voted for him/her. Want the Republicans and Democrats to pick better candidates for you? Refuse to accept the trash.

Glad you're still with us, brother. By your screenname, were you a paratrooper? Just out of curiosity, what sort of criticism do you feel is deserved? As to the critics in the public... I agree most people react emotionally to whatever they see on the news and don't really understand the issues, but the way you phrased your comment here is pretty dismissive of any public criticism, which I find troubling because ultimately the community is who hires you to enforce the laws and uphold their rights. To be dismissive of them is to separate yourself from their concerns, even when they're legitimate, and that's a serious problem. I always get nervous when someone says they're here to "educate." That usually means they expect the information and point of view to flow in only one direction and that's no way to engage in a civil discussion. I hope that won't be the case here. There's a lot to respond to here, so I'll try to be as brief as I can in my initial response. Good. This is as it should be. The issue is just how many wingnuts are making it through, or to what extent to the rigors of the job turn someone into a wingnut after the initial screen. When we talk about a case like Michael Slager, who we generally agree acted improperly (to put it mildly) and was probably one of those wingnuts you mentioned, we often forget that when he moved the taser to tamper with the scene, he did it right in front of another officer who was nearby. It wasn't this officer who called him out on his actions, it was the guy who took the video. So was this other officer, who apparently saw what happened (or at least, the aftermath) another wingnut? Or was he protecting his co-worker? See, these are the questions the informed public wants to know the answers to. Would Slager still have been prosecuted if not for that video? A lot of people would say "probably not" and that lack of trust is the issue here, and you can't just dismiss that with "well the public is just ignorant." Glad to know he recovered. In the county where I live, candidates for the police academy no longer have to have a college degree. My problem with that is they're now hiring guys with even less life experience than a college graduate would have. Not for me. As I've already mentioned in this thread, I have no problem with body armor. So do these guys need those colors for all the warrants they're serving in the woods? There's no reason to wear military olive drab. That reinforces the soldier mentality in the minds of the public as well as those wearing it. I've seen plenty of officers in fatigues that were at least the same color as their regular uniforms (blue) so yes, they can wear something functional and flame retardant. Never see them? Brother, I work in Baltimore. "It creates the mentality that the police officers are warriors armed against a hostile enemy, but the hostile enemy that they're armed against is us," said David Rocah, spokesman for the Maryland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union." -source Somebody's seein' them. A lot. Implicit in that statement is that the police showed up already in that gear. If it doesn't matter, as you say, then why the OD to begin with? Then why have them, and why so rigorously defend having them? Snipers. I'm trying to imagine a police sniper firing into a crowd of protesters and not see this as a serious problem. The problem is that if a situation is escalating, it should not be law enforcement escalating it. To my knowledge, none of the rioters in Ferguson were riding around in armored cars or setting up sniper nests. The presence of the armored vehicles during those riots were for the purpose of intimidation. Period. You might say there were there just in case, but these things were right out front, not in reserve. They also had guys in the cupola pointing weapons into the crowd, not in a safe direction. That's what you do to intimidate someone. Shootings to your "credit?" I find that comment disgusting, sir. I hope this isn't some indicator that you're proud of them. I know it's a matter of semantics, but this is one of those important distinctions that needs to be made between a soldier and a police officer. It's a credit if the soldier eliminates threats. When a police officer has to do it, it should be because it's absolutely necessary. Not something to take credit for. I've been following a case where a suspect was killed while crawling on all fours toward the police. 6 officers were present, and the one who felt his life was suddenly in danger happened to be the same guy whose AR-15 had the words "you're f***ed" written on the ejection cover. Before you dismiss me as an ignorant member of the public, bear in mind that this particular officer was fired and arrested, so I guess his superiors felt this was a problem too. I've done a little research into tasers and it turns out some law enforcement agencies have stopped using them because of the risks. The problem is that because it's a non-lethal use of force, it tends to get used more often than it should. Cases where people have died from being hit with tasers usually do so because they're hit with multiple tasers at once, or hit repeatedly such that the subject is exposed to the voltage far longer than what is considered "safe." I agree that tasers are better than guns in most cases, but the training is horrible in too many cases. Who said it's socially acceptable? I'm not aware of anybody on this forum with that perspective but maybe I just missed a post or two somewhere. So this other officer fatally shot a suspect which, in your opinion, wasn't necessary at the time but it's all good? Seriously? The fact that the department lost the lawsuit suggests that the shooting was not justified, but you're okay with it because....? Because it was a fellow officer? I get it. You don't want to second guess someone who's on the line with you. Can you see where this generates mistrust among the public? I guess the officer who saw Slager plant the taser didn't want to second guess him either. And cell phone cameras. You can't say this for certain. The FBI doesn't track officer involved shootings so we don't know what the picture looks like at a national level. Individual entities can opt to send that data to the FBI but there's no requirement, and only about 3% of agencies actually do. There's also no mechanism at the national level for tracking the difference between justified and unjustified shootings, nor is there a way to track encounters that turn violent but are not fatal. I don't think anybody on this forum has said that. Good to know you're above name-calling if they did, though. ...oh... So when you say stuff like this "I'm not here to spar, fight or pontificate on all the what-ifs." I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced. Has anyone called upon you to allow yourself to be stabbed? In what way does your camo protect you from this? Nobody has said it never happens. What I've said, and what others are saying, is that it doesn't happen enough. The balance is getting better as body cams and public video recording have become common. Look at it this way: Slager didn't know he was being recorded, but apparently had an expectation that his shenanigans would protect him. (There are plenty more examples besides Slager, but his is a useful one to make a point. I'm not interested in smearing cops by going out and dredging up a big bunch of links to examples of unjustified shootings. Hopefully, we're all aware of that stuff already.) So the only legitimate concern we, as the public, should have is whether the police departments have enough military hardware to "take over" the community? (Whatever that means.) The issue isn't what would happen between militarized police and an actual combat ready platoon. The issue is the widening divide between the community and officers who look increasingly like soldiers and not like the public servants they're supposed to be. To me, that sounds a lot like "Why should you exercise your 4th and 5th Amendment rights? If you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about." I don't worry about the guy behind the trigger today. I worry about who might be behind it tomorrow. As for all the photos of the police cars with bullet damage... I'm not sure why you addressed me personally about them. I've said through this entire thread that I support the idea of putting armor and even bullet proof glass in police cruisers. What are you trying to convince me of? That officers get shot at in their cars? Mirkwood already made that point and I didn't argue it with him. So would an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. Maybe "because it works!" isn't enough reason all by itself.

Absolutely true. Whatever social issues are causing that need to be addressed for certain. It is a fact that elected officials who are supposed to govern these areas are doing a miserable job but manage to keep getting re-elected on the same failed policies over and over, mainly by scapegoating others. Then you have the declining family structure where in these areas over half the kids being born have no fathers. Add to that city police departments that look and act increasingly like an occupying army rather than a civil law enforcement agency and voila'... Chaos. There's plenty of blame to go around and that means it's easy to point fingers at each other.

More than happy to. First, image. There's always been a lot of talk about co-operation between local law enforcement and the citizenry. If you want to encourage that, you can't expect people to be as comfortable around a military vehicle as they are with an ordinary police car (which causes enough anxiety as it is, in our current climate.) It's the same concept as the difference between the shirt and tie vs. fatigues. One is approachable, the other is not. Second, it's the same objection I raised in the past. If you equip people like soldiers, they'll start acting like soldiers. I hope I don't need to explain again why that's a bad thing but I certainly can. Third, it reinforces the us v. them mentality for both the community and the police department. I think we've had quite enough of that already. Consider this also. If crime in parts of our country is so severe that we need a militarized police force, complete with AFVs and heavy firepower, then something has gone very seriously wrong already. Who's to blame? Politicians' crummy policies? Poor policing in the past? A community that chooses to live in a self-imposed warzone? All of the above to some degree? Maybe instead of escalating things we ought to be looking for the root cause.

Because I was being unclear as a result of posting in a rush When I mentioned "armored vehicles" I'm talking about APCs and the like. A police car with armor is, in my mind, no different from wearing bullet proof vests, which I have no problem with. It's not militarization.

Um... Neuro?

Glad to hear that. I think there's plenty of value in adding some kind of armor to police cruisers. I'd vote for that. It seems to me if it's worth it to add armor and bullet proof glass to cars ridden in by politicians, it's gotta be worth it for police officers. Not okay with ordinary local departments having armored vehicles though. I don't doubt that there are sometimes circumstances that justify it, but then I'd say maybe they should be held at the state level.

How well (or badly) did the handgun rounds penetrate? I'm just curious. I've seen them test that in Mythbusters but they were using pretty high caliber stuff so it doesn't carry over so well.

Glad you're still with us. Do you know what they were shooting at you with?

I'll address this graphic too since... well I just like to. Nobody has a problem with riot helmets. By all means, wear 'em. No complaints here. The fully automatic rifle... well yeah. While AK-47s can be found among gangs especially, I'd be interested to know what the statistical likelihood is of needing the M-16 because you're going up against something like that. "Just in case" isn't good enough. Remember the L.A. Shootout when the LAPD was badly outgunned by the bank robbers who AK-47s and body armor? Know what they did? They went into a local gun store. The owner of the store was happy to lend them plenty of rifles and ammo so they could go do what they had to do. I like this as an example of law enforcement and regular citizens co-operating. Part of my wish to see police departments stay away from military equipment is for this reason. The more military you get, the more separated you are from the people in the community you're working with. This can't be a good thing. I have no problem with body armor for officers. I don't know of anyone who does. As for the armored vehicle... How often to police cruisers get fired upon by that kind of ammo? I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one just because I don't think that it happens too often. If I'm wrong about that someone please show me the stats. See, police used to always drive in cars, just like other citizens, and wore a shirt and tie, just like professionals. It makes us as citizens feel more like the police are like us, it makes it easier to trust and approach them. When they look like soldiers, there's a wide gulf between them and the community, and that's not a good thing. Flag on the play... you didn't use a meme.

The issue I'd take with that comic is that the one farthest on the right doesn't represent the image that people have a problem with. When you hear people talk about the militarization of the police, they're talking about military camouflage, not the blue pictured here that matches the other examples. They're talking about military grade fully automatic rifles, not the sidearm or the nightstick pictured here. They're talking about armored vehicles with gun cupolas, none of which is pictured here. They're talking about guys who actually look like soldiers, which isn't what's pictured in the 2015 example above. In this picture, the guy all the way on the right is wearing blue fatigues and simple riot gear. If it were just that, you wouldn't hear so many complaints.

Oh the media has destroyed its own credibility so thoroughly it amazes me that anybody still trusts them, anywhere, and that's exactly why I worry about this issue. If the media decides to vilify BlackLivesMatter, then they're toast.

That's good to know, because I agree that black lives are generally given a lower priority and that needs addressing. I'm just worried that incidents like this one will shift focus away from that and nullify the good the movement can do.

I know that's the purpose of the movement, but a lot of people are taking it to the point of making it exclusionary. For example, this incident with the Blue Lives Matter display.

Yeah the issue I have with the whole Black Lives Matter thing is that yes of course they matter, but that's because All Lives Matter. Most of the time when you hear people from the BLM movement it comes across like they feel that Only Black Lives Matter. It's also incredibly stupid that this incident is going to contribute to the Cops vs. Black People mentality that's making this whole thing even worse.

@Carborendum Thanks!

You guys slay me. Just to cover all the bases, I don't think anyone here is a fool. I added that comment mainly because I can be a very sensitive person, and easily offended. When I found that quote from Brigham Young it helped me to mature a bit and gather a new and more useful perspective. Now I'm still easily offended, but I like to think I handle it better than I used to. If I may chime in on the USmerican thing... I understand LeSellers' reason for using the term and it makes sense to me. I don't think he means any offense to anyone, including the USA itself. I also get why people may not like it, in that it might be interpreted similarly to how people use "Xmas" instead of "Christmas" when they don't like the 'Christ' part*. (Not that LeSellers means it that way) I think this kind of thing can serve as a useful reminder that there's plenty of room for all of us to do our thing, and as long as we can honestly understand each other, this sort of thing needn't divide us. *The joke is on them, when they do that. The 'X' in "Xmas" actually comes from an older Greek symbol that represented the Savior, and it looked a lot like an 'X' and that's how it actually began. It didn't start off as a mere abbreviation. (It's been a while since I read that, so don't quote me.)

“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” ― Brigham Young

You aren't wrong. I think the problem is that when we're publicly scolded, people who witness it don't really know the whole story and may be inclined to think we had that scolding coming, which is unfair given that we can't really mount a defense without escalating the argument. So we do what Eowyn did, and contain it by not shouting back. That's the right thing to do, but it really takes a lot of humility.

We all do, I think. It's normal and part of why we're social creatures. That's what makes it so mortifying to be confronted like Eowyn was in front of an audience. We worry that the people who are seeing the drama but don't know any more about it may think that we deserve the chewing out. I was once confronted by a Bishop in the foyer in front of friends and family. I was so humiliated I never attended Church while he was still the Bishop again. We do care what people think of us. We try not to, and some of us are very successful, but such people are the exception, not the rule IMHO.

It really is. It's the security of knowing you're in the right. Sad epilogue... Because this is a person who is very controlling and always needs to have things done her way, she didn't bring her son to the workshop I ran for helping the boys build their rockets. As a result, she had her son build his rocket incorrectly, and on launch day I couldn't allow him to launch it for safety reasons. I did let him launch one of mine, but he still had to go through the disappointment of not being able to see his project fly.

I had a similar experience once, though thankfully it wasn't in the foyer. I was a Cub Scout leader (Webelos) and one of the mothers objected to the way I was running it. I had promised the scouts that we would do a model rocket derby if they all were able to earn their Webelos badges. She felt that it was wrong to dangle a carrot in front of their noses like that. Of course, when I wouldn't fold up and do it her way, she threatened to go to the Bishop (as if that were something I should be afraid of). I told her to go ahead. I never heard anything more about it after that. And yes, we did launch the rockets.