Militarization of the police in cartoon format

[David13]

unixknight

What is with your adversion to camo? 

You are not one of these guys still running around with a Harley t shirt when he doesn't own nor ride a Harley, are you?

That type of thing is all over with today.

Today, it's camo.  Even for the women.

So get with it.

dc

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, David13 said:

 

So get with it.

 

Unix is very, very "with it", and he's also 100% correct. The LAST thing we should want is active soldiers patrolling in America acting as police officers.  Martial law would be a terror.  I think even police officers would have a problem with the national guard taking their jobs. That's chilling. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by MormonGator

[David13]

Gator

I live in Los Angeles.  We have had a few riots here unlike anything they have seen in Utah, or perhaps Florida.

And martial law.  And there are quite a few who have been rather appreciative of the National Guard roaming the streets at night.. 

I'm also from Michigan, and recall the same thing in Detroit, back in the 60s.

I would like to also point out that the first to hide in those riots were ... the local police.  And rightfully so, as they were one of the first targeted, outnumbered, and out gunned.

Maybe you just live in a different America than I do.  So sometimes we just have to speak for ourselves.

dc

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, David13 said:

Gator

I live in Los Angeles.  We have had a few riots here unlike anything they have seen in Utah, or perhaps Florida.

And martial law.  And there are quite a few who have been rather appreciative of the National Guard roaming the streets at night.. 

I'm also from Michigan, and recall the same thing in Detroit, back in the 60s.

I would like to also point out that the first to hide in those riots were ... the local police.  And rightfully so, as they were one of the first targeted, outnumbered, and out gunned.

Maybe you just live in a different America than I do.  So sometimes we just have to speak for ourselves.

dc

So you have no problem with living in a police state where the police are US soldiers? You are literally the first person I've ever met to find that ok. Thank God that's not going to happen anytime in the near future. 

You can be pro-police and still find what you are describing horrifying. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

45 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Unix is very, very "with it", and he's also 100% correct. The LAST thing we should want is active soldiers patrolling in America acting as police officers.  Martial law would be a terror.  I think even police officers would have a problem with the national guard taking their jobs. That's chilling. 

I'm with you. When I was in Venezuela on my mission, we saw soldier police walking the streets with machine guns all the time.  

One of the things they did was check young men's IDs. Military service is mandatory at 18 (though you can get a temporary waiver for mission service). So if they caught any young men over 18 on the streets they'd throw them in their truck. Drafted.

One time at a check point I got pulled off a bus, by men with machine guns. I couldn't speak Spanish very well at the point so I can't tell you why they let me back on the bus because I didn't have my passport  (the mission. Office had it to renew my visa). I've always assumed there was so missionry miracle going on.

I would not want to live like that on America. 

I can understand a temporary solution for riots as David suggested, but temporary only!

As I said up thread, we talk in the church about the Constitution being inspired, so we should remember why our Founding Fathers wanted us to be armed..they weren't worried about home invaders.

Edited June 1, 2016 by LiterateParakeet
Correcting autocorrect

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm with you. When I was in Venezuela on my mission, we saw soldier police walking the streets with machine guns all the time.  

One of the things they did was check young men's IDs. Military service is mandatory at 18 (though you can get a temporary waiver for mission service). So if they caught any young men over 18 on the streets they'don't throw them in their truck. Drafted.

One time at a check point I got pulled off a bus, by men with machine guns. I couldn't speak Spanish very well at the point so I can't tell you why they let me back on the bus because I didn't have my passport  (the mission. Office had it to renew my visa). I've always assumed there was so missionry miracle going on.

I would not want to live like that on America. 

I can understand a temporary solution for riots as David suggested, but temporary only!

As I said up thread, we talk in the church about the Constitution being inspired, so we should remember why our Founding Fathers wanted us to be armed..they weren't worried about home invaders.

 I don't think any of us want to see a M3 Bradley blocking the highway on the way a baseball game. 

[NeuroTypical]

Anyone else remember the week after 9/11?   Anyone else remember cheering, thanking them, and feeling totally grateful for the cops that suddenly seemed to be very visible and heavily outfitted and armed?  I was really, really happy to see the police in their full SWAT gear, toting scary looking black rifles.  I know I wasn't the only one.

How goofy that we think the police can turn into military by just wearing certain clothes or driving certain vehicles or deploying certain equipment.  Here's a mental exercise - think about a cop, at 3am, sitting wet in the driver's seat.  Finishing up 45 minutes of paperwork, following 2 hours of being at a rainy scene trying to get the armed bad guys to surrender without killing anyone else.  A cold drive-through burrito sitting on his passenger's seat, uneaten because he got a call right after going through the drive through.  He knows if he screws up his paperwork, the dudes he risked his life to get behind bars might very well walk away free.  

Got the mental image?  Now, think of that cop wearing SWAT camo, and the driver's seat is in an APV, and his scary black rifle is in the back seat.  

Are you able to keep thinking "cop" here?  Or is there something in your brain that makes you think "soldier"?  

Edited June 1, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I'm not sure I get your point NeuroTypical. Of course, we were grateful then, something major had happened. But if they were still out in the same force today that would be a problem.

If I have a home intruder and I call the police and they come rescue me, of course I will be grateful. But that doesn't mean I want them to move into my home for good.

Edited June 1, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[David13]

Well, I can assure you all that after the several times they were deployed here, after a bit, they all went home.  With no further problems from the restless 'ones'.  Other than the usual continual problems when they get restless.  And that includes Detroit too.

I have also been in other countries and had no problem with them, in particular Mexico.  They are everywhere.  And usually no problem at all, particularly if you are not a narcotraficante.  Either buyer or seller, which I never was.

If they are deployed to disarm the law abiding citizens, then there will be a big problem.

Literate Parakeet

If you have a home invader around here, you had better be able to entertain them for a half hour at minimum before the police MIGHT show up.  Which might tell you that you might prepare a better defense strategy than just 'dial 911'.

dc

 

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

23 minutes ago, David13 said:

If you have a home invader around here, you had better be able to entertain them for a half hour at minimum before the police MIGHT show up.  Which might tell you that you might prepare a better defense strategy than just 'dial 911'.

dc

I agree with you. Once when I worked with abused kids and teens, we had a teen who was followed home by a man. We caught him on our property looking up at her window on the second floor. 

I called 911 and I thought the police would  one screeching in with lights and sirens. But nope. Two hours later, one officer arrived, no lights, no siren.  

[paracaidista508]

11 hours ago, unixknight said:

Just out of curiosity, what sort of criticism do you feel is deserved? Commission of crimes, civil rights violations, misconduct. Criticism based on emotion rather than fact and law is what is not deserved.

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.  I dont know what you do for a living, but do you spend all your time dealing with unqualified people telling you how to do your job on a daily basis?...because they are a customer or something? 

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.  College graduates have not been proven to do much of a better job. Overall they do a little bit better, but the difference is negligible. Most cops where I work are degreed or end up that way partway through their career. I finished my BA about 10 yrs into the job.

So do these guys need those colors for all the warrants they're serving in the woods?  I dont get the hangup on camo so not going to address the hyperbole

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. I'm in AZ. I cant see all the way to baltimore so Im still not seeing it where I live. If it bothers you so much why dont you get the rest of the citizenry together and get a referendum going to dictate the clothing choices of your local cops. Since your gov't (Baltimore) is run by liberals, I'm sure they will be eager to get the cops outfitted with something a bit more fabulous.

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? Yea, who care what they are wearing?? It is their uniform. So you think the swat guys should change out of their camo and into the blue before going to an active shooter incident? Would take lots more time and it would be stupid and negligent. What in the world does the camo have to do with this incident?

Then why have them, and why so rigorously defend having them? Cuz my agency doesnt use camo so I dont care. I'm defending the choice not because Im sold on camo, Im just not sold that it is a problem.

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.  Agreed- thats why they are up on a platform so they can see into the crowd from above. This is the part about education I'm talking about. It is easier to take out people wielding firearms from above so you dont end up shooting through the crowd. The snipers perform more of an intelligence gathering/observation/early warning role. As for intimidation...yep in riots it is all about intimidation. Why should the cops let a bunch of criminals burn down a city? I'm not ever going to take the side of people who burn down other peoples businesses,and destroy their city. Maybe you like that where you are at, but here the other citizens would shoot people torching their city. They even have snipers at the super bowl.

Shootings to your "credit?"  I find that comment disgusting, sir.  I hope this isn't some indicator that you're proud of them.  Oh yea I am...I put little happy face stickers on my patrol car

 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.  When I was in Iraq it was necessary too. As for credit- you know what I meant.

Not something to take credit for.  No kidding- who is?

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.  Yea I heard about it im in the PHX area this was a big story. So the PD arrested him. Did I ever get on here and defend misconduct or commission of a crime or defend this situation? Just cuz you read about it doesnt mean you know anything about the use of force. My kids read the paper 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. .. dont know about the rest of that. Everyone here still uses tasers.

Who said it's socially acceptable?  No you didnt miss a post and the general context of my post wasnt addressing a series of specific comments from anyone here---generalities unless I quoted someone and that was you. The balance if for the sakes of discussion. BTW- when BLM runs around yelling "oink oink bang bang" and politicians defend that type of speech well it becomes socially acceptable. Free speech yes, but anyway.

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?  Here is the part where the whole college degree thing comes in.

This was a shooting ruled as a justified homicide since the officer who fired reasonably feared for his life. He was being attacked with a deadly weapon I was not. I was not in a position where at that moment I was in fear for my life- he was. If the guy came at me I would have shot him hence the reason I said"yet." I also didnt think the officer  needed to shoot the guy quite yet but it was coming. We as a tactical team were preparing an arrest team and helping out patrol when this went down. We had the shields, tasers, beanbag guns etc to deal with this guy so if he came towards us we had tools to deal with him probably. The patrol cop had a number of disadvantages:

1- inexperience, 2- lack of cover, 3- no backup with him and 4- he was scared because this psycho freak was all bloody waving a knife around and they had been chasing him through the neighborhoods for two hours. Now the suspect was cornered. 

The reason we paid on a lawsuit was because there were a number of nationally accepted methods with various weapons, tools etc we could have used before we arrived at this location to stop him, but did not because it was against our policy. We all agreed had we been allowed to use those methods he would have easily been taken into custody much sooner and he would be stealing our oxygen today.

That being the case, we lost a couple hundo grand for not using more force if you really think about it- not because the cop shot the guy.

Who makes those big decisions regarding arrest tactics and use of tools, weapons? Yep the degreed professionals upstairs all with three years experience a piece. They had been asked for years to use these methods and we were told to go away because we might hurt people. That suspect would be alive today if we would have just used some of these things. Now he is dead and this cop gets to live with it and the admim moves on.

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.  ok- im my state they are down.

Has anyone called upon you to allow yourself to be stabbed?  anytime anyone asks why we shoot someone with a knife instead of just fighting with them that is what they are asking us to do.

In what way does your camo protect you from this?

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.)  Im thinking we dont have anything to be worried about since the police are not any better armed than us... well at least here in az. My gun safe has better stuff than our PD has.

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.  Equivocating rioting, meth labs and gun dealing with legitimate constitutional rights is insane. You know the three things I mentioned are against the law yes? Exercising your civil rights is not against the law.

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.

Recognize this comment?:  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.

Shenanigans

 

 

Edited June 1, 2016 by paracaidista508

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Here's a mental exercise - think about a cop, at 3am, sitting wet in the driver's seat.  Finishing up 45 minutes of paperwork, following 2 hours of being at a rainy scene trying to get the armed bad guys to surrender without killing anyone else.  A cold drive-through burrito sitting on his passenger's seat, uneaten because he got a call right after going through the drive through.  He knows if he screws up his paperwork, the dudes he risked his life to get behind bars might very well walk away free.  

Got the mental image?  Now, think of that cop wearing SWAT camo, and the driver's seat is in an APV, and his scary black rifle is in the back seat.  

Are you able to keep thinking "cop" here?  Or is there something in your brain that makes you think "soldier"?  

Good heavens that is exactly what one of my nights was like (except the camo and apv).  Did I tell you that story or is this a wild coincidence?

Edited June 1, 2016 by mirkwood
grammar grammar grammer

[anatess2]

@unixknight works in Maryland and @paracaidista508 works in Arizona?

Okay, I guess that explains it...

Governor Brewer didn't go toe-to-toe-and-a-pointy-finger with Obama for no reason...

[unixknight]

15 hours ago, anatess2 said:

On @unixknight's main point... Personally, I don't understand how soldiers are not part of the community... or that they create a "divide".  Soldiers are very much a big part of our community and we are with them.  We just spent Memorial Day honoring those who died.  We're gonna spend Veteran Day honoring those who lived.  Now, if they're wearing North Korean military gear then yeah, big divide.  I think the people who think that soldiers are apart from us are the Jane Fondas...

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.

13 hours ago, David13 said:

unixknight

What is with your adversion to camo? 

You are not one of these guys still running around with a Harley t shirt when he doesn't own nor ride a Harley, are you?

That type of thing is all over with today.

Today, it's camo.  Even for the women.

So get with it.

dc

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. 

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

@unixknight works in Maryland and @paracaidista508 works in Arizona?

Okay, I guess that explains it...

Governor Brewer didn't go toe-to-toe-and-a-pointy-finger with Obama for no reason...

@anatess2 Explains what...?

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Good heavens that is exactly what one of my nights was like (except the camo and apv).  Did I tell you that story or is this a wild coincidence?

Heh - I remember your story about the cold burrito.  I once got a speeding ticket from a cop in the pouring rain, and remember thinking what it would be like if he had to do like accident cleanup or something and had to stand out there for hours.  And if you spend a few hours learning about what cops do, you learn it's waaaay too much paperwork, and if they do it wrong it means someone walks.

Sort of my main point (which was probably lost), was that soldiers' jobs are very different from cops.  And if you think clothing and equipment makes the difference, you're thinking silly things and need to stop it.

[unixknight]

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Commission of crimes, civil rights violations, misconduct. Criticism based on emotion rather than fact and law is what is not deserved.

I agree that criticism should be based on facts.  I'm not a fan of the hype in the media either.  When I read news stories about this stuff I have to remain conscious of the bias that exists and try to tease out just the facts.  That goes both ways though.  It's just as bad when somebody's misdeeds get covered up so that they don't make the news, though.  That happens too.

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I dont know what you do for a living, but do you spend all your time dealing with unqualified people telling you how to do your job on a daily basis?...because they are a customer or something?

Sure, I've had that kind of job.  And you know what?  Whether they were qualified or not to question how I did my job, I still owed them answers and had an obligation to earn and keep their trust.  I didn't get to just dismiss their concerns as irrelevant.  Know who else I owe answers to?  My boss.  I don't get to blow off his concerns either.

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

College graduates have not been proven to do much of a better job. Overall they do a little bit better, but the difference is negligible. Most cops where I work are degreed or end up that way partway through their career. I finished my BA about 10 yrs into the job.

How good was your training in civil law?

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I dont get the hangup on camo so not going to address the hyperbole

Gotcha.  So when you don't understand something your normal response is to blow it off?

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I'm in AZ. I cant see all the way to baltimore so Im still not seeing it where I live. If it bothers you so much why dont you get the rest of the citizenry together and get a referendum going to dictate the clothing choices of your local cops. Since your gov't (Baltimore) is run by liberals, I'm sure they will be eager to get the cops outfitted with something a bit more fabulous.

Is that what this is about for you?  Liberals v Conservatives?

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Yea, who care what they are wearing?? It is their uniform. So you think the swat guys should change out of their camo and into the blue before going to an active shooter incident? Would take lots more time and it would be stupid and negligent. What in the world does the camo have to do with this incident?

This hypothetical doesn't make any sense.  Why would they be in the camo in the first place only to remove it when going into action?

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Cuz my agency doesnt use camo so I dont care. I'm defending the choice not because Im sold on camo, Im just not sold that it is a problem.

You keep saying you never see that in your area, and you can't see what goes on in Baltimore, so how would you even know what the problems are?

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Agreed- thats why they are up on a platform so they can see into the crowd from above. This is the part about education I'm talking about. It is easier to take out people wielding firearms from above so you dont end up shooting through the crowd. The snipers perform more of an intelligence gathering/observation/early warning role. As for intimidation...yep in riots it is all about intimidation. Why should the cops let a bunch of criminals burn down a city? I'm not ever going to take the side of people who burn down other peoples businesses,and destroy their city. Maybe you like that where you are at, but here the other citizens would shoot people torching their city. They even have snipers at the super bowl.

I'm calling B.S. on the elevated firing position story.  A guy firing from 12' up may have a better view, but that doesn't make the shot any safer.  

It's also a strawman to equate not wanting militarized law enforcement with wanting to burn down buildings and riot.  Nobody here has ever argued for that, to my knowledge.  And what's your point about snipers at the Super Bowl?  Is that supposed to prove something?  "Oh, there's snipers at the Super Bowl?  Well great then, let's get more APCs for my local police department! Totally a logical connection!"

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Oh yea I am...I put little happy face stickers on my patrol car:eek:

I'm gonna assume here that you're being sarcastic.  Just remember, 'credit' was the word you chose, not I.

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

When I was in Iraq it was necessary too. As for credit- you know what I meant.

No, actually, I can't know what you meant.  You're a guy who came into this thread and started by giving us your resume about having been in the military and then a police officer, so clearly the two are related in your mind.  How do I know whether you transitioned from one to the other?  I'm not the one who used the word 'credit' when referring to shootings on the job.  

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Yea I heard about it im in the PHX area this was a big story. So the PD arrested him. Did I ever get on here and defend misconduct or commission of a crime or defend this situation? Just cuz you read about it doesnt mean you know anything about the use of force. My kids read the paper too.

No, you haven't defended that.  I'm just curious as to whether you feel like it's professional to have phrases like this guy had on his weapon.  It paints a picture of an officer who's eager to use it.  How do you feel about that sort of thing?  Or the sign in the Baltimore police van that had a sign like this:

Not that this example has anything to do with militarization, but I do see it as related to things like the inscription on the AR-15 in the case above.

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

No you didnt miss a post and the general context of my post wasnt addressing a series of specific comments from anyone here---generalities unless I quoted someone and that was you. The balance if for the sakes of discussion. BTW- when BLM runs around yelling "oink oink bang bang" and politicians defend that type of speech well it becomes socially acceptable. Free speech yes, but anyway.

I think it's a pretty long way from socially acceptable, even in a place like Baltimore.  Maybe that's how it is where you are, I don't know.

Protip:  If you're going in hot to a debate, it's not a good idea to toss out general arguments that haven't been raised in it without being clear that you aren't responding to anyone in particular.  It makes them look like strawmen even if that wasn't your intent.

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

This was a shooting ruled as a justified homicide since...

Ok so it was ruled justified.  I'm wondering if you can see how this post contradicts itself.  On the one hand, you seem to be dissatisfied with admin not letting you do your job in a way that could have prevented this suspect from having to be shot, (Good on you for that) but refer to his still being alive as "stealing our oxygen." (not so good) So which is it?  Are you glad he's dead or do you wish he weren't? 

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

anytime anyone asks why we shoot someone with a knife instead of just fighting with them that is what they are asking us to do.

That wasn't my question.  Has anyone here said that?  No, they haven't.  So maybe this was another generalization?

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Im thinking we dont have anything to be worried about since the police are not any better armed than us... well at least here in az. My gun safe has better stuff than our PD has.

Well you're fortunate enough to live in a state where the 2nd Amendment means something.  Many of us aren't.

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

 Equivocating rioting, meth labs and gun dealing with legitimate constitutional rights is insane. You know the three things I mentioned are against the law yes? Exercising your civil rights is not against the law.

I agree it's insane, which is why I didn't argue for that.  And I think the word you wanted to use here was "equating" not "equivocating."  I could be wrong though.

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Recognize this comment?:

Yep, and then Mirkwood responded, and now I know.  I then went on to express support for armoring police cars on the basis of what he told me.  I know a whole page with maybe ten or twelve posts is an awful lot to read through though, so it's okay if you missed it.

 

Edited June 1, 2016 by unixknight

[NightSG]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I'm calling B.S. on the elevated firing position story.  A guy firing from 12' up may have a better view, but that doesn't make the shot any safer.  

Actually, it does, but not that much with only 10-12 feet of elevation.  Think about where a miss or overpenetrating bullet will go.  Would have been much better to have that shooter on the roof of a 2 story or taller building.

Quote

I'm not the one who used the word 'credit' when referring to shootings on the job.  

As for cops taking credit for killings, Lon Horiuchi's product endorsements for HS Precision come screaming to mind as an extreme example.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

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.

Sure.  And you don't find them on the job driving down Elm Street... so, obviously, the guy responding to a drug bust in their camo gear is not military.  So, what's the problem with that?

 

 

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

@anatess2 Explains what...?

Explains the 2 very different views of America that you have. 

I'm in Florida.  Lots of uniformed military people running around, eating at McDonald's and stuff.  We like seeing all that military uniform.  It's like McDonald's is all of a sudden 100x safer because one of them is eating there. 

So, the Sheriff in these parts got accused by his opponent in the last debates for "militarization" as having divided the community from law enforcers.  It wasn't a popular rhetoric so his opponent changed it to the racial make-up of the office not "looking like" the community it serves causing the division.  Anyway, the "militarization" Sheriff got re-elected.  So, yeah, people in these parts don't see military gear on tactical law enforcement teams as divisive.

In any case, law enforcement should remain in State control and the Feds should just leave the States to it.  So, if you don't want militarization in Maryland then that's fine.  Just as long as you don't expect Arizona or Florida to have to do it too.

Edited June 1, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

  So, yeah, people in these parts don't see military gear on tactical law enforcement teams as divisive.

 

What a coincidence. I live in Florida too. Just because the majority of people see it your way doesn't mean that a large minority don't strongly disagree with you. In fact, it's a much more polarizing issue than what you portray it to be. 

Edited June 1, 2016 by MormonGator

[unixknight]

29 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Actually, it does, but not that much with only 10-12 feet of elevation.  Think about where a miss or overpenetrating bullet will go.  Would have been much better to have that shooter on the roof of a 2 story or taller building.

That's what I was thinking... if your target is far away enough that you need a sniper rifle to attack it, then the angle of the incoming bullet will be small compared to the horizontal, so overpenetration means whoever is behind them is getting hit too... and all that assumes the shooter hit the right target to begin with.  It ain't like we're talking about a crowd of people all standing in orderly rows and holding still.

29 minutes ago, NightSG said:

As for cops taking credit for killings, Lon Horiuchi's product endorsements for HS Precision come screaming to mind as an extreme example.

Yeah that one makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  And you don't find them on the job driving down Elm Street... so, obviously, the guy responding to a drug bust in their camo gear is not military.  So, what's the problem with that?

Obviously?  How is it obvious?  If he's dressed like a soldier, equipped like a soldier and possibly arrived in an APC like a soldier...  You know what they say about ducks...

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Explains the 2 very different views of America that you have. 

Being in Baltimore all the time, even for a Conservative like myself, is an eye opening experience.  I hate living around here, but I have to admit that it's prevented me from living in an isolated political echo chamber where I'm surrounded by people who agree with me.  It's much better to be around people who challenge your views and force you to think them through.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

That's why Sheriffs get elected, dude.  And it's not really that much of an issue here as was evident in the past elections.

Florida is a big state dude. It's a bigger issue in places where you might not live. 

[anatess2]

duplicate.

Edited June 1, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

29 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Actually, it does, but not that much with only 10-12 feet of elevation.  Think about where a miss or overpenetrating bullet will go.  Would have been much better to have that shooter on the roof of a 2 story or taller building.

That's what I was thinking... if your target is far away enough that you need a sniper rifle to attack it, then the angle of the incoming bullet will be small compared to the horizontal, so overpenetration means whoever is behind them is getting hit too... and all that assumes the shooter hit the right target to begin with.  It ain't like we're talking about a crowd of people all standing in orderly rows and holding still.

29 minutes ago, NightSG said:

As for cops taking credit for killings, Lon Horiuchi's product endorsements for HS Precision come screaming to mind as an extreme example.

Yeah that one makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  And you don't find them on the job driving down Elm Street... so, obviously, the guy responding to a drug bust in their camo gear is not military.  So, what's the problem with that?

Obviously?  How is it obvious?  If he's dressed like a soldier, equipped like a soldier and possibly arrived in an APC like a soldier...  You know what they say about ducks...

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Explains the 2 very different views of America that you have. 

Being in Baltimore all the time, even for a Conservative like myself, is an eye opening experience.  I hate living around here, but I have to admit that it's prevented me from living in an isolated political echo chamber where I'm surrounded by people who agree with me.  It's much better to be around people who challenge your views and force you to think them through.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Florida is a big state dude. It's a bigger issue in places where you might not live. 

I'm not in the habit of telling everyone where I live beyond the State I live in.  You're one of the very few that know it.  It was an issue brought up in your part of the state when somebody got pulled over by a bearcat.  And it's also an issue brought up in the southern part of the state after Ferguson because the south is predominantly Democratic and the issue is tied to the Democratic platform together with the racial issues.  Other than that, Floridians in general don't much care if the cops have military gear.

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 the issue is tied to the Democratic platform...

And the Libertarian platform.  I'm no Democrat.