Militarization of the police in cartoon format


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, unixknight said:

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...

It's obvious to me.  I lived through Martial Law... I know what it feels like having military people controlling the town.  It's entirely different than cops running around town in military gear.  It takes more than just what they wear to make them quack.

 

18 minutes ago, unixknight said:

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.

Right.  Especially when you're from another country.  I always tell my husband - yes, I know you won't see your children for months at a time, but trust me, it is much better for them to actually experience life in another country... I bet it's even less echoey than life living with the opposing political party.  Those 2 year missions are really a gigantic benefit to the young adults.  It's one thing about the Church that is really cool.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It's obvious to me.  I lived through Martial Law... I know what it feels like having military people controlling the town.  It's entirely different than cops running around town in military gear.  It takes more than just what they wear to make them quack.

Then your faith in them must be absolute.  Come live in Baltimore for a while if you ever want that shattered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NightSG said:

The state that couldn't work paper ballots?  Do they even notice the cops have military gear?

LOL!  You're right.  They probably don't.  I mean, when the Sheriff debates was going on, even my husband didn't know there were debates... or the names of the guys running for Sheriff... I don't wanna make you think my husband doesn't practice good citizenship but as far as the Sheriff goes, I think he just checks the guy with the R next to his name...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Then your faith in them must be absolute.

My faith in the Constitution (both State and US) is absolute.

 

24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Come live in Baltimore for a while if you ever want that shattered.

Does Essex count?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My faith in the Constitution (both State and US) is absolute.

So is mine, but that's not what I said and trusting the Constitution is not the same as trusting those who are supposed to uphold it.

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Does Essex count?

Not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

So is mine, but that's not what I said and trusting the Constitution is not the same as trusting those who are supposed to uphold it.

That's why I don't worry about militarized cops.  The Constitution has survived over 200 years through Civil War and through the most progressive President ever.  If it's going to go down, it won't be without a fight.  Having cops with military gear is not sufficient to take down the Constitution. This election is pretty much a strong indication of it.  In the US, the people can overthrow the political class without having to fire a shot.  But even then, they have the capacity to fire a shot if they need to... especially if you live in Texas.  ;)

 

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Not really.

Bummer.

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

That's why I don't worry about militarized cops.  The Constitution has survived over 200 years through Civil War and through the most progressive President ever.  If it's going to go down, it won't be without a fight.  Having cops with military gear is not sufficient to take down the Constitution. This election is pretty much a strong indication of it.  In the US, the people can overthrow the political class without having to fire a shot.

This isn't about somebody overthrowing the Constitution.  It's about the fact that we shouldn't have to worry about having rights violated by those who are supposed to protect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

This isn't about somebody overthrowing the Constitution.  It's about the fact that we shouldn't have to worry about having rights violated by those who are supposed to protect them.

I know what you're saying.  I just don't agree that cops in military gear is about to violate my rights any more than cops in cop gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Maybe you're right about that, but the military gear makes it a lot easier, and possibly more likely.

In addition, I don't believe military in military gear is about to violate my rights any more than everything else too.

I'm right now watching the UCLA shooting incident... lots of colors there... blue with black vests, white with black vests, beige with black vests, and the olive with black vests.  They all look intimidating.  As they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Not really. Other than MPs, military personnel aren't generally armed or carry live ammo unless they're deployed in a warzone. 

For now.  If Ted Cruz has his way, that's going to change.

Also, when the terrorist threat hits home, that's going to change too.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

LOL!  You're right.  They probably don't.  I mean, when the Sheriff debates was going on, even my husband didn't know there were debates... or the names of the guys running for Sheriff... I don't wanna make you think my husband doesn't practice good citizenship but as far as the Sheriff goes, I think he just checks the guy with the R next to his name...

Well, if the Reform Party wins local elections there, we'll know why.  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

.  Other than that, Floridians in general don't much care if the cops have military gear.

You don't speak for all Floridans. It's an issue. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, MormonGator said:

You don't speak for all Floridans. It's an issue. 

Neither do you.

In addition, unix doesn't speak for all Baltimorians and paracaidista doesn't speak for all Arizonians... we simply state what we observe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Neither do you.

In addition, unix doesn't speak for all Baltimorians and paracaidista doesn't speak for all Arizonians... we simply state what we observe.

I'm not the one who said "Floridans in general don't much care if the cops have military gear". 

You like to talk in generalities and that's fine-but it ignores the fact that generalities are often wrong. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I'm not the one who said "Floridans in general don't much care if the cops have military gear". 

You like to talk in generalities and that's fine-but it ignores the fact that generalities are often wrong. 

Well, if I just pulled that generalization off my butt then you might have a point.  I didn't.  65 of the 67 Sheriffs in Florida are elected.  Out of the 65, 35 are Republican, 23 are Democrats, 1 is independent, and the rest have no party affiliations.  Out of the 67 counties, 17 has received military gear from the DOD.  The 17 is a mix of both D and R Sheriffs.  So, it shows that D and R alike want a piece of those military gear.  The rest can't justify their use so they didn't get one.  Rick Scott gets re-elected without even a peep of an issue about militarization in any of the debates.  The only major news about it is some cop in Gator land performing a traffic stop in a bearcat causing a lot of uproar from the community.  The other major news is the DOD recalling some of the gear promised to the counties causing an uproar from the community.  That's pretty much it.  All the Sheriff debates that I've seen or read about (not many - less than 10 counties for sure) makes no splash about militarization.  They all talk about race relations.

So, therefore, I conclude, that Floridians don't much care if the cops have military gear.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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.

Ok so you get criticism from the customer or whomever. Now if they are wrong does your organization just do whatever they want simply because they said so...? Without any credentials, authority or even legal backing for the change? I get the whole citizen vs govt thing where we pay you and you do what we say thing, but I bet your business doesn't halt, spin and go another direction because someone is upset. Keep in mind that on every single investigation the police go on, there will be someone mad at us by the time we leave for whatever reason. Usually it is because someone is going to jail. We never get called because someone is having a birthday party.

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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?

There are libraries full of civil law...what kind specifically? Business, traffic, contract, real estate, securities??? LE does not usually involve itself with much more than civil traffic and perhaps court orders and such because civil law is generally used for the resolution of disputes in courtrooms or for some kind of legal process. Our (LE) lane is criminal law.

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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?

Well when the disagreement reaches a point where neither side will give in or see it the other person's way yea, I blow it off. Personally, I never felt like I was more prone to violate someone's rights depending upon how I am dressed. Are there cops out there who could be? I suppose, but I dont personally know any. Anyway- the camo, green, tan or whatever does not bug me in the least. Keep in mind Im not a cop any more and am just another one of the citizens and I am subject to the same stuff you are. 

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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?

When it comes to LE and how a particular agency is run? Yes

As for various municipalities, the mayor, governor etc have a lot of influence over the police chief and his/her top commanders as they are "at will." Traditionally cops are very conservative, but if an agency is run and governed by liberals for a generation or more, the MO of the agency will reflect that mindset eventually. All the way from police corruption to a mentality of integrity, the cops will eventually morph into the organization the govt over it wants it to be. Take Chicago, NY, LAPD, Baltimore, Wash DC, New Orleans. Some of the most corrupt LE orgs around and how long have they been led  and governed by liberals??? Forever with an exception or two. There are some PDs which have been liberal governed for decades and dont have these issues, but the biggest and the most corrupt are liberal-run.
 

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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!"

 

 

Elevated shooting position is always safer than shooting through other people to get to the one needing to be shot. As for the ferguson thing. I'm pretty sure that is why he was up there. Did they have people up in the surrounding buildings also?? They should have and perhaps they did. Send a FOIA to Ferguson and ask. My assertion is it is an elevated shooting platform. An elevated shooting position will be selected by a police sniper 99% of the time over a ground position when there is a choice. as for the superbowl sniper thing: I placed that there to illustrate that even in an environment where the crowd is not rioting, the elevated shooting position is a valid tactic as it is what is being done. You cant think in terms of absolutely eliminating all risk to others. If we do that, then one can never really eliminate threats such as active shooters. Once it gets around that the police will take no risk at all, then hostage taking will become a national past time.
 

The Israelis learned some time ago that when there are hostages taken, just go in and shoot every terrorist right through the hostage. the result is that there are pretty much no hostage situations in Israel anymore in terms of the frequency there used to be. The reason is the bad guy knows he will be shot regardless. Now is that a valid tactic here? No. Hopefully our security situation (terrorists, not normal criminals) doesnt deteriorate to the level where the public will accept the fact you will be shot in order to take out the hostage taker behind you if neccessary. 
 

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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.

Yea I am being sarcastic. If the word credit offends you so much choose a nicer word for me to use. I just may use it to make you feel better about my failure to use eloquent language in the presence of sensitive people.

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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.  

You would know if I didnt transfer from one role to the other because I would be in the news. That aside, after coming back from Iraq I never went back to police work because I got wounded and med technology was not able to make me whole again so I am no longer fit medically for duty. I would have transitioned just fine. BTW- Obama has the military using rules of engagement that look almost identical to what stateside cops use. As for his summary execution by drone, well he has his own rules.

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:

Nope, not professional.

 

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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.

Out here it is getting there. We have had one officer killed in the last...2 weeks ago and three others shot at in ambush situations since then. 

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.

Pro tip? I explained that 7 lines above.

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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? 

I'm ok with him getting shot. He had it coming and I even said "yet." It was going to happen because he was not going to be taken alive. Anyway, I dont care if someone deserves it or not, I dont want to shoot anyone. That being said, I will not ALLOW someone to kill me whether they have a mental issue or not. As for that guy being an oxygen thief, yes he was. He was a common felon before he was killed and if he would have survived or not shot at all he likely would still be walking around victimizing others. The feelgood stories of these people reforming and moving on to be productive in society are rare. Could that have been him? Mebbe, but he didnt allow for that change to happen, He chose to get shot.

You dont (well probably dont) get to see the people we deal with sometimes. I recall a guy who we tracked down after discovering a young girl in an alley with her throat slashed, multiple stab wounds, stripped bare, sexually assaulted ...you get the picture. Tracked him down and there he stood waiting for us with blood splatter all over his shoes, face and wearing a big grin. He was tried, convicted and is probably still in prison. That my friend is someone who this world would be better without. He is stealing your air and mine. Interestingly I bet if he would have come at us with the knife and we shot him, we would have been labeled by the media as heroes and been given CREDIT for taking him out. The girl lived BTW and am sure that now she is an adult she just cant wait for him to get out of prison.

 

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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.

No I meant to use that word. Heres what you said..underlined

 

On 5/29/2016 at 11:15 AM, paracaidista508 said:

If you are worried about it quit participating in riots and running a methlab in your home or dealing arms. If you are not doing those things you have nothing to worry about.

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.

Doing the things I listed are crimes, not the freedom from self incrimination or unreasonable searches. You are the one who used those two enumerated rights in response to the crimes I listed. That is an equivocation - possibly to confuse other readers who may not be familiar with constitutionally protected rights. That was at least the way I looked at it.

On 6/1/2016 at 9:18 PM, 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.

I didnt miss it, just wanted to provide info for your edification.

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
On June 3, 2016 at 9:19 PM, anatess2 said:

Well, if I just pulled that generalization off my butt then you might have a point.  I didn't.  65 of the 67 Sheriffs in Florida are elected.  Out of the 65, 35 are Republican, 23 are Democrats, 1 is independent, and the rest have no party affiliations.  Out of the 67 counties, 17 has received military gear from the DOD.  The rest can't justify their use so they didn't get one.  Out of all those 17 counties, none of the Sheriffs got replaced by an opposing party.  Rick Scott gets re-elected without even a peep of an issue about militarization in any of the debates.  The only major news about it is some cop in Gator land performing a traffic stop in a bearcat causing a lot of uproar from the community.  The other major news is the DOD recalling some of the gear promised to the counties causing an uproar from the community.  That's pretty much it.  All the Sheriff debates that I've seen or read about (not many - less than 10 counties for sure) makes no splash about militarization.  They all talk about race relations.

So, therefore, I conclude, that Floridians don't much care if the cops have military gear.

You are free to believe what you wish, of course. Elections don't tell the entire story. Your conclusion is wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a observation - in our society, laws that are not enforced are generally ignored by those that find them in any way inconvenient.  I see this all the time concerning traffic.  There seems to be less an attitude of cooperation than what can be gotten away with concerning how we respect the law.  I am also aware that a greater show of force will result in a social increase of conformity of the law.   People drive differently when a cop is on the highway.  But a greater show of force will always generate contempt in those that intend to break any given law - and will generally be supported by those that respect a given law and are concerned and worried when the specif law is broken.

It is also important to note that the purpose of law is the intent of one part or sector of a population (that has the power to do so) to force all other segments of the population to comply to the first groups morals concerning a specific matter.  When all agree - there is no need or purpose for a law.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share