Militarization of the police in cartoon format


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.for your edification.

Ok so you have a job that's unpopular with the people you come into contact with.  The same is true of social workers, people who serve summonses and dentists.  When do we start issuing them military camo and military rifles?

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

Ok so you aren't open to understanding other peoples' perspectives.  Gotcha.  (I mean that was obvious, but at least you acknowledge it.)  You don't have to agree with someone in order to understand where they're coming from.  

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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

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

That's a very narrow view.  You probably therefore think me a Liberal, which would send my friends (or anyone else who knows me personally) into fits of hysterical laughter.  

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

I know it.  I'm in Baltimore and I see it firsthand.  Good that you acknowledge the corruption.  This is where cases like Freddie Gray come from.

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

From a position like that, the risk comes when the bullet penetrates fully and hits someone behind.  I'd also point out - again, that in a riot situation people aren't standing still in neat rows.  You take that shot and you'll probably hit the wrong person as people shift and jostle around.  It's security theater at best, because you'd have to do a lot better than "oops, oh well" if an innocent takes that round.

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

Yeah hopefully, but if it ever does I'm sure you'll be right there to defend it, amirite?

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

It isn't about sensitivity at all.  It's about a glimpse of how you see things.  If you can't understand why it's problematic to see someone viewing killing someone in a positive light, then I don't know what else to say.

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

Ok, so you're okay with the idea of the military and the police having the same rules of engagement?

Sorry to hear you were wounded, but glad you're still with us.

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

Sorry to hear it.  I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  That said, I'm sure you aren't seeing it becoming more socially acceptable.

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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're probably right that he wouldn't have reformed.  You're right that it's rare.  And yes I know sometimes they force the issue and the shooting is necessary.  That still doesn't justify celebrating the death of another human being, even when it was necessary.  I find that attitude revolting under the best of circumstances, and downright terrifying coming from someone who wore a badge.

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

I'm not gonna defend people who do that stuff, and yeah maybe the world would be better off without such a person, but I'm not qualified to say that and neither are you.  Shooting a suspect is an act of defending one's self or someone else from an immediate threat.  What you're talking about right there is retribution and that isn't the same thing.

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
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.

Then you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough.  If you say " don't commit crimes and you have nothing to worry about" when defending militarized law enforcement, that sounds a lot like people saying "you don't need your rights if you aren't doing anything wrong."  Which is utterly wrong.  I don't commit crimes, but that doesn't mean I'd be comfortable with a paramilitary civilian police force.

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
I didnt miss it, just wanted to provide info for your edification.

Okie doke.

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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.for your edification.

Ok so you have a job that's unpopular with the people you come into contact with.  The same is true of social workers, people who serve summonses and dentists.  When do we start issuing them military camo and military rifles?

The question wasn’t how someone was armed… so here goes again. 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...? I’m curious to know.  

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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.

Ok so you aren't open to understanding other peoples' perspectives.  Gotcha.  (I mean that was obvious, but at least you acknowledge it.)  You don't have to agree with someone in order to understand where they're coming from.  

Even if I don’t agree I still don’t have to understand…do I? or is there some law which says I have to understand someone’s concern? Personally I don’t see an issue and my agency doesn’t do that anyway. That said, even upon seeing camo I don’t need a trigger warning. It means nothing to me and I don’t understand why it freaks some people out and I dont really care at this point. Keep in mind there are a lot more pople out there who absolutely hate the standard police uniform and cops in general so if I keep things in perspective, the camo is probably much less hated. Again- I’m not concerned with it because it doesn’t matter. No one is working patrol shifts anywhere in this state to my knowledge so locally it isn’t an issue. I suppose if all the cops are patrolling Baltimore in camo, then you guys have a problem.. I have not heard of that happening there either.

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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

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

That's a very narrow view.  You probably therefore think me a Liberal, which would send my friends (or anyone else who knows me personally) into fits of hysterical laughter.  

Ok, what does that have to do with how an agency is run?

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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.

I know it.  I'm in Baltimore and I see it firsthand.  Good that you acknowledge the corruption.  This is where cases like Freddie Gray come from.

Everyone knows Baltimore pd is corrupt as is the local govt which runs it, hence my comment above.

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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.

From a position like that, the risk comes when the bullet penetrates fully and hits someone behind.  I'd also point out - again, that in a riot situation people aren't standing still in neat rows.  You take that shot and you'll probably hit the wrong person as people shift and jostle around.  It's security theater at best, because you'd have to do a lot better than "oops, oh well" if an innocent takes that round.

I suggest you use the process in MD/Baltimore and get a law passed which says cops are not to take any risks which might hurt anyone- you will feel so muchbetter knowing they will do nothing to help you or anyone else until the scene is absolutely 100% cold.

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

 

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.

Yeah hopefully, but if it ever does I'm sure you'll be right there to defend it, amirite?

Probably because leading up to that will be the cops refusing to go into those situations until the terrorists are done shooting everyone or running out of ammo. At that point,  anything that happens cant be blamed on the cops. The isreaelis got tired of having school housed full of kids slaughtered because the police and military spent too much time trying to play peacekeeper. Now terrorists don’t take hostages anymore.

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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.

It isn't about sensitivity at all.  It's about a glimpse of how you see things.  If you can't understand why it's problematic to see someone viewing killing someone in a positive light, then I don't know what else to say.

Ok- well I’m glad you see it that way. If you got to see the side of some of these people I see, you would likely change your mind- then mebbe not.

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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.

Ok, so you're okay with the idea of the military and the police having the same rules of engagement?

No, the police rules of engagement are too strict for the military in a war zone. Lots of military members have died because they have to wait till they get shot at first before engaging an armed insurgent in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Those rules work here in the US, not in the middle east.

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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're probably right that he wouldn't have reformed.  You're right that it's rare.  And yes I know sometimes they force the issue and the shooting is necessary.  That still doesn't justify celebrating the death of another human being, even when it was necessary.  I find that attitude revolting under the best of circumstances, and downright terrifying coming from someone who wore a badge.

Did I announce we had a party or something? I said he was an oxygen thief…that’s it. We are all better off without him. This suspect was trying to kill people. I firmly believe we are all better off.

  On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:

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.

I'm not gonna defend people who do that stuff, and yeah maybe the world would be better off without such a person, but I'm not qualified to say that and neither are you.  Shooting a suspect is an act of defending one's self or someone else from an immediate threat.  What you're talking about right there is retribution and that isn't the same thing.

Retribution? What r u talking about?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
The question wasn’t how someone was armed… so here goes again. 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...? I’m curious to know.

 

If the criticism is coming from someone in authority, what else can it do?

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Even if I don’t agree I still don’t have to understand…do I? or is there some law which says I have to understand someone’s concern? Personally I don’t see an issue and my agency doesn’t do that anyway. That said, even upon seeing camo I don’t need a trigger warning. It means nothing to me and I don’t understand why it freaks some people out and I dont really care at this point. Keep in mind there are a lot more pople out there who absolutely hate the standard police uniform and cops in general so if I keep things in perspective, the camo is probably much less hated. Again- I’m not concerned with it because it doesn’t matter. No one is working patrol shifts anywhere in this state to my knowledge so locally it isn’t an issue. I suppose if all the cops are patrolling Baltimore in camo, then you guys have a problem.. I have not heard of that happening there either.

Ok so you want others to understand your point of view but you don't want to understand theirs.  Got it.  This is intellectually honest to you?  You realize this is what Conservatives often accuse Liberals of doing, so I guess that makes you no different from they.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Ok, what does that have to do with how an agency is run?

You tell me.  You're the one who brought up Liberals.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Everyone knows Baltimore pd is corrupt as is the local govt which runs it, hence my comment above.

Alright, so why then do you take issue with me not wanting to see these people more heavily armed and equipped than they already are?  If they're that corrupt, why should I trust them with all that military equipment?  People like you keep telling me that there's nothing at all wrong with militarizing police since as a law-abiding citizen I wouldn't have anything to worry about, but how can that be if you acknowledge their corruption?  Isn't corruption, by definition, something that means we can't trust them?  

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
I suggest you use the process in MD/Baltimore and get a law passed which says cops are not to take any risks which might hurt anyone- you will feel so muchbetter knowing they will do nothing to help you or anyone else until the scene is absolutely 100% cold.

They already won't.  If somebody comes to shoot up the office where I work, response time means by the time anybody gets here I'm already dead or the suspect has been tackled.  This isn't the cops' fault, it's just the reality of the situation.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Probably because leading up to that will be the cops refusing to go into those situations until the terrorists are done shooting everyone or running out of ammo. At that point,  anything that happens cant be blamed on the cops. The isreaelis got tired of having school housed full of kids slaughtered because the police and military spent too much time trying to play peacekeeper. Now terrorists don’t take hostages anymore.

The Israelis deal with a thousand times more terrorism than we do.  How can you use that excuse?  That's just a red herring.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Ok- well I’m glad you see it that way. If you got to see the side of some of these people I see, you would likely change your mind- then mebbe not.

I certainly hope not.  If I ever get to the point where I'm happy about somebody dying then things have gone horribly wrong in my soul.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
No, the police rules of engagement are too strict for the military in a war zone. Lots of military members have died because they have to wait till they get shot at first before engaging an armed insurgent in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Wait, you're the one who said "Obama has the military using rules of engagement that look almost identical to what stateside cops use."  So which is it?  Are they almost identical or are the police rules too strict?

Edit:  Maybe what you meant here is that the military's rules are currently too strict because they're the same as the police.  Ok I'll concede that if it's true.  Though frankly in most cases police rules are less strict.  If I'm a soldier on the line and my orders are not to fire until fired upon, I don't get the "I was in fear for my life" excuse if I fire first or I kill someone who was unarmed.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Did I announce we had a party or something? I said he was an oxygen thief…that’s it. We are all better off without him. This suspect was trying to kill people. I firmly believe we are all better off.

Maybe we are, but your tone was celebratory.  Not once did you acknowledge that it was unfortunate that it became necessary.

Look, if you feel good about it then just own it.  Just quit trying to play it both ways.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 10:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Retribution? What r u talking about?

You do know what 'retribution' means, don't you, Textspeak?

 

 

 

 

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Even if I don’t agree I still don’t have to understand…do I? or is there some law which says I have to understand someone’s concern? Personally I don’t see an issue and my agency doesn’t do that anyway. That said, even upon seeing camo I don’t need a trigger warning. It means nothing to me and I don’t understand why it freaks some people out and I dont really care at this point. Keep in mind there are a lot more pople out there who absolutely hate the standard police uniform and cops in general so if I keep things in perspective, the camo is probably much less hated. Again- I’m not concerned with it because it doesn’t matter. No one is working patrol shifts anywhere in this state to my knowledge so locally it isn’t an issue. I suppose if all the cops are patrolling Baltimore in camo, then you guys have a problem.. I have not heard of that happening there either.

Ok so you want others to understand your point of view but you don't want to understand theirs.  Got it.  This is intellectually honest to you?  You realize this is what Conservatives often accuse Liberals of doing, so I guess that makes you no different from they.

Well pot meet kettle. You labeled my opinion re the oxygen thief as "disgusting." Using your own justification on understanding others you also are intellectually dishonest.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Everyone knows Baltimore pd is corrupt as is the local govt which runs it, hence my comment above.

Alright, so why then do you take issue with me not wanting to see these people more heavily armed and equipped than they already are?  If they're that corrupt, why should I trust them with all that military equipment?  People like you keep telling me that there's nothing at all wrong with militarizing police since as a law-abiding citizen I wouldn't have anything to worry about, but how can that be if you acknowledge their corruption?  Isn't corruption, by definition, something that means we can't trust them?  

Use the system for cvhange the gov't offers us. If you get enught people together in MD and/or Baltimore you can get a law passed to restrict the police. Until you successfully accomplish that, you are stuck with the system you have. If the liberal gov and mayor didnt want your cops to have the stuff they have, well they wouldnt have it. The police have multiple levels of red tap[e they have to negotiate and it is all at the mercy of the ELECTED CIVILIAN govt in your area.

Once all the Freddy Grey cops get aquitted of the murder charge and the populace destroys the rest of the city I'm sure the balance of the law abiding citizens will all be on your side and it should be very easy to disarm the police down to their revolvers and get them back into a shirt and tie or whatever uniform you approve of.

On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
I suggest you use the process in MD/Baltimore and get a law passed which says cops are not to take any risks which might hurt anyone- you will feel so muchbetter knowing they will do nothing to help you or anyone else until the scene is absolutely 100% cold.

They already won't.  If somebody comes to shoot up the office where I work, response time means by the time anybody gets here I'm already dead or the suspect has been tackled.  This isn't the cops' fault, it's just the reality of the situation.

Yep it isnt the cops fault because the public does not want them there and the local gov't has demonstrated they will not support the police and/or will charge them with crimes without probable cause in order to satisfy the public lust for retribution.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Probably because leading up to that will be the cops refusing to go into those situations until the terrorists are done shooting everyone or running out of ammo. At that point,  anything that happens cant be blamed on the cops. The isreaelis got tired of having school housed full of kids slaughtered because the police and military spent too much time trying to play peacekeeper. Now terrorists don’t take hostages anymore.

The Israelis deal with a thousand times more terrorism than we do.  How can you use that excuse?  That's just a red herring.

I'm pretty sure I wrote that if our situation degraded to the same level we would likely need to adopt the same or similar tactics. I never said that is what we are looking at now.

Here is the comment:  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 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Ok- well I’m glad you see it that way. If you got to see the side of some of these people I see, you would likely change your mind- then mebbe not.

I certainly hope not.  If I ever get to the point where I'm happy about somebody dying then things have gone horribly wrong in my soul.

Well I certainly hope that some day you or a family member never becomes a victim of a very serious violent crime, because your opinion would likely change. Even Geraldo Rivera has now changed his mind about some of the approaches to terrorism as a result of his daughter being caught up in the Paris attacks last year. He was always taking the light approach and always giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt until it involved his family. She thankfully wasnt hurt, but now even he thinks differently. It is easy to be a monday morning QB if it isnt your perfomance or your team on the field being critiqued.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
No, the police rules of engagement are too strict for the military in a war zone. Lots of military members have died because they have to wait till they get shot at first before engaging an armed insurgent in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Wait, you're the one who said "Obama has the military using rules of engagement that look almost identical to what stateside cops use."  So which is it?  Are they almost identical or are the police rules too strict?

Edit:  Maybe what you meant here is that the military's rules are currently too strict because they're the same as the police.  Ok I'll concede that if it's true.  Though frankly in most cases police rules are less strict.  If I'm a soldier on the line and my orders are not to fire until fired upon, I don't get the "I was in fear for my life" excuse if I fire first or I kill someone who was unarmed.

Yes too strict for the military. We were mandated in Iraq toi use a force continuum that looked like it was copied out of my police operations manual. They even wanted us to use escalation or de-escalation of force techniques using verbal, pepper spray, batons, pain compliance holds etc...the military isnt taught that stuff nor do they carry the equip for it. 

The force continuum for police nationwide is pretty good. It isnt followed very well in the extreme minority of instances, but that is operator error, not the error of the law.

 

On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Did I announce we had a party or something? I said he was an oxygen thief…that’s it. We are all better off without him. This suspect was trying to kill people. I firmly believe we are all better off.

Maybe we are, but your tone was celebratory.  Not once did you acknowledge that it was unfortunate that it became necessary.

Look, if you feel good about it then just own it.  Just quit trying to play it both ways.

I am owning it, it just isnt the celebration you want it to be. I dont care about his poor upbringing (if that is what he had) or that he had a bad day. He is not a mental patient either so we cant excuse him for that. He was simply a predator and I dont feel sorry for him. He made his choices and in the end he decided he was going to try and kill someone so he could avoid accountability for his violent felonious actions.

I'll take the "disgusting" label. 

 

On 6/5/2016 at 7:12 PM, paracaidista508 said:
Retribution? What r u talking about?

You do know what 'retribution' means, don't you, Textspeak? 

Yes even this stupid cop knows what it means. I wasn't looking for an English lesson. What I still do not know is what why you mentioned that in your response to me.

 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Well pot meet kettle. You labeled my opinion re the oxygen thief as "disgusting." Using your own justification on understanding others you also are intellectually dishonest.

Nice try, but no.  I read what you had to say, understood your point of view, and I find it disgusting that you celebrate the death of fellow human beings.  Nothing intellectually dishonest there.  Your problem is that you equate understanding with agreement.  That's not how this works.  I understand your point fine, and I still disagree.  Can you handle that?  I don't care whether you agree with my perspective or not, but if you aren't even going to make en effort to understand where people who disagree with you are coming from, then you're the one with the problem.  It's that simple. 

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Use the system for cvhange the gov't offers us. If you get enught people together in MD and/or Baltimore you can get a law passed to restrict the police. Until you successfully accomplish that, you are stuck with the system you have. If the liberal gov and mayor didnt want your cops to have the stuff they have, well they wouldnt have it. The police have multiple levels of red tap[e they have to negotiate and it is all at the mercy of the ELECTED CIVILIAN govt in your area.

Why do you keep making it a Liberal vs. Conservative thing?  Lawmakers and executives from both parties are arming police forces with military equipment.

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Once all the Freddy Grey cops get aquitted of the murder charge and the populace destroys the rest of the city I'm sure the balance of the law abiding citizens will all be on your side and it should be very easy to disarm the police down to their revolvers and get them back into a shirt and tie or whatever uniform you approve of.

Why do you expect them all to be acquitted?  So far we have 1 acquittal and 1 hung jury.

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Yep it isnt the cops fault because the public does not want them there and the local gov't has demonstrated they will not support the police and/or will charge them with crimes without probable cause in order to satisfy the public lust for retribution.

Well no, it's not the cops fault simply because there's a response time.  Until somebody invents a teleporter it takes a few minutes for them to arrive at the scene.  Not everything is a political issue, dude.

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

I'm pretty sure I wrote that if our situation degraded to the same level we would likely need to adopt the same or similar tactics. I never said that is what we are looking at now.

Here is the comment:  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.

And yet you're pointing at the Israeli procedure as a reason why I should be okay with militarized police pointing sniper rifles at crowds in the U.S. right now.  So what is your point?

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Well I certainly hope that some day you or a family member never becomes a victim of a very serious violent crime, because your opinion would likely change. Even Geraldo Rivera has now changed his mind about some of the approaches to terrorism as a result of his daughter being caught up in the Paris attacks last year. He was always taking the light approach and always giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt until it involved his family. She thankfully wasnt hurt, but now even he thinks differently. It is easy to be a monday morning QB if it isnt your perfomance or your team on the field being critiqued.

If I or a member of my family becomes a victim of violent crime I'm pretty sure I won't need the cops to show up in a tank.

 

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

The force continuum for police nationwide is pretty good. It isnt followed very well in the extreme minority of instances, but that is operator error, not the error of the law.

What about corrupt PDs like Baltimore?  Is it still purely operator error, or could there be a cultural problem within the department?

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

I am owning it, it just isnt the celebration you want it to be. I dont care about his poor upbringing (if that is what he had) or that he had a bad day. He is not a mental patient either so we cant excuse him for that. He was simply a predator and I dont feel sorry for him. He made his choices and in the end he decided he was going to try and kill someone so he could avoid accountability for his violent felonious actions.

Who's making excuses for him?

24 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Yes even this stupid cop knows what it means. I wasn't looking for an English lesson. What I still do not know is what why you mentioned that in your response to me.

If I were to kill an intruder in my apartment in an act of self defense, I would (hopefully) not face charges.  If I killed someone because they were a nasty person, I would, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“The first thing that went wrong was when the police showed up with K-9 units,” Scriven said. “The dogs played on racist imagery…it played the situation up and [the department] wasn’t cognizant of the imagery.”

What imagery?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

Let's play link tennis!

Interesting article.  My first question would be what the two "officers" Fritz and King have in the way of a working background in civilian law enforcement functions.  Military law enforcement is very different from civilian law enforcement (or so my co-workers who have done both tell me).  I have some military tactical training, but I would never comment on their use in a military environment because I am not a soldier/marine.  

I have a hard time giving a military veteran much credibility in critiquing law enforcement tactics without experience doing it...and vice versa.  

Unixknight and I already know we disagree on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Unixknight and I already know we disagree on this issue.

Indeed we do, and it's nice, to be honest.  If we all though the same these forums would just be a boring echo chamber.  :cool:  Our views don't mean anything if we never let them be challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/14/2016 at 6:26 PM, mirkwood said:

Interesting article.  My first question would be what the two "officers" Fritz and King have in the way of a working background in civilian law enforcement functions.  Military law enforcement is very different from civilian law enforcement (or so my co-workers who have done both tell me).  I have some military tactical training, but I would never comment on their use in a military environment because I am not a soldier/marine.  

I have a hard time giving a military veteran much credibility in critiquing law enforcement tactics without experience doing it...and vice versa.  

Unixknight and I already know we disagree on this issue.

Mirkwood,

I did some research on the two commentators in the article. Interesting findings:

Jason Fritz- This guy is currently a Doctoral Student.

Here is a link to his LinkedIn profile:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-fritz-14b10420

The Article mentions he has three tours in Iraq as if it is relevant. Perhaps it may be so I read what he wrote about his experiences there in his profile. Bottom line- he did his actual combat time inside an M1 tank probably running people over and smashing through the rebublican guard in an all out slaughter. I will definitely give him and his Soldiers MEGA CREDIT for that. Nothing to do with riot control or police work.

His second tour was an admin job as well as his third which was as a personnel officer (HR)

So since then he has found his way into studying cops and stuff. No police experience. He is credible as it applies to smashing through enemy defenses with the Armor might of the US army as that is what he did. Police work? Well he has been reading a lot so now he is a credible researcher who is also a Monday morning QB.

He is also anti-cop. He doesn’t come out and say that, but check out this statement from an article of his:

“We simply do not know how many Americans are killed by police, to say nothing of the justifications for these deaths. The most prominent cases will be investigated, but most will not.” 

http://warontherocks.com/2015/08/getting-police-militarization-under-control/

Unbelievable! Most cases will not even be investigated? His extensive research should show him that there is not one officer involved shooting where someone dies where there is not a lawsuit which follows. That being the case, if we had lawyers discovering hundreds of shooting cases a year that were not even investigated we surely would have known. This is just a bomb throwing cop hater.

Next up, Scriven King:

AirForce Security cop. Basically guarded a gate for a couple years and guarded a desk for a few more. He cites one example of him managing a barricaded suspect. Crap as a civilian police supervisor I have personally managed at least a hundred of those things. Weak sauce.

Anyway he doesn’t have any real LE experience and his military experience is just standard enlisted stuff…following orders and managing a small group of people and other misc admin NCO duties. No mention of riot experience either.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/scrivenking

Interestingly the Author of the Article itself is a four year USMC Infantry vet. Why he would go ask two dudes who have never stood a line with a riot shield, helmet and hickory stick is beyond me. There are probably 2-500 cops on LAPD who can tell you all about it.

Anyway- as for Ferguson’s response. Don’t know what to make of it as I don’t have the intel they had or allegedly had. I do know a cop got shot and part of the town was burning before the riot police were even deployed so don’t think the cops are the ones who started all this.

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