Quote:This reminds me of how Conservatives had no problems with the Patriot Act when Bush passed it, as soon as Obama gets in power they're all worried about Government Spying and over reach. Police can have tanks so long as they focus on the ghettos, one day they'll turn their attention else where and you'll see what I'm saying. Laugh now but just like the Patriot Act is abused to oppress political enemies of the establishment that militarized police force will one day be used to do the same.
Give government at any level power and they'll abuse it.
Right. Abolish the military!
Quote:Right. Abolish the military!
Not what I said and you know it
They could be ordered to oppress the civilian populace.
Quote:They could be ordered to oppress the civilian populace.
Not constitutionally, however if you have a police force that is as armed as a military there's no restriction on how they can use that power.
Quote:Not constitutionally, however if you have a police force that is as armed as a military there's no restriction on how they can use that power.
I'm thinking at that point...whomever is doing the ordering isn't worried about the Constitution.
People tend to think of the military as all-obeying robots. If the order ever came down to subjugate their own people, dissent amongst the ranks would quickly abolish it. Ain't gonna happen.
Quote:People tend to think of the military as all-obeying robots. If the order ever came down to subjugate their own people, dissent amongst the ranks would quickly abolish it. Ain't gonna happen.
It would also require a blatant obvious breach of constitutional authority, it's much easier to have police enforce any form of martial law.
Quote:It would also require a blatant obvious breach of constitutional authority, it's much easier to have police enforce any form of martial law.
Much easier for the police, just without proper means to protect themselves and quell the violence.
Quote:After reading that story, the police that shot the man did nothing wrong. He shot at them with a shotgun.
If anyone should be held responsible, it should be whoever was in charge of the investigation and the judge who signed off on it. Even so, the culpable party doesn't appear to have done anything criminal, unless there was some gross negligence that wasn't mentioned. The investigators and possibly the judge should lose their job, but the officers that performed the raid acted in self-preservation.
An innocent man died because he was attacked in his home by the government. The GOVERNMENT is the one who is culpable for ensuring that their investigations are carried out correctly. As I said, when they screw up the use of deadly force then innocent people lose something that cannot be recovered or compensated for.
Quote:Much easier for the police, just without proper means to protect themselves and quell the violence.
I'm not against police being protected, I'm against using them to quell the violence, that's not their role nor responsibility.
Quote:People tend to think of the military as all-obeying robots. If the order ever came down to subjugate their own people, dissent amongst the ranks would quickly abolish it. Ain't gonna happen.
More high ranking officials have been forced out under this administration than any other. Any wonder why?
Apparently one of the questions to keep you job may have been "Would you give an order to fire on US Citizens"?
Quote:An innocent man died because he was attacked in his home by the government. The GOVERNMENT is the one who is culpable for ensuring that their investigations are carried out correctly. As I said, when they screw up the use of deadly force then innocent people lose something that cannot be recovered or compensated for.
I agree. The government is civilly liable, I'm sure. I'm sure they paid out a huge chunk of change for their botched raid. People probably lost their job. However, accidents do happen - it's life. Nobody went into that house with bad intentions. Nobody was criminally liable unless there was gross negligence that happened and wasn't detailed by the piece you linked.
Quote:I'm not against police being protected, I'm against using them to quell the violence, that's not their role nor responsibility.
You still haven't answered whether you'd be cool with waiting a day or two for the National Guard to deploy to the school that your children attend that is being locked down by an active shooter or two. Wait a day or two to respond to Columbine or Newtown?
Quote:Not constitutionally, however if you have a police force that is as armed as a military there's no restriction on how they can use that power.
If we're in the business of violating the constitution, there is no restriction on how the military can use it's power. How does the constitution prevent the military from abusing their power, but not constrain the police? Especially considering that there are thousands of PDs, SOs, State, and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies out there... And only 1 military.
Quote:You still haven't answered whether you'd be cool with waiting a day or two for the National Guard to deploy to the school that your children attend that is being locked down by an active shooter or two. Wait a day or two to respond to Columbine or Newtown?
No, when it becomes personal everyone is ok with the police doing whatever with whatever they need to.
Quote:You still haven't answered whether you'd be cool with waiting a day or two for the National Guard to deploy to the school that your children attend that is being locked down by an active shooter or two. Wait a day or two to respond to Columbine or Newtown?
I've said there wouldn't be a need to call the National Guard for a school shooting, your misrepresenting my argument completely. Schools shouldn't be gone free zones, teachers should be armed if they choose, you still have police that patrol the schools who are armed. You don't need fully automatic M4's and MRAP's to take down a psycho in a school.
Quote:If we're in the business of violating the constitution, there is no restriction on how the military can use it's power. How does the constitution prevent the military from abusing their power, but not constrain the police? Especially considering that there are thousands of PDs, SOs, State, and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies out there... And only 1 military.
There's SPECIFIC restrictions on the military and what they can't do on home soil, what are you talking about no restrictions?
Quote:No, when it becomes personal everyone is ok with the police doing whatever with whatever they need to.
you're implying my stands are hypocritical, please show me where I've been hypocritical in any stance?
Quote:I've said there wouldn't be a need to call the National Guard for a school shooting, your misrepresenting my argument completely. Schools shouldn't be gone free zones, teachers should be armed if they choose, you still have police that patrol the schools who are armed. You don't need fully automatic M4's and MRAP's to take down a psycho in a school.
There's SPECIFIC restrictions on the military and what they can't do on home soil, what are you talking about no restrictions?
you're implying my stands are hypocritical, please show me where I've been hypocritical in any stance?
So if that psycho had a fully automatic weapon and was shooting up the school, the people trying to defend it are at a sever disadvantage. Lets hope that nobody makes any pipe bombs and just starts tossing them all over the place, or directly at any sort of police resistance coming at the kid. A sniper/more powerful rifle would do the trick....but no, thats "militarizing" a police force.
This isn't the 1970's anymore. People do stupid stuff and police need to be prepared to protect them.
Teachers can have guns, cops can be equipped to a degree you seem necessary. Your cant even have a discussion with you on this because you are so far extreme on one end, nobody can come close to being rational with you.
Quote:So if that psycho had a fully automatic weapon and was shooting up the school, the people trying to defend it are at a sever disadvantage. Lets hope that nobody makes any pipe bombs and just starts tossing them all over the place, or directly at any sort of police resistance coming at the kid. A sniper/more powerful rifle would do the trick....but no, thats "militarizing" a police force.
This isn't the 1970's anymore. People do stupid stuff and police need to be prepared to protect them.
Teachers can have guns, cops can be equipped to a degree you seem necessary. Your cant even have a discussion with you on this because you are so far extreme on one end, nobody can come close to being rational with you.
I've never argued to disarm the police, you seem to believe the police can't respond to extremely rare and in some cases events that have never happened without military grade gear. No one's ever launched random pipe bombs and if you knew anything about pipe bomb's you'd know why.
Secondly police have used snipers long before they where militarized, once again you're trying to discredit an argument by misrepresenting it.
We can come up with all kinds of hypothetical threats to society to justify anything, that's a rabbit hole. All these mass shootings you claim as justification for a militarized police force always have one thing in common, they happen in gun free zones in states with heavy legislation against individuals obtaining CWL's. Once again government being armed isn't going to save you, only individuals taking responsibility and being allowed to defend themselves will end the mass shootings.
Quote:There were some examples cited in one of the previous posts of complete overreaction by a law enforcement agency to conduct a relatively mundane task. I understand the need for LEOs to protect themselves, but I see examples watching the news and COPS where force is used when some simple diplomacy and tact would have sufficed. I have rolled through a sobriety checkpoint that had guys in full tactical gear standing to the side. I don't think that's necessary. Rather than projecting an image of competence, it conveys a definite police-state feel.
Describe the "full tactical gear".