Quote:In some instances, yes there are valid reasons. Unfortunately there have been escalations beyond what a regular police force can handle. Are you insinuating that the Netherlands does not have similar units? Do you believe the US is the only country that has these units?
Every country has elite police units trained in dealing with extremely dangerous criminals and terrorists. The US is the only country I know of that uses these units against the general population.
Quote:I've seen that similar sentiment expressed outside of this forum, so that's why I used the plural form of liberal.
I did ask the liberals here if they buy the spin Anchorman is pulling, and no liberals responded. That doesn't mean they agree with TA, but it would be reassuring if my question was answered.
Do you agree with the common (and my) belief that at least one of the killers in Dallas was racially motivated?
As a guy who respects the Anchorman's positions in other threads, and can see the general point he's trying to make...
If you can call the Charleston killings racially motivated, then you absolutely have to call the Dallas killings racially motivated.
Both killers were motivated by an intense hatred of another race. There are larger psychological and societal reasons for said hatred, but you gotta call it racism.
Quote:There's alot here to unpack... and I agree with you regarding broad labeling of any group of people.
But I want to point out that the point I was making regarding the militarization of our peacekeepers was an attack on the system, not on the actual officers.
That's a key point. I have made a point in all my posts to separate the good cops from the corrupted one's.
My discussion specificall on this topic is not a critique of police officers. It's a discussion of human nature.
It is my opinion that is you create an army setting, human nature would cause anyone (not just cops, but any man or woman) to begin viewing the society in militaristic way.
Therefore, I do not think I'm categorizing all cops as warriors, but stating that from a psychological point of view if the system decides they want a militarized police force, you are systemically undermining the relationship between the community and the police as peacekeepers.
I don't think this position is off base or prejudice to officers, but a critique of the system.
The first part was a direct response to you. The rest.... I kind of went on a tangent. Not directed at you or what you said, just in how I feel everything is happening these days.
Quote:Every country has elite police units trained in dealing with extremely dangerous criminals and terrorists. The US is the only country I know of that uses these units against the general population.
Participants in riots aren't the general population, though. I'm glad the Netherlands are a peaceful place, DF, and I like your idea of the police being non-confrontational during delicate situations, but I'm afraid your argument is going nowhere.
Quote:So the shooter speaks for everyone? He speaks for all the protesters? He speaks for me? He speaks for the cops?
Come on, man. Think it through
The shooter said HIS motivation was to kill white cops. So yes, it was a racist act.
Quote:Except, in most cases it's not police brutality and it certainly has nothing to do with race (with regards to how police interact with the population). It's also not about "class" either. It's a manufactured problem by mainly the left since they seem to be the ones that want to "classify" people into different groups.
We can't be "Americans" or "citizens" anymore according to the ideology of the left. We must be "African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, LGBT", etc.
We cops and not-cops that's all.
Quote:Participants in riots aren't the general population, though. I'm glad the Netherlands are a peaceful place, DF, and I like your idea of the police being non-confrontational during delicate situations, but I'm afraid your argument is going nowhere.
Yes, talking sense into Americans rarely goes well.
Quote:Yes, talking sense into Americans rarely goes well.
Neither does going into a Ferguson-style riot with wooden shields and batons.
Quote:The dude WAS an Army reservist with the rank of private first class. His MOS was carpentry masonry specialist! He saw no action to give him PTSD or make him go off the deep end unless a skill saw randomly attacked him. His combat training was limited to the occasional basic weapons qualification!
He served in Afganistan... So I guess that's club med now?
Quote:And this is the Ferguson "police" responding to the riots:
![[Image: 140814_ellison_ferguson_gty.jpg]](http://venezuelanalysis.com/files/imagecache/images_set/images/2014/08/140814_ellison_ferguson_gty.jpg)
Militarization... Police. This is not good.
Quote:One wonders about the effectiveness of camouflage on a city street.
In a tactical situation, everything matters. Wonder why tactile officers are often dressed in black? It's because black doesn't reflect light. Why dress in camouflage? Perhaps because of the mix of lighting and/or the background behind them.
Quote:And this is the Ferguson "police" responding to the riots:
Check out the locals warm message of encouragement for their police officers on the mailbox. Yep, stand up folks I tell ya.
Quote:The shooter said HIS motivation was to kill white cops. So yes, it was a racist act.
I'm not playing lawyer ball here, but it's kinda important to point out that the qualifier is white, but the noun was cop. Whether he said he hated whites, or he hated cops, or he hated white cops, the action verifies that his primary targets were cops.
The fact that they were white is also important. But if this was soley a racist act, then why just go after cops??? I mean, it's common sense, right?
Am I missing something? I'm catching flack from a few other posters by pointing this fact out, and they respond with incredulity. Can you help me understand the disconnect, Americus?
Quote:In a tactical situation, everything matters. Wonder why tactile officers are often dressed in black? It's because black doesn't reflect light. Why dress in camouflage? Perhaps because of the mix of lighting and/or the background behind them.
Tactical--- errrr WAR situaiton... LOL, come on dude.
Needing camaflouge as a police officer is pretty much a concession that you find your community to be a warzone.. Sorry, but the fact is that the system failed the community. The concession comes from the system, not the community in this situaiton. Just something to ponder.
Unless you prefer to live in an occupied territory. I prefer to live in a free society where my cops aren't preparing for war against me and my family and friends. But hey, like I said, you're a rare breed. You prefer the Authoritarianism of an occupied land so long as you get to decide who's being occupied.
Quote:Holy.......
Do the rest of the liberals here buy this spin?
What. The. Heck.
Why do u always make it a liberals versus conservatives issue?
Quote:In a tactical situation, everything matters. Wonder why tactile officers are often dressed in black? It's because black doesn't reflect light. Why dress in camouflage? Perhaps because of the mix of lighting and/or the background behind them.
Quote:Tactical--- errrr WAR situaiton... LOL, come on dude.
Needing camaflouge as a police officer is pretty much a concession that you find your community to be a warzone.. Sorry, but the fact is that the system failed the community. The concession comes from the system, not the community in this situaiton. Just something to ponder.
Unless you prefer to live in an occupied territory. I prefer to live in a free society where my cops aren't preparing for war against me and my family and friends. But hey, like I said, you're a rare breed. You prefer the Authoritarianism of an occupied land so long as you get to decide who's being occupied.
While the Anchorman and JIB are perfectly capable of explaining their points of view, please allow me an aerial view:
The Anchorman sees soldiers opposing civilians on American soil, and it elicits a strong emotional response.
JIB sees policemen in protective clothing doing their difficult task, and it elicits an analytical response.
I can't say either is "wrong" except to say that if my son were part of a team trying to quell a riot, I'd want him protected very well.
Quote:While the Anchorman and JIB are perfectly capable of explaining their points of view, please allow me an aerial view:
The Anchorman sees soldiers opposing civilians on American soil, and it elicits a strong emotional response.
JIB sees policemen in protective clothing doing their difficult task, and it elicits an analytical response.
I can't say either is "wrong" except to say that if my son were part of a team trying to quell a riot, I'd want him protected very well.
I can't imagine what it would be like to send my son out to do this. We need to do something to deescalate the violence. Pointing fingers isn't getting things done. The ironic thing in the Dallas shooting is that they actually enacted a program the last couple years to reduce police abuse and they decreased use of force complaints by 64% since 2009. The one town that was getting it right is the one that is hit.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-...rs-n606076
I can't believe I'm about to say this...
sigh
Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton commented on the violence last night and the problem of unnecessary police killings in a VERY presidential manner. Maybe we're not doomed after all.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='https://twitter.com/LouisFarrakhan/status/751146351262511105'>https://twitter.com/LouisFarrakhan/status/751146351262511105</a>
Interesting video from Louis Farrakhan.....
Half truths are always lies. Yes violence brings change but at what cost?
Farrakhan has long wanted a violent divided between black and white he's an open racist.
Farrakhan is cut from the same cloth as the terrorist holy men preaching jihad.