EricC85, I agree with you on most of your principals, but in this case, I don't.

 

The "court" of public opinion labels the actions of the police officer as guilty.

 

I would love to see the actual report that this police officer made.  I'm still betting that the circumstances involved are very different than what is being "reported" by the media.

 

I was a Deputy Sheriff at one time in my life, and have been on the streets so to speak.  I can tell you right now that I would have drawn my weapon if I had to encounter a 6'5 300lb. black man walking down the street holding up traffic.  If that suspect made any kind of aggressive move towards me, he would have gotten two to the chest and one to the head, no questions asked.  A police officer has the right to defend him/herself if danger is perceived as well as defend the public.

 

Officers wear body armor for a reason.  Put the uniform on and you become an instant target.

 

 

What about a white man, or mexican?

 

Just curious.

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

I also must bring up the point of "stop and frisk" and DUI checkpoints.  Those programs are designed to make normal law abiding citizens safer.

 

In the case of "stop and frisk".  It's easy to target someone based on how they look, how they are dressed, their demeanor, etc.  Don't want to be stopped and frisked?  Then don't dress or act like a thug.

 

Don't like DUI checkpoints?  The first clue is to not drink and drive.  The arrests made from these kind of checkpoints probably saves lives.  How many people are killed each year due to drunk drivers?

 

You cant be this naive.

 

NYC just got rid of the stupid stop and frisk because police were targeting people based off of racial profiling not how they were acting and wearing. 

---

Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.

On an isolated incident you can make a case for anything. If you take a step back however and examine the cause and effect the shifting of police from protect and serve to stop and frisk has lead to animosity against authority and the people themselves.


You can speak better than I about the situation as you where once an officer. And yes today the uniform makes you a target but it also makes you an authority figure with tremendous power.


The 4th amendment is clear the military and police serve different functions in society. The more militarized a police force becomes the focus moves away from interaction and becomes about reaction. When you have a reactionary police force violent aprenhension is unavoidable.

 

In this situation, if police weren't allowed to equip riot gear and long arms, the only difference would be that the military would be called in instead of the police department.  It's not right to ask a police officer to unduly put his life at risk for the sake of public appearance.

 

There are things in regards to police that I agree with you on, but in the case of giving them weapons that better allow them to go home to their families at the end of the night, I'll never agree to disarm the police.  An armed police officer has no greater risk than an armed civilian in criminal homicide.  They are actually less likely to shoot someone than your average citizen with a gun and that's with being in far more tense and dangerous situations.

---

the militarization of the police is getting out of hand....across the whole country.

---

What about a white man, or mexican?

 

Just curious.

 

Studies show that police open fire on white men brandishing weapons at the officer at a higher rate than black men, in terms of proportion. 

---

I also must bring up the point of "stop and frisk" and DUI checkpoints.  Those programs are designed to make normal law abiding citizens safer.

 

In the case of "stop and frisk".  It's easy to target someone based on how they look, how they are dressed, their demeanor, etc.  Don't want to be stopped and frisked?  Then don't dress or act like a thug.

 

Don't like DUI checkpoints?  The first clue is to not drink and drive.  The arrests made from these kind of checkpoints probably saves lives.  How many people are killed each year due to drunk drivers?

 

Don't like police coming into your home and searching your underwear drawers for something to arrest you over?  Don't do anything illegal.

---

the militarization of the police is getting out of hand....across the whole country.

 

Again, when have you ever seen the militarization of police when it wasn't warranted?

 

The only thing Eric has pointed out of 3 to 4 cops who serve high risk warrants.  Apparently they're supposed to use a stern tone of voice in order to get aggravated felons to comply.

---

In this situation, if police weren't allowed to equip riot gear and long arms, the only difference would be that the military would be called in instead of the police department.  It's not right to ask a police officer to unduly put his life at risk for the sake of public appearance.

 

There are things in regards to police that I agree with you on, but in the case of giving them weapons that better allow them to go home to their families at the end of the night, I'll never agree to disarm the police.  An armed police officer has no greater risk than an armed civilian in criminal homicide.  They are actually less likely to shoot someone than your average citizen with a gun and that's with being in far more tense and dangerous situations.

 

This situation was completely avoidable, again you have to look at why people are hostile towards the police today. You have entire communities that have NO trust in law enforcement, why? 

 

Don't like police coming into your home and searching your underwear drawers for something to arrest you over?  Don't do anything illegal.

 

Liberty be damned if they say it's for your protection we should just give police unlimited authority? Where does it stop? 

 

Again, when have you ever seen the militarization of police when it wasn't warranted?

 

The only thing Eric has pointed out of 3 to 4 cops who serve high risk warrants.  Apparently they're supposed to use a stern tone of voice in order to get aggravated felons to comply.

 

Are you arguing the police have not been militarized? I'm confused you seem to be suggesting programs like the pentagons 1033 don't exist? You're average police department today is equipped to fight a war on foreign soil. Hell just look at the distribution of MRAP vehicles alone.

---

When government fears the people you have liberty, when people fear the government you have tyranny. 

---

explain to me why a little town like Ferguson has to officers with that type of capability as far as weapons and gear? they looked like soldiers instead of LEOs. that's ridiculous, especially for a town that size.

---

When government fears the people you have liberty, when people fear the government you have tyranny. 

A to the MEN

---

When they outlaw your firearm will you still be glad the police have been militarized conservatives? When they outlaw free speech and public assembly will you still be glad the police have been militarized liberals?

 

It's protect and serve not stop and detain. 

---

This situation was completely avoidable, again you have to look at why people are hostile towards the police today. You have entire communities that have NO trust in law enforcement, why? 

 

 

Liberty be damned if they say it's for your protection we should just give police unlimited authority? Where does it stop? 

 

 

Are you arguing the police have not been militarized? I'm confused you seem to be suggesting programs like the pentagons 1033 don't exist? You're average police department today is equipped to fight a war on foreign soil. Hell just look at the distribution of MRAP vehicles alone.

 

The comment about allowing police into your house was sarcasm in reference to the previous poster stating that dui checkpoints and stop and frisk should be tolerated under the premise of, "If you're not doing anything wrong..."

 

Yes, this situation was completely avoidable.  If people don't riot, loot, and destroy then the situation could have been avoided.

 

Yes, I am arguing that the police aren't militarized.  I don't call bringing bigger weapons to a fight militarization.  Now if they were flying Apache's with rockets and 50 cals overhead, I might say something different.  How does one use the argument that a police officer with a long arm is "militarization" yet take issue when a civilian owns a long arm and it's considered an "assault weapon?"  You can't see the hypocrisy there?

---

The comment about allowing police into your house was sarcasm in reference to the previous poster stating that dui checkpoints and stop and frisk should be tolerated under the premise of, "If you're not doing anything wrong..."

 

Yes, this situation was completely avoidable.  If people don't riot, loot, and destroy then the situation could have been avoided.

 

Yes, I am arguing that the police aren't militarized.  I don't call bringing bigger weapons to a fight militarization.  Now if they were flying Apache's with rockets and 50 cals overhead, I might say something different.  How does one use the argument that a police officer with a long arm is "militarization" yet take issue when a civilian owns a long arm and it's considered an "assault weapon?"  You can't see the hypocrisy there?

 

The police are not sporting semi-auto's for starters. second it's not just long rifles, it's the fully body armor the MRAP vehicles, the Sound Cannons, TANKS yes actually tanks. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-w...y-for-war/

 

seriously the MRAP is a $700,000 + military grade vehicle. Just look into the pentagons 1033 program if you don't believe the police have and are being militarized. 

---

The police are not sporting semi-auto's for starters. second it's not just long rifles, it's the fully body armor the MRAP vehicles, the Sound Cannons, TANKS yes actually tanks. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-w...y-for-war/

 

seriously the MRAP is a $700,000 + military grade vehicle. Just look into the pentagons 1033 program if you don't believe the police have and are being militarized. 

 

Stop feeding hysteria.  You know as well as I do that there were no tanks and it was just facebook rumor.

 

So you oppose the police using body armor and armored vehicles during a riot?

 

We get it, you support the police having less use of force options than the civilian populace.  If confronted with a rifle, use a handgun.  If confronted with a handgun, use a baton.  If confronted with a baton, use your words.

---

Stop feeding hysteria.  You know as well as I do that there were no tanks and it was just facebook rumor.

 

So you oppose the police using body armor and armored vehicles during a riot?

 

We get it, you support the police having less use of force options than the civilian populace.  If confronted with a rifle, use a handgun.  If confronted with a handgun, use a baton.  If confronted with a baton, use your words.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/...-pentagon/

 

<p style="background-color:rgb(244,244,244);font-size:17px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">"Local enforcement agencies can look through an online catalog to purchase items like small arms and tents. Getting a tank or military aircraft requires a small amount of extra work -- authorities need to fill out a one-page request form, specifying if they prefer the vehicle with wheels or tank tracks. 

<p style="background-color:rgb(244,244,244);font-size:17px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Delivery can take up to 14 days. "

---

I just don't see how anyone can deny the police have been militarized? You can make an argument it's justifiable and there's restraint so the equipment can't be used improperly but you can't argue the police are not using military grade equipment across the nation.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/...-pentagon/

 

<p style="background-color:rgb(244,244,244);font-size:17px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">"Local enforcement agencies can look through an online catalog to purchase items like small arms and tents. Getting a tank or military aircraft requires a small amount of extra work -- authorities need to fill out a one-page request form, specifying if they prefer the vehicle with wheels or tank tracks. 

<p style="background-color:rgb(244,244,244);font-size:17px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Delivery can take up to 14 days. "

 

That's sensationalism right there.  There is no online military weapons Amazon for police departments.  JSO can't just fill out a 1 page form and get an F-16 with sidewinder missiles in 14 days. 

 

If you want your police force to be less armed than groups of the populace go take a look at Mexico and tell me how that's going.  Welcome to a world of strong arming and corruption.

---

I just don't see how anyone can deny the police have been militarized? You can make an argument it's justifiable and there's restraint so the equipment can't be used improperly but you can't argue the police are not using military grade equipment across the nation.

 

If this were 70 years ago, then yes, they'd be militarized.  Weapons and technology evolve.  If you think a police department wouldn't be wiped clean away by any 3rd world's military then you are a fool.  

 

If this was 200 years ago, police officers armed with swords and bayonets would be considered militarized.  

---

explain to me why a little town like Ferguson has to officers with that type of capability as far as weapons and gear? they looked like soldiers instead of LEOs. that's ridiculous, especially for a town that size.

 

---