Im not saying you don't, but wouldn't be a bit naive to believe your job is representative of all departments?

 

I'm not going to pretend like I or really anybody know what every department has or will ever have.  I've never, in my experience, seen a department that I thought was militarized.  If you want to see militarized, Mexico isn't far away.  They use their military to police.

---

I'm not going to pretend like I or really anybody know what every department has or will ever have. I've never, in my experience, seen a department that I thought was militarized. If you want to see militarized, Mexico isn't far away. They use their military to police.

That's why I suggested the book. I understand if you don't want the veil pulled back. In the event you ever do, you can read it. I'm merely trying to convey my perspective isn't rooted in opinion, I took the time to find out. Not an insult.

---

That's why I suggested the book. I understand if you don't want the veil pulled back. In the event you ever do, you can read it. I'm merely trying to convey my perspective isn't rooted in opinion, I took the time to find out. Not an insult.

 

Well, that book was written in 1980 so I doubt it would have much relevance about the department 36 years later as I'm sure the LAPD is much different.  It was also an extreme far left book written by a Marxist scholar.  You are reading Marxist literature my friend.  I have worked with the LAPD.  They are on the forefront of every new use of force device, training and and tactics.  My wife is in Los Angeles right now watching the CrossFit Games.  I wouldn't allow her into the city if I thought it was controlled by a military police department that suspended people's rights.

---

I'm a staunch Libertarian. So I think its safe to say you are very wrong.

I'm more libertarian than you are if you are defending brutality of a man exercising free speech.


You may want to review your values...


Also, as a libertarian, you sure seem to allow government tyranny to occur within our communities at an alarmingly high threshold.

---

If you give the finger to a cop driving down the street, I think most reasonable people would believe getting pulled over would be a good possibility. Whether the SWAT team should have pulled him over with their gear still on or not isn't even relevant. The relevant point is that they weren't actively policing a neighborhood. Again, a random SWAT van pulling over a wise guy is your flimsy argument about the militarization of police? How many SWAT vans do you see driving around a day? A week? A month? A year?

Yes, if I flip off a cop, I wouldn't be shocked to find myself pulled over for whatever reason the cop could come up with.


Are you going to seriously tell me it's ok for a SWAT team to pull over a vehicle because the driver flipped them off, then walk out to greet him wearing assault rifles? Nothing about a SWAT team responding to a middle finger with deadly force seems the least bit off to you at all?

---

I'm a staunch Libertarian. So I think its safe to say you are very wrong.

Libertarians don't believe in subjugation of the individual to the state.

---

Haha, yes, that was absolutely a rhetorical question, unlike the one earlier. I thought you'd like that.


I'd say it's rare. I'd also say they need those weapons in their trunk for when the situation does arise they aren't sitting ducks. Not to mention if there are multiple shooters gunning for the cops. Let's say we have another gunman enter a club with a weapon and mowing down the patrons and an officer is nearby but all he's got is his little pistol.

Fair enough...


But the question remains, how often do these extraordinary shootouts happen?


When I'm talking about militarization, I'm specifically talking about the mentality of the PD and their over reliance of weapons and tactics that do not fit within the model of what a peace officer is brought on to do.


Engaging in every call as a potential shoot out results in treating the community as a war zone.


And then you get what happened in Miami and what happens to often better citizens all over the country

---

Well, that book was written in 1980 so I doubt it would have much relevance about the department 36 years later as I'm sure the LAPD is much different. It was also an extreme far left book written by a Marxist scholar. You are reading Marxist literature my friend. I have worked with the LAPD. They are on the forefront of every new use of force device, training and and tactics. My wife is in Los Angeles right now watching the CrossFit Games. I wouldn't allow her into the city if I thought it was controlled by a military police department that suspended people's rights.

Thank you for taking time out to do some research. While he may be Marxist, it doesn't mean what's in the book isn't true. What if it wasn't "your" rights that were being suspended, would that statement still be true?

---

I'm more libertarian than you are if you are defending brutality of a man exercising free speech.


You may want to review your values...


Also, as a libertarian, you sure seem to allow government tyranny to occur within our communities at an alarmingly high threshold.

 

 

Yes, if I flip off a cop, I wouldn't be shocked to find myself pulled over for whatever reason the cop could come up with.


Are you going to seriously tell me it's ok for a SWAT team to pull over a vehicle because the driver flipped them off, then walk out to greet him wearing assault rifles? Nothing about a SWAT team responding to a middle finger with deadly force seems the least bit off to you at all?

 

 

Libertarians don't believe in subjugation of the individual to the state.

 

 

Wow, you guys totally whiff the point.  I'm not arguing whether the police/SWAT pulling someone over for the finger is legal or illegal.  Its like youre dogs and a ball just flew by your head that you had to go chase.  It's illegal for a cop to pull you over for the finger.  Just don't be surprised if he gets behind you and waits until you violate a traffic law.

 

I get it though.  Cops are evil and criminals are the good guys.

---

Thank you for taking time out to do some research. While he may be Marxist, it doesn't mean what's in the book isn't true. What if it wasn't "your" rights that were being suspended, would that statement still be true?

 

To which statement are you referring?

---

Wow, you guys totally whiff the point. I'm not arguing whether the police/SWAT pulling someone over for the finger is legal or illegal. Its like youre dogs and a ball just flew by your head that you had to go chase. It's illegal for a cop to pull you over for the finger. Just don't be surprised if he gets behind you and waits until you violate a traffic law.


I get it though. Cops are evil and criminals are the good guys.

The idea is not cops bad, criminals good. The idea is that police conduct is supposed to be at a higher standard, whether or not they had a bad day or whatever. Juxtaposing them against criminals doesn't excuse their behavior. Either they need better training dealing with the public at large or if the training is sufficient, something must be done to discourage them from not adhering to said behavior.

---

To which statement are you referring?

Not allowing your wife in an environment where police suspend the rights of the people.

---

Wow, you guys totally whiff the point. I'm not arguing whether the police/SWAT pulling someone over for the finger is legal or illegal. Its like youre dogs and a ball just flew by your head that you had to go chase. It's illegal for a cop to pull you over for the finger. Just don't be surprised if he gets behind you and waits until you violate a traffic law.


I get it though. Cops are evil and criminals are the good guys.

If you were whooshing any harder, we'd need an airbag for you to land on. Let's make this really simple and see if we can’t get something to stick:


I am driving and I see a SWAT van. I flip the driver off. The van turns on its lights and pulls me over. Members of the team approach my vehicle with assault rifles to give me a piece of their minds.


At what point do we venture from "reasonable interaction" to "dangerous abuse of power" and "intimidation"?

---

The idea is not cops bad, criminals good. The idea is that police conduct is supposed to be at a higher standard, whether or not they had a bad day or whatever. Juxtaposing them against criminals doesn't excuse their behavior. Either they need better training dealing with the public at large or if the training is sufficient, something must be done to discourage them from not adhering to said behavior.

 

Its supposed to be, but cops are human too and can be jerks as well.  That's not illegal.  When a cop does do something illegal and there is proof of that, the cop gets punished accordingly and often more severely than just the typical person.  The problem here is that so many people are ignorant of the actual law and want instant gratification or they believe justice has been averted.  

 

I've repeated many times, the law doesn't use 20/20 hindsight as to whether an officer was right or wrong.  The law only looks at if an officer was reasonable.  Was it reasonable for that cop to believe this person had the means, opportunity, and intent to cause them or someone else serious harm?  If so, the cop is always exonerated.  Even if it turns out that it was just a hair brush that was being pulled from her purse.

 

Point A:  An old lady is pulled over for speeding.  Officer asks to see her ID and she politely responds, "Certainly, officer."  She reaches into her purse and the cop fires one off into the old lady.  There are witnesses and camera footage.  The cop is going to go to jail for some sort of serious felony charge.

 

Point B: An old lady is pulled over for speeding.  She matches the exact description of the local "Serial Killer Granny."  The officer asks to see her ID and she calls him and pig and tells him that he'll never take her in alive and suddenly lunges for her purse.  The officer puts  a bullet in her.  It turns out the old lady wasn't the killer, and was just senile and reaching for her denture cream.  The officer will not and should not be in any trouble even though his interpretation of what was actually happening is wrong and an innocent old granny was gunned down.

---

Not allowing your wife in an environment where police suspend the rights of the people.

 

Then I guess I'm just not understanding the question you are asking.  If you are asking whether I would allow my wife into a place where they suspend the rights of others, but not her, then I don't know.  I guess I would if it doesn't affect her.  I'm not justifying others' rights being suspended, but if it doesn't affect her, I don't see why not.

---

Fair enough...

But the question remains, how often do these extraordinary shootouts happen?

When I'm talking about militarization, I'm specifically talking about the mentality of the PD and their over reliance of weapons and tactics that do not fit within the model of what a peace officer is brought on to do.

Engaging in every call as a potential shoot out results in treating the community as a war zone.

And then you get what happened in Miami and what happens to often better citizens all over the country

They occur rarely in any given town. But on a national scale it is happening more frequently. Look at what happened in Germany today. That could easily have been here in the states. The police who will be responding to these calls and cowardly attacks need to be prepared for that and have the proper tools, equipment and weapons to react quickly and decisively.


Tbh, I can't say that I agree or not on that they over rely on the weapons and tactics. As our criminals change and use different tactics along with new technology and weapons as do the police. It's evolved into what it is today. I believe the police need to be one step ahead in order to keep situations under control. Which means they get the cool new stuff. Be it the latest armor, guns, or even something overlooked like better radios. When I go camping with my family, I don't plan on us getting lost or anything. But, I will have items on me in the event it does happen. I think someone in another thread had a better one. Maybe it was having a fire extinguisher but not expecting a fire.


I completely agree with your last point. but I don't think that's what's going on. A few incidents here and there maybe. But for the most part you'll just see the guys in blue responding with a vest, gun, and whatever else he may have on his belt.

---

If you were whooshing any harder, we'd need an airbag for you to land on. Let's make this really simple and see if we can’t get something to stick:


I am driving and I see a SWAT van. I flip the driver off. The van turns on its lights and pulls me over. Members of the team approach my vehicle with assault rifles to give me a piece of their minds.


At what point do we venture from "reasonable interaction" to "dangerous abuse of power" and "intimidation"?

 

At no point would it be a reasonable interaction for any LEO to pull you over for the finger.  I'm saying that any reasonable person should know, at least I hope you would, that if you are going to be a jerk and flick off a cop that there is a chance that they will find a legal reason to pull you over.  In this case, it was probably an illegal seizure, regardless if it was SWAT or Officer Friendly.  You are trying to dig your heels in the sand and draw your red line here of a single instance to prove police in America are militarized and its ambiguous at best for you.  How many times have you or anyone you know or anyone who knows anyone you know been pulled over by a SWAT truck and had their rights suspended?  It just doesn't happen.  Trying to debate the merits of RS for a single traffic stop as proof of police militarization is absurd.

---

So the cop meant to shoot the autistic boy because he "thought he might have a gun". Seriously, do cops not have binoculars. Should someone make sure that what person has is actually a gun when they have the time to do so? Just complete incompetence.

---

Citizens lawfully recording your brethren's misdeeds are "idiots", hmmmm? More evidence of the depravity of the LEO worldview.

Are you okay?

 

So if there is a situation where police have guns drawn in the area that you are in, is your first instinct going to be to take out your cell phone and record video?  Personally if it was me I would be getting the heck out of the area.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So if there is a situation where police have guns drawn in the area that you are in, is your first instinct going to be to take out your cell phone and record video?  Personally if it was me I would be getting the heck out of the area.

As long as I was out of the line of fire and able to get to cover quickly if all hell broke loose, I'd have a camera out and recording. My being willing to risk a little more than you would in the interest of keeping everyone honest (cops and suspects alike) doesn't make me an idiot any more than you running and hiding makes you chicken. We're both going on our instincts.

 

Now, if there are guns all over the place and I'm downrange of one, yeah, I'm leaving. Fast.

---