Quote:You are so wrong and so off base not only with the post that I quoted, but a lot of other things that you bring up. As an example, there are no "quotas" as far as traffic tickets.


First of all, do you know what SWAT equipment is and/or SWAT tactics? I'll give you a hint, it's not what you see in the movies. Also the "SWAT gear" and "SWAT tactics" is not the universal arming/approach when dealing with the public on a normal basis.


As far as the part in red, what do you define as "militarization of equipment"? Assault style weapons? Robots? Should police officers receive any kind of military training?

With all due respect, JIB, you clearly are just twisting my words and intent to make your non-sensical point. Whether there is an official quota or not, we all know that police are motivated by their higher ups, and they are motivated by elected officials to write tickets. The motivation is there, whether it's officail or not... Here's a source <a class="bbc_url" href='http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/topic/18457-at-least-three-police-officers-killed-by-snipers-during-dallas-protest-chief-says/page-5'>http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/topic/18457-at-least-three-police-officers-killed-by-snipers-during-dallas-protest-chief-says/page-5</a>


If you have to tackle a black male that you just approached I would call that using militarized style policing. It's definatley not community policing. But I know, you feel that shooting a guy point blank is justified. Whether you disagree with the verbiage I'm using or not, the fact remains. The way the police have been handling citizens can be seen as a militarized occupational force, not a peacekeeping relationship with the community.


I find it very fitting that you ignore these MAIN POINTS that I'm making in order to try and muddy the waters with definitions that really have no importance in regards to what I'm trying to express.


As for what equiptment I would define as such, I think of the gear and equiptment used during Ferguson.

---