|
|
Velvet
by Turkey_neck. 05/04/24 09:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
123 registered members (Floorman1, 4Him146, JustinJ, ronfromramer, coachg34, giftedkiller, Johnal3, RidgeRanger, Huntn2feed5, 163dm, Teacher One, lectrode, 2 ducks, TDog93, AlphaBuck101, DPD, Sully, Safetyman, BC_Reb, Shane99, dquick1, mopar, Paint Rock 00, outdoorguy88, Dixiepatriot, cartervj, AU338MAG, PourIron12, DuckDown11, Grizztrick2, russellb, geeb1, dtmwtp, CNC, BobK, Reaper, Bmyers142, Mt Willing man, Fullthrottle, FreeStateHunter, blade, 000buck, BrentsFX4, scrubbuck, bamaguzzi, Daniel4191, Madmax0818, cbs, specialk, TexasHuntress, 300gr, Narrow Gap, BBD23, rrice0725, woodduck, 700ltr308, doublefistful, Tree Hanger, Jweeks, dwaugh, smallgame, UncleHuck, RebFormanUDA, JLavender, Turkey Petter, PikeRoadHunter, Ryano, JustHunt, Mansfield, hallb, chevydude2015, Crawfish, BCD, jwalker77, AU7MM08, 3006bullet, top cat, sbo1971, catdoctor, BamaFan64, AustinC, Turkeyneck78, sj22, Uokman2014, roll_tide_hunts, MadMallard, Joe4majors, dirkdaddy, brushwhacker, metalmuncher, mathews prostaff, AKB, mw2015, Jstocks, jw706, Gobble4me757, curt99rsv, bamafarmer, Chaser357, demp17, MikeP, Parkerwagner, Bulls eye, Herdbull, Jdkprp70, GomerPyle, twaldrop4, BearBranch, 7x57_Mauser, BamaBoHunter, RSF, square, donia, Jtb51b, 9 invisible),
1,142
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: crenshawco]
#1354153
05/20/15 03:21 PM
05/20/15 03:21 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
It surprises me that on such a conservative, second amendment protecting, southern, website, that we have this many people who feel the need to have local police forces armed better than some terrorist armies. I mean we do live in Alabama, not Afghanistan. I would think that most of us feel sufficiently equipped to protect ourself and our families from any ordinary crime that occurs on a somewhat frequent basis. I understand that there are situations and events that dictate a larger force or control than standard weaponry or police forces can provide, and that is why we have separate organizations to step in in these instances.
Bill has referred to it several times now, but I think a lot of you could use a history lesson on the failure of democracies, and the cycles, stages, and events that lead to their failure. There really aren't as many as it may seem. There are several law enforcement officers involved in this thread. They are just regurgitating their training. JSOG47 is the latest to join the discussion. I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain he is or was law enforcement just based on what he has said so far. Also, even some conservatives are willing to give up freedom for safety. Bush was one of the worst offenders of liberty in modern day America and many conservatives love the guy.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: JSOG47]
#1354167
05/20/15 03:40 PM
05/20/15 03:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
I have a hypothetical scenario.
Scenario: Four militant extremists take control of an elementary school that your child attends. They take everyone hostage, already killed a dozen or so upon entry, barricade themselves inside, and begin executing children one at a time, posting the videos live on YouTube.
Now. You can wait on the military to provide our elite forces to deal with these scumbags(which is not going to happen), or you can rely on the immediate response of highly trained first responders in your local sheriff or police department, who have had tactical building clearance training, and have the equipment and gear to get your child out safely and dispatch the pieces of crap that took them hostage.
Whether you like it or not, this is the world we live in. This scenario is going to happen. It's just a matter of time. The police have taken an oath to serve and protect. Today's means of protection against new threats never before seen in history means we should be more prepared than ever.
The military equipment being received by most local law enforcement agencies doesn't exceed rifles, first aid equipment, and safety equipment. The militarization of local police is not even remotely on the scale it is perceived.
I can guarantee that if a situation like this were to occur you'd want someone who can handle it swiftly to immobilize the threat.
Disclaimer: I'm a God loving, patriotic, constitution supporting, conservative, gun toting finatic. Drop a half dozen or so tear gas canisters in the HVAC system and shoot them when they come out. No MRAP needed. Then find the nearest occupied Mosque, chain the doors closed, and burn it to the ground. If the ragheads start killing our children in our schools there will be a hell unleashed on them they never could have imagined. This is neither here nor there when it comes to how crappy cops are but I encourage all of you to read up on this attack. I was shocked that I hadn't heard of it before I did. No one on this thread has said cops are crappy but it's ok to resort to sensationalism if your arguments aren't converting enough people to your way of thinking. I read the link. The situation took place in Russia, right? I actually think that's a great comparison considering the point I , and others, have been trying to make.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: JSOG47]
#1354205
05/20/15 04:02 PM
05/20/15 04:02 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 25,154
Guntersville, AL
IDOT
I am Cornholio
|
I am Cornholio
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 25,154
Guntersville, AL
|
I'm still trying to understand how taking an existing officer and allowing him to be slightly harder to kill erodes your liberties. That's where I'm hung. Good luck, I've been trying to get that point across all day.
If you’re a common sense person, you probably don’t feel you have a home in this world right now. If you’re a Christian, you know you were never meant to.
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: marshmud991]
#1354208
05/20/15 04:05 PM
05/20/15 04:05 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,282
Tennessee
FLGunslinger
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,282
Tennessee
|
Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA:   http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...crimemain_finalOverview In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.)
Audentis Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: marshmud991]
#1354217
05/20/15 04:12 PM
05/20/15 04:12 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,282
Tennessee
FLGunslinger
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,282
Tennessee
|
We used to teach our children to seek out uniformed police if they ever get lost. Now in some instances our children wouldn't know who to look for because the police officer looks like a soldier. Why did we need to go from this:  To this? 
Audentis Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: FLGunslinger]
#1354221
05/20/15 04:13 PM
05/20/15 04:13 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 185
Jacksonville
JSOG47
3 point
|
3 point
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 185
Jacksonville
|
Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...crimemain_finalOverview In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.) How does the slow improvement of the violent crime rate demonstrate that bullet resistant vehicles being available for free to law enforcement violates citizens rights? Aren't those pictures from the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing? The same incident that featured a gun battle with incendiary devices being pitched out of cars at pursuing officers?
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: IDOT]
#1354222
05/20/15 04:14 PM
05/20/15 04:14 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
I'm still trying to understand how taking an existing officer and allowing him to be slightly harder to kill erodes your liberties. That's where I'm hung. Good luck, I've been trying to get that point across all day. That's because you are both coming at it from only the officers point of view. Making the officer harder to kill is a good thing. Making the officer more like a soldier is a bad thing. Soldiers are trained to kill and destroy while law enforcement is supposed to protect and serve. Big difference in what the two should be but the difference is getting smaller all the time. I will agree officers have a dangerous job but to only give credence to the dangers that officers face and ignore the intrusions into liberty and outright killing of innocent citizens by law enforcement shows a huge bias. There has to be balance between military, law enforcement and citizens. When there is a decision to be made between safety and liberty, a free people should always choose liberty.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: bill]
#1354227
05/20/15 04:19 PM
05/20/15 04:19 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,251
N. Alabama
Reyn
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,251
N. Alabama
|
I'm still trying to understand how taking an existing officer and allowing him to be slightly harder to kill erodes your liberties. That's where I'm hung. Good luck, I've been trying to get that point across all day. That's because you are both coming at it from only the officers point of view. Making the officer harder to kill is a good thing. Making the officer more like a soldier is a bad thing. Soldiers are trained to kill and destroy while law enforcement is supposed to protect and serve. Big difference in what the two should be but the difference is getting smaller all the time. I will agree officers have a dangerous job but to only give credence to the dangers that officers face and ignore the intrusions into liberty and outright killing of innocent citizens by law enforcement shows a huge bias. There has to be balance between military, law enforcement and citizens. When there is a decision to be made between safety and liberty, a free people should always choose liberty. So it's simply the "look" you don't like? I also don't understand how an armored vehicle is an intrusion into liberty and contributes to killing innocent citizens.
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: JSOG47]
#1354230
05/20/15 04:22 PM
05/20/15 04:22 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,282
Tennessee
FLGunslinger
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,282
Tennessee
|
Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...crimemain_finalOverview In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.) How does the slow improvement of the violent crime rate demonstrate that bullet resistant vehicles being available for free to law enforcement violates citizens rights? Aren't those pictures from the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing? The same incident that featured a gun battle with incendiary devices being pitched out of cars at pursuing officers? When using excessive force against citizens; there are tons of examples if you would like me to post some I can. If you strip away all of the media hype, you basically had two wannabees that used a kitchen tool and some pipe bombs bought at home depot. But if you want to say "incendiary device" go for it. These two fools literally shut down a major US city. One picture was from Boston, one from Ferguson.
Last edited by FLGunslinger; 05/20/15 04:27 PM.
Audentis Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: Reyn]
#1354237
05/20/15 04:26 PM
05/20/15 04:26 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
I'm still trying to understand how taking an existing officer and allowing him to be slightly harder to kill erodes your liberties. That's where I'm hung. Good luck, I've been trying to get that point across all day. That's because you are both coming at it from only the officers point of view. Making the officer harder to kill is a good thing. Making the officer more like a soldier is a bad thing. Soldiers are trained to kill and destroy while law enforcement is supposed to protect and serve. Big difference in what the two should be but the difference is getting smaller all the time. I will agree officers have a dangerous job but to only give credence to the dangers that officers face and ignore the intrusions into liberty and outright killing of innocent citizens by law enforcement shows a huge bias. There has to be balance between military, law enforcement and citizens. When there is a decision to be made between safety and liberty, a free people should always choose liberty. So it's simply the "look" you don't like? I also don't understand how an armored vehicle is an intrusion into liberty and contributes to killing innocent citizens. Law enforcement should be concerned with perception too. It goes a long way towards public relations which I know that you know is important. When the public sees an officer dressed like a soldier occupying their neighborhood it appears the police are at war instead of there to protect. You will also have some officers that take on a soldier mentality and that is never a good thing. No, it's not the majority but when you have that kind of power even one is too many.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: marshmud991]
#1354242
05/20/15 04:32 PM
05/20/15 04:32 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 21,807
Awbarn, AL
CNC
Dances With Weeds
|
Dances With Weeds
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 21,807
Awbarn, AL
|
Bill beat me to the punch......
Some folks might not see this as important but part of this issue is the psychological impact (perception) it has on the average citizen when they feel like the streets they live on are being occupied by an army force. You guys might as well line up like the Chinese or North Koreans and march down the street in unison. That is the feel that you are giving society when you start turning police officers into soldiers.
Last edited by CNC; 05/20/15 04:33 PM.
We dont rent pigs
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: marshmud991]
#1354261
05/20/15 04:45 PM
05/20/15 04:45 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 51,964
Round ‘bout there
Clem
Mildly Quirky
|
Mildly Quirky
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 51,964
Round ‘bout there
|
Interesting. The Patriot Act is being used for drug investigations, which isn't what it was created for: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-w...investigations/One of the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act was to broaden the “sneak-and-peek” power for federal law enforcement officials. The provision allows investigators to conduct searches without informing the target of the search. We were assured at the time that this was an essential law enforcement tool that would be used only to protect the country from terrorism. Supporters argued that it was critical that investigators be allowed to look into the lives and finances of suspected terrorists without tipping off those terrorists to the fact that they were under investigation. Civil libertarian critics warned that the federal government already had this power for national security investigations. The Patriot Act provision was far too broad and would almost certainly become a common tactic in cases that have nothing to do with national security.
"Hunting Politics are stupid!" - Farm Hunter
"Bible says you shouldn't put sugar in your cornbread." Dustin, 2013
"Best I can figure 97.365% of the general public is a paint chip eating, mouth breathing, certified dumbass." BCLC, 2020
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: marshmud991]
#1354279
05/20/15 04:59 PM
05/20/15 04:59 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 10,376
coffee county
goodman_hunter
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 10,376
coffee county
|
I wonder since it was just surplus, the government didnt donate it to the local militia. The government feels like I shouldn't have guns that hold more that 7-8 rounds but the local pd needs apc, and machine guns to keep the same streets safe. Kinda contradicting ideas.
For without victory, there is no survival
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: Clem]
#1354283
05/20/15 05:02 PM
05/20/15 05:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
Interesting. The Patriot Act is being used for drug investigations, which isn't what it was created for: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-w...investigations/One of the more controversial provisions of the Patriot Act was to broaden the “sneak-and-peek” power for federal law enforcement officials. The provision allows investigators to conduct searches without informing the target of the search. We were assured at the time that this was an essential law enforcement tool that would be used only to protect the country from terrorism. Supporters argued that it was critical that investigators be allowed to look into the lives and finances of suspected terrorists without tipping off those terrorists to the fact that they were under investigation. Civil libertarian critics warned that the federal government already had this power for national security investigations. The Patriot Act provision was far too broad and would almost certainly become a common tactic in cases that have nothing to do with national security. Most of these things are done under the guise of good intentions. Those that are ultra sympathetic to law enforcement or fearful that nothing but law enforcement can protect them are perfectly willing to give up a little unconstitutional intrusion if they perceive it makes society safer. Law enforcement doesn't see anything wrong with it because they are good guys and they only want to get the bad guys. This has all happened before but many people dismiss history because we are like the frog in boiling pot.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: FLGunslinger]
#1354298
05/20/15 05:17 PM
05/20/15 05:17 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 185
Jacksonville
JSOG47
3 point
|
3 point
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 185
Jacksonville
|
Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...crimemain_finalOverview In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.) How does the slow improvement of the violent crime rate demonstrate that bullet resistant vehicles being available for free to law enforcement violates citizens rights? Aren't those pictures from the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing? The same incident that featured a gun battle with incendiary devices being pitched out of cars at pursuing officers? When using excessive force against citizens; there are tons of examples if you would like me to post some I can. If you strip away all of the media hype, you basically had two wannabees that used a kitchen tool and some pipe bombs bought at home depot. But if you want to say "incendiary device" go for it. These two fools literally shut down a major US city. One picture was from Boston, one from Ferguson. Not saying excessive force doesn't exist. I'm saying equipment cannot use force, excessively or otherwise. Much like the shotgun in my closet cannot shoot someone without assistance. As a matter of fact that kind of logic is exactly the kind that the real enemy might try to employ to take all of our guns away. Some cops are bad. Cops having access to life saving armor does not make them bad. Home made bombs that kill and maim people are pretty darn incendiary. Ferguson and Boston are two great examples of the times you would like your local police force to be prepared to deal with extreme situations. Riot gear, armored vehicles and tear gas were the difference between the cops totally leaving or shooting rioters with real bullets and what happened in Ferguson. It wasn't pretty but it was the best they could do. If your whole argument is you don't like the way it looks, fine. I don't like the way skinny jeans look on men, but they aren't, by themselves, infringing upon anyone's civil rights.
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: JSOG47]
#1354306
05/20/15 05:28 PM
05/20/15 05:28 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,282
Tennessee
FLGunslinger
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,282
Tennessee
|
Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...crimemain_finalOverview In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.) How does the slow improvement of the violent crime rate demonstrate that bullet resistant vehicles being available for free to law enforcement violates citizens rights? Aren't those pictures from the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing? The same incident that featured a gun battle with incendiary devices being pitched out of cars at pursuing officers? When using excessive force against citizens; there are tons of examples if you would like me to post some I can. If you strip away all of the media hype, you basically had two wannabees that used a kitchen tool and some pipe bombs bought at home depot. But if you want to say "incendiary device" go for it. These two fools literally shut down a major US city. One picture was from Boston, one from Ferguson. Not saying excessive force doesn't exist. I'm saying equipment cannot use force, excessively or otherwise. Much like the shotgun in my closet cannot shoot someone without assistance. As a matter of fact that kind of logic is exactly the kind that the real enemy might try to employ to take all of our guns away. Some cops are bad. Cops having access to life saving armor does not make them bad. Home made bombs that kill and maim people are pretty darn incendiary. Ferguson and Boston are two great examples of the times you would like your local police force to be prepared to deal with extreme situations. Riot gear, armored vehicles and tear gas were the difference between the cops totally leaving or shooting rioters with real bullets and what happened in Ferguson. It wasn't pretty but it was the best they could do. If your whole argument is you don't like the way it looks, fine. I don't like the way skinny jeans look on men, but they aren't, by themselves, infringing upon anyone's civil rights. Okay, so using your logic, in the name of officer safety, it is okay to roll an M1 Abrams into Orlando?
Audentis Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: FLGunslinger]
#1354309
05/20/15 05:33 PM
05/20/15 05:33 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 185
Jacksonville
JSOG47
3 point
|
3 point
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 185
Jacksonville
|
Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...crimemain_finalOverview In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.) How does the slow improvement of the violent crime rate demonstrate that bullet resistant vehicles being available for free to law enforcement violates citizens rights? Aren't those pictures from the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing? The same incident that featured a gun battle with incendiary devices being pitched out of cars at pursuing officers? When using excessive force against citizens; there are tons of examples if you would like me to post some I can. If you strip away all of the media hype, you basically had two wannabees that used a kitchen tool and some pipe bombs bought at home depot. But if you want to say "incendiary device" go for it. These two fools literally shut down a major US city. One picture was from Boston, one from Ferguson. Not saying excessive force doesn't exist. I'm saying equipment cannot use force, excessively or otherwise. Much like the shotgun in my closet cannot shoot someone without assistance. As a matter of fact that kind of logic is exactly the kind that the real enemy might try to employ to take all of our guns away. Some cops are bad. Cops having access to life saving armor does not make them bad. Home made bombs that kill and maim people are pretty darn incendiary. Ferguson and Boston are two great examples of the times you would like your local police force to be prepared to deal with extreme situations. Riot gear, armored vehicles and tear gas were the difference between the cops totally leaving or shooting rioters with real bullets and what happened in Ferguson. It wasn't pretty but it was the best they could do. If your whole argument is you don't like the way it looks, fine. I don't like the way skinny jeans look on men, but they aren't, by themselves, infringing upon anyone's civil rights. Okay, so using your logic, in the name of officer safety, it is okay to roll an M1 Abrams into Orlando? No, that's an absurd hyperbolic perversion of my argument and you know it. Now, if the crips start rolling in T80s maybe we can talk.
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: JSOG47]
#1354311
05/20/15 05:34 PM
05/20/15 05:34 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,925
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...crimemain_finalOverview In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.) How does the slow improvement of the violent crime rate demonstrate that bullet resistant vehicles being available for free to law enforcement violates citizens rights? Aren't those pictures from the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing? The same incident that featured a gun battle with incendiary devices being pitched out of cars at pursuing officers? When using excessive force against citizens; there are tons of examples if you would like me to post some I can. If you strip away all of the media hype, you basically had two wannabees that used a kitchen tool and some pipe bombs bought at home depot. But if you want to say "incendiary device" go for it. These two fools literally shut down a major US city. One picture was from Boston, one from Ferguson. Not saying excessive force doesn't exist. I'm saying equipment cannot use force, excessively or otherwise. Much like the shotgun in my closet cannot shoot someone without assistance. As a matter of fact that kind of logic is exactly the kind that the real enemy might try to employ to take all of our guns away. Some cops are bad. Cops having access to life saving armor does not make them bad. Home made bombs that kill and maim people are pretty darn incendiary. Ferguson and Boston are two great examples of the times you would like your local police force to be prepared to deal with extreme situations. Riot gear, armored vehicles and tear gas were the difference between the cops totally leaving or shooting rioters with real bullets and what happened in Ferguson. It wasn't pretty but it was the best they could do. If your whole argument is you don't like the way it looks, fine. I don't like the way skinny jeans look on men, but they aren't, by themselves, infringing upon anyone's civil rights. You can't look at any of this through the eyes of anything but what your training as law enforcement has taught you. There is no way I , nor anyone else , is going to make you see it differently. Your a good guy and you just want to get the bad guy. Methods we might see as intrusive you just see as an effective tool to do your job because your a good guy and would never abuse your power. I'm sure you wouldn't. It's the guys that would abuse it that restrictions should be in place for. Unfortunately, they would apply to you, too. The effective imprisonment of the citizens during the search for the Boston Bomber was done in the name of safety. The cops didn't think they were doing anything wrong but it was wholly unconstitutional. The show off force on the streets probably added to the citizens belief that the police had the right to detain them when it was a clear violation of their civil liberties. Same situation in New Orleans during Katrina when officers disarmed law abiding citizens under the orders of Ray Nagin. Just good guys doing their job. Unfortunately, those officers had no understanding of the Constitution but they were real good at following orders. They just weren't real good at following their oath.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
|
(Custom).JPG)
