|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Iso
by AustinC. 05/21/24 05:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 registered members (Morris, Gunpowder, johnmcgowan, sj22, 3bailey3, William, canine933, Andalusia, turfarmer, PastorJack, Pwyse, Sgiles, twaldrop4, burbank, centralala, Frankie, Fishhead706, Claims Rep., Whild_Bill, antlerhunter, BamaPlowboy, Bowfish, Jotjackson, gman, Bulls eye, BCLC, Daveleeal, OlTimer, Solothurn, top cat, CCC, TexasHuntress, Semo, MoeBuck, Okatuppa, Chiller, sloughfoot, WEMOhunter, Tailwalk7, sanderson, jmj120, NotsoBright, dave260rem!, MarksOutdoors, SEWoodsWhitetail, hamma, CNC, globe, Kemosabe, Ten37, sawdust, hue, Ron A., DonH, Jtide, XVIII, Jdkprp70, Rockstar007, Longtine, donia, slippinlipjr, HURRICANE, robinhedd, Dixiepatriot, JAT, casper36092, aubigmac, eclipse829, Dubie, HSV. HUNTER, deadeye48, jaredhunts, TurkeyJoe, ts1979flh, auman, Lilium10, Shaneomac2, Dog, beerhunter, kyles, k bush, dustymac, lpman, MS_Hunter, GUT_SHOT, 11 invisible),
641
guests, and 0
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: bill]
#1354319
05/20/15 05:48 PM
05/20/15 05:48 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. 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. Yes, I am a good guy. I'm also a reasonably intelligent, educated and occasionally sensitive human being. I have been known to change my mind when presented with a sound argument or hard science. I have not been brainwashed. I do not wholly follow any single ideology on any single issue. No training I have ever received as a citizen of the united states or whatever else I may be has had anything to do with arguing about the applicability of formerly used military equipment to law enforcement. I will say again, allowing cops to be slightly harder to kill does not and will not, in and of itself, violate your civil rights.
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: JSOG47]
#1354322
05/20/15 05:55 PM
05/20/15 05:55 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
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. Yes, I am a good guy. I'm also a reasonably intelligent, educated and occasionally sensitive human being. I have been known to change my mind when presented with a sound argument or hard science. I have not been brainwashed. I do not wholly follow any single ideology on any single issue. No training I have ever received as a citizen of the united states or whatever else I may be has had anything to do with arguing about the applicability of formerly used military equipment to law enforcement. I will say again, allowing cops to be slightly harder to kill does not and will not, in and of itself, violate your civil rights. Are you denying you're current or former law enforcement?
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: muie grande]
#1354323
05/20/15 05:58 PM
05/20/15 05:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
I mean really. Anyone with common sense know police and deputies that work patrol don't dress like a soldier on a daily basis. Those are special response teams!! I'm aware of that. Not sure what that has to do with anything.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: bill]
#1354324
05/20/15 06:00 PM
05/20/15 06:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,946
Fayetteville TN Via Selma
jawbone
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,946
Fayetteville TN Via Selma
|
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. One of the few times Bill and I agree on a LE matter. He is correct and this is why more agencies are getting away from BDU type uniforms. Also why more police academies are going more towards a college atmosphere and away from boot camp type academies. It's all about lessening the us vs. them mentality. Right or wrong, Baltimore is indicative of the mind frame in many parts of the country (excluding the professional protestors/looters).
Lord, please help us get our nation straightened out.
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: jawbone]
#1354329
05/20/15 06:18 PM
05/20/15 06:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
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. One of the few times Bill and I agree on a LE matter. He is correct and this is why more agencies are getting away from BDU type uniforms. Also why more police academies are going more towards a college atmosphere and away from boot camp type academies. It's all about lessening the us vs. them mentality. Right or wrong, Baltimore is indicative of the mind frame in many parts of the country (excluding the professional protestors/looters). Our differences are magnified because it's rare anyone ever talks about the good things law officers do. It's human nature to focus on all that's wrong instead of the things that are done right. We would probably agree on more than you think. I'm fascinated by how cold case units are sometimes able to piece together puzzles that have been a mystery for years. There are some brilliant minds being used in all parts of law enforcement. Working on community relations and strictly adhering to the Constitution is crucial if the citizens and law enforcement are going to repair the broken relationships of cooperation in communities.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: bill]
#1354332
05/20/15 06:23 PM
05/20/15 06:23 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. 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. Yes, I am a good guy. I'm also a reasonably intelligent, educated and occasionally sensitive human being. I have been known to change my mind when presented with a sound argument or hard science. I have not been brainwashed. I do not wholly follow any single ideology on any single issue. No training I have ever received as a citizen of the united states or whatever else I may be has had anything to do with arguing about the applicability of formerly used military equipment to law enforcement. I will say again, allowing cops to be slightly harder to kill does not and will not, in and of itself, violate your civil rights. Are you denying you're current or former law enforcement? I have neither asserted nor denied anything about my life outside this internet message board. Does making cops slightly easier to kill increase your civil liberties?
Last edited by JSOG47; 05/20/15 06:25 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: JSOG47]
#1354337
05/20/15 06:34 PM
05/20/15 06:34 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
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. Yes, I am a good guy. I'm also a reasonably intelligent, educated and occasionally sensitive human being. I have been known to change my mind when presented with a sound argument or hard science. I have not been brainwashed. I do not wholly follow any single ideology on any single issue. No training I have ever received as a citizen of the united states or whatever else I may be has had anything to do with arguing about the applicability of formerly used military equipment to law enforcement. I will say again, allowing cops to be slightly harder to kill does not and will not, in and of itself, violate your civil rights. Are you denying you're current or former law enforcement? I have neither asserted nor denied anything about my life outside this internet message board. Does making cops slightly easier to kill increase your civil liberties? Your refusal to answer says all I need to know. As for your question for me, I am for law officers being as safe as possible while protecting citizens and keeping them safe as possible. I have no problem with officers having the best vest, hand guns, rifles and protective gear that money can buy. As a matter of fact, I'm all for it.
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: JSOG47]
#1355582
05/23/15 09:26 AM
05/23/15 09:26 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,636
Florida Panhandle
JTapia
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,636
Florida Panhandle
|
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? The top photo is not of the police engaging terrorist in a running gun battle while throwing "incendiary devices" from a get away vehicle. It is a police officer atop a military surplus vehicle using an M4/AR15 targeting a civilian who is inside their own house doing nothing wrong. This is NOT a good cop, nor are any of the others who forced innocent law abiding citizens from their home, at gun point, while searching for a fugitive. Just following orders is no excuse. A terrorist bombing does not suspend the constitution. Please show me where this shows a police officer being made "harder to kill" and not a militarized Police force? Some may remember the guy who killed a school bus driver and kidnapped a young boy and held him hostage in a fortified underground bunker in Midland City. No where to be seen on the site nor used were HUMVEEs, ACPs, or MRAPS yet the hostage taker was dispatched and the child rescued unharmed(relatively speaking) It doesn't take MRAPs, ACPs, HUMVEEs, Bayonets, and Tube launchers to make a police officer harder to kill, just sayin.
Hunt'em hard when they are hard to hunt but never, ever hardly hunt!
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: marshmud991]
#1355657
05/23/15 01:23 PM
05/23/15 01:23 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 39,457
Marshall County
FurFlyin
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 39,457
Marshall County
|
Why do cops want to look like the military and want military "toys"?
Probably because close to half of the cops that I know are guys with a military background who couldn't hack a career in the military, so they join a police force and act like GI Joe.
I'm not throwing LEO's under the bus with that statement. I know MANY LEO's and like most of them. Quite a few of them however want to be a Navy seal or Green Beret so they do everything they can to dress and act like they are one.
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: FurFlyin]
#1355660
05/23/15 01:26 PM
05/23/15 01:26 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
bill
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 23,958
Clarksville, TN /Greenville, ...
|
Why do cops want to look like the military and want military "toys"?
Probably because close to half of the cops that I know are guys with a military background who couldn't hack a career in the military, so they join a police force and act like GI Joe.
I'm not throwing LEO's under the bus with that statement. I know MANY LEO's and like most of them. Quite a few of them however want to be a Navy seal or Green Beret so they do everything they can to dress and act like they are one. You mean like this? This article was written by a law officer. http://www.policeone.com/1033-program/ar...set-won-t-work/
"Political debate: when charlatans come together to discuss their principles"
-
Bauvard
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: bill]
#1355663
05/23/15 01:35 PM
05/23/15 01:35 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 39,457
Marshall County
FurFlyin
Freak of Nature
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 39,457
Marshall County
|
Why do cops want to look like the military and want military "toys"?
Probably because close to half of the cops that I know are guys with a military background who couldn't hack a career in the military, so they join a police force and act like GI Joe.
I'm not throwing LEO's under the bus with that statement. I know MANY LEO's and like most of them. Quite a few of them however want to be a Navy seal or Green Beret so they do everything they can to dress and act like they are one. You mean like this? This article was written by a law officer. http://www.policeone.com/1033-program/ar...set-won-t-work/ Pretty much. "The Warrior Mindset" (from the article)
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
|
|
|
Re: Get ready boys and girls!!!!
[Re: NortonZ7]
#1355680
05/23/15 02:06 PM
05/23/15 02:06 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,050
Fayetteville, Tennessee
Bamabucks14
12 point
|
12 point
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,050
Fayetteville, Tennessee
|
I urged everyone to go to there local sheriff's office or police dept and sign up for some ride along's and y'all see what we have to deal with on a daily bases. We live in a corrupt world and its only getting worse. This incident below happened in the county I work in this past week. After being caught the two went on a crime spree from north Carolina to Heflin, ranging from robbery to thefts. [img:center] http://www.abc3340.com/story/29072922/manhunt-for-suspect-accused-of-assaulting-heflin-officer[/img] Did they have better training and equipment than law enforcement? If not , why do you need MRAP's and RPG'S to handle them? Would you like for me to post some youtube videos of police swat teams abusing innocent private citizens? I mean as long as we are trying to convince the public that they can't be protected without police being armed with military equipment we should at least show them the dangers some of those same police pose to the public, right? I don't know of any department that has RPGs. Most people posting here act like departments are fully equipped with surplus gear. That's far from the truth. We don't have hardly anything. I don't argue with people who don't have a clue what their talking about, but believe everything they read in the paper. No one said every county was armed to the hilt. It doesn't have to be every county to set a dangerous precedent. If I believed everything I read in the paper I'd believe that these military weapons were needed to keep us safe. I don't. I think you're a level headed guy that wouldn't abuse the power you've been entrusted with. I believe most other officers are, too. But, that still doesn't mean I believe there aren't plenty out there that would abuse it. Not that that is even really the point. The point is you don't arm police to do jobs the military was meant to do unless you want to further the divide between law enforcement and the public and unless you are willing to see an ever increasing transfer of power and a decline in liberty. Well I guess I took it wrong but the way I took it was like everyone thought a lot of counties had all this stuff. If our county has anything at all surplus I don't know about it. Actually almost everything I have I bought with my own money because our county can't afford to spend extra money. I was issued a taser and some other basic tools (alco sensor, finger print kit, spike strips, etc). Everything else came out of my own pocket, sidearm, backup, rifle, shotgun, ammo, duty gear, flashlight, all kind of stuff. I spent a fortune on my gear. Dang friend, I was surprised when I read you had to buy your own rifle, that shows my ignorance of the subject, thanks for your service btw.
"Here, take this land mine and protect your property with it."
-Ron Swanson
|
|
|
|
