- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Militarization of the Police" discussion
Posted on 8/19/14 at 4:20 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
Posted on 8/19/14 at 4:20 pm to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:
How about you shut the frick up. Police do none of what you just described. They sit back and hand out traffic violations or arrest leroy for dealing dope. The typical small town cop will never go into the back of town at night to investigate a murder or rape. Go back to your DWI checkpoint and "protect and serve" buddy.
0
Posted on 8/19/14 at 4:33 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
This paragraph completely summarizes why the cops suck and think of themselves as above the law. We're not much different than terrorists? You see your own fellow citizens. I hate to inform you, but are supposed to work me and every single citizen, because I pay for you. If you're a cop, for god's sake turn your badge in if you have any dignity.
you are one dumb MFer
Posted on 8/19/14 at 5:04 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
FWIW law and police are two entirely different things. Laws don;t work because of police...they work, generally, because we, as a society, agree to live by them. The very small minority of outliers that do not do that are where police come in. The rest of us play by the rules because we understand it makes things work better.
That's quite the utopia you live in.
Posted on 8/19/14 at 5:24 pm to SabiDojo
frick you
Posted on 8/19/14 at 5:54 pm to SabiDojo
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/31/14 at 9:02 am
Posted on 8/19/14 at 6:02 pm to Asharad
I strongly agree with the one that said we need more driver training. That is the most dangerous thing we do. Crashes kill more officers per year than anything else.
Posted on 8/19/14 at 6:04 pm to Slingscode
quote:
frick you
Typical cop attitude
Posted on 8/19/14 at 6:07 pm to jbgleason
quote:
I am legitimately confused about what this means in the minds of people who say it.
It's not necessarily the equipment, its the whole "Us vs them" attitude. We're treated like the enemy.
Posted on 8/19/14 at 6:12 pm to EA6B
Posted on 8/19/14 at 6:17 pm to jbgleason
quote:
The crazies in Waco had automatic weapons.
Their standoff was with the Feds, namely the ATF, not local police.
Posted on 8/19/14 at 6:25 pm to therick711
Oh OK. So Feds aren't the police? Because they worry me much, more than the locals.
Posted on 8/19/14 at 6:27 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Oh OK. So Feds aren't the police?
They aren't local as indicated in the post you replied to.
Posted on 8/19/14 at 6:32 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Oh OK. So Feds aren't the police? Because they worry me much, more than the locals.
Christ.
Moving the goalposts much?
Posted on 8/19/14 at 8:08 pm to jbgleason
quote:
About what? I didn't say anything. I did ask a few questions. Are questions now right or wrong?
You and this thread you started are a complete farce. You never had any intentions of having any actual discourse. Your position on this topic is clear as day, despite attempting to hide behind your 'I didn't give an opinion I asked a question' bullshite.
You keep saying nobody has answered your questions. the majority of the first couple pages, and quite a few posts since then, answered your questions. Posted pictures. Provided video links. The problem isn't people answering your thinly veiled questions that's keeping possible discourse from happening. It's you completely ignoring and avoiding responding to their answers, hoping no one will notice them as you continue your childish 'I'm just asking, what are they doing that's so bad? Why won't anyone answer me?' The only things you've replied to in this thread are people saying police don't need armored vehicles, with instances of where armored vehicles were used. Funny, I'm quite sure the videos and articles of police overstepping their bounds or just doing straight up illegal things outnumber those articles by multiple leaps and bounds. Yet every time one of those gets posted, the response is always something along the lines 'that was an isolated incident, those kinds of things act sully very rarely happen.'
The picture of police in camo approaching an unarmed person holding his hands up with their guns drawn on him has been posted probably 10 times in this thread as an example of the militarization of police, and I don't believe you have addressed it one time. Why don't you start there? Then you can move onto the other pictures of guys sitting atop armored vehicles staring down the scopes of their rifles that are pointed towards crowds of protestors. Next you can move onto the video of the al-jazeera news crew being chased away from their filming station by 3 cops, 1 with his gun drawn on them. Then you can move on to the videos of tear gas being fired onto people protesting in their own yards. After that maybe you could address the 2 journalists arrested while sitting in mcdonalds, then being given no reason, much less paperwork of any kind, for their arrest. Next up would be that article with quotes from various veterans about how the police are doing things in an American city against American citizens that they were not even allowed to do in active war zones. Once you finish with all those come back; there are plenty more examples.
Posted on 8/19/14 at 8:24 pm to Open Your Eyes
From my original post.
So, for those who wave the "militarization of police" flag, what is the solution? Eliminate all police? Eliminate tactical units? Make tactical units wear regular uniforms and carry handguns only? No heavy vests or rifles? What do the people want?
So saying, "they chased off journalists in Ferguson" has nothing to do with my question. I wasn't addressing Ferguson. I was asking whether it is the equipment or the tactics. A whole bunch of people offerred great input about the equipment fostering an attitude that leads to overly aggressive tactics. AND I AGREED WITH THEM multiple times throughout the thread on that and other points.
But all you want is to try and corner me into defending or justifying something, the police actions in Ferguson, that are largely indefensible. You are so sure that I am biased towards justifying police actions, when I am not, that you ignore all those posts.
The quote in your post is a direct reply to someone who posted something to me. Funny how you leave out the rest of that reply where I largely agree with him.
That post without your selective redaction reads.
re: "Militarization of the Police" discussion (Posted on 8/19/14 at 12:58 pm to dnm3305)
quote:
You are wrong.
About what? I didn't say anything. I did ask a few questions. Are questions now right or wrong?
quote:
It is purely about the culture that it creates. It enables cops to think they are badasses and it turns them into instigators.
There might be some substance to this statement. So your argument is that the way you dress effects the way you act? So women that dress slutty deserve to be raped because they wanted it? If a guy wears pink, what does that mean? I still maintain that, while there may be an issue with tactics and mindset, the way you are dressed or equipped (as far as safety gear) shouldn't be what you blame. Do you blame the gun that was used in a murder or the person pulling the trigger?
quote:
We havent even gotten onto where the funds are coming from to supply these tacticool weapons.
I agreee that this is a legitimate area of concern.
quote:
To summarize, it will always be a bad thing when the below average students from high school are the only ones that want to take on a low paying job such as law enforcement soley for the reason of being able to live out their fantasies of being Billy Badass in Rainbox Six on the taxpayers dime.
AND you completely lose all of the ground you picked up with your earlier reasoned comments by allowing your obvious bias to come out. Do you really think that every police officer fits this stereotype? I bet you would shite a brick if a police officer came on here and stereotyped young African American males who listen to rap music as "drug dealing thugs." AND you would be 100% justified in your outrage. Yet, you expect the "us against them" mentality of police to go away when you so freely denigrate and stereotype them.
So, for those who wave the "militarization of police" flag, what is the solution? Eliminate all police? Eliminate tactical units? Make tactical units wear regular uniforms and carry handguns only? No heavy vests or rifles? What do the people want?
So saying, "they chased off journalists in Ferguson" has nothing to do with my question. I wasn't addressing Ferguson. I was asking whether it is the equipment or the tactics. A whole bunch of people offerred great input about the equipment fostering an attitude that leads to overly aggressive tactics. AND I AGREED WITH THEM multiple times throughout the thread on that and other points.
But all you want is to try and corner me into defending or justifying something, the police actions in Ferguson, that are largely indefensible. You are so sure that I am biased towards justifying police actions, when I am not, that you ignore all those posts.
The quote in your post is a direct reply to someone who posted something to me. Funny how you leave out the rest of that reply where I largely agree with him.
That post without your selective redaction reads.
re: "Militarization of the Police" discussion (Posted on 8/19/14 at 12:58 pm to dnm3305)
quote:
You are wrong.
About what? I didn't say anything. I did ask a few questions. Are questions now right or wrong?
quote:
It is purely about the culture that it creates. It enables cops to think they are badasses and it turns them into instigators.
There might be some substance to this statement. So your argument is that the way you dress effects the way you act? So women that dress slutty deserve to be raped because they wanted it? If a guy wears pink, what does that mean? I still maintain that, while there may be an issue with tactics and mindset, the way you are dressed or equipped (as far as safety gear) shouldn't be what you blame. Do you blame the gun that was used in a murder or the person pulling the trigger?
quote:
We havent even gotten onto where the funds are coming from to supply these tacticool weapons.
I agreee that this is a legitimate area of concern.
quote:
To summarize, it will always be a bad thing when the below average students from high school are the only ones that want to take on a low paying job such as law enforcement soley for the reason of being able to live out their fantasies of being Billy Badass in Rainbox Six on the taxpayers dime.
AND you completely lose all of the ground you picked up with your earlier reasoned comments by allowing your obvious bias to come out. Do you really think that every police officer fits this stereotype? I bet you would shite a brick if a police officer came on here and stereotyped young African American males who listen to rap music as "drug dealing thugs." AND you would be 100% justified in your outrage. Yet, you expect the "us against them" mentality of police to go away when you so freely denigrate and stereotype them.
Posted on 8/19/14 at 8:42 pm to jbgleason
quote:
[quote]From my original post. So, for those who wave the "militarization of police" flag, what is the solution? Eliminate all police? Eliminate tactical units? Make tactical units wear regular uniforms and carry handguns only? No heavy vests or rifles? What do the people want?
Hmmm, also from your original post:
"I am legitimately confused about what this means in the minds of people who say it."
"Or maybe it is the way the officers look? Is it the pseudo-military uniforms of SWAT officers that is the complaint?"
"Again, is it solely the appearance that is objectionable? Would this be more palatable?"
"Or is it their tactics? And this begs the question of whether it is all police officers that are too military or just the SWAT officers?"
So, you can imagine I had a good laugh when you accused me of selectively redacting.
quote:
The quote in your post is a direct reply to someone who posted something to me. Funny how you leave out the rest of that reply where I largely agree with him.
The quote I chose to reply to was just one of many similar ones you've made throughout the thread.
Page 2: "Are people just getting hung up on the looks or is there a legitimate complaint? .... But it is telling that I immediately get attacked by the hard core cop haters. Don't have an answer, attack the messenger."
Page 3: "Should we just go back to this?" Followed by picture
Page 6: "I was just hoping for some common discourse and maybe, just maybe, someone would learn something."
Do you want me to continue! Or would you rather start actually addressing the responses that have been given to your questions?
Posted on 8/19/14 at 8:48 pm to jbgleason
Oh, and this:
No, maybe not the one question that you apparently believe is the only one you posed in this thread. But to the rest of the questions from your original post that you, as you put it, selectively redacted from your reply, yes it has lots to do with those.
"I am legitimately confused about what this means in the minds of people who say it."
"Or maybe it is the way the officers look? Is it the pseudo-military uniforms of SWAT officers that is the complaint?"
"Again, is it solely the appearance that is objectionable? Would this be more palatable?"
"Or is it their tactics? And this begs the question of whether it is all police officers that are too military or just the SWAT officers?"
quote:
So saying, "they chased off journalists in Ferguson" has nothing to do with my question
No, maybe not the one question that you apparently believe is the only one you posed in this thread. But to the rest of the questions from your original post that you, as you put it, selectively redacted from your reply, yes it has lots to do with those.
"I am legitimately confused about what this means in the minds of people who say it."
"Or maybe it is the way the officers look? Is it the pseudo-military uniforms of SWAT officers that is the complaint?"
"Again, is it solely the appearance that is objectionable? Would this be more palatable?"
"Or is it their tactics? And this begs the question of whether it is all police officers that are too military or just the SWAT officers?"
Posted on 8/20/14 at 8:43 am to jbgleason
Its the us vs them mentality. Treating citizens like enemy combatants isn't the solution. Further when the supreme court decides that the police don't have a duty to protect only a duty to enforce laws it further underlines that the police are not on the side of the citizens.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:41 pm to jbgleason
quote:
Here is one from 2012. I think this was in Dallas.
LINK
The dash cam clearly reads 11/04/2004
so you found 2 incidences of automatic weapons being used against police in the past 10 years. I don't see how that justifies the militarization of the police across the nation.
Posted on 8/20/14 at 12:49 pm to jbgleason
I don't get this. Who is complaining about police being "too" militarized? Maybe I'm shortsighted? But how is the police department having advanced equipment and weapons a problem to protect us?
If you ask me they can't be militarized enough
If you ask me they can't be militarized enough
This post was edited on 8/20/14 at 12:50 pm
Page 11 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News