Surplus military equipment going to the po po again

[noway2]

We have long had a constitutional provision that does not allow for the military to act on US soil. What we are doing by militarizing the police is forming an armed military on US soil. And an active one at that.

You and I seem to be thinking on the same page today. In another thread I spelled out the argument that having an active police constitutes a standing army and that until fairly recently there was no entity operating as an enforcement arm of the legislature or government.

If we are going to have such an agency, at a minimum it should be on par with the average citizenry in every measure with ZERO special privileges including the ability to make arrests or carry weapons, possess or use tools not available to the ordinary citizens. In fact, it is even questionable as to whether or not we should even have statutory offenses against various things that don't involve actual harm to another individual. Yes, I agree sometime in the 90s, or possibly the 80's with bringing police to bear on the perceived issue of drug use we crossed a line, but it was one of several lines that had been incrementally crossed. With every crossing, the State has grown bolder in it's violations and now, some of us at least, are calling for reigning that in.

 

[IrishCannon]

Here is the problem, as I see it, with equipping the police with military gear.

We have long had a constitutional provision that does not allow for the military to act on US soil. What we are doing by militarizing the police is forming an armed military on US soil. And an active one at that.

My definition of the equipment they should not be allowed to have is anything that is not readily available to the citizens they are tasked with protecting.

I'm a firm believer that our military should not be allowed anything that we are not allowed to have, as that was one of the main purposes of the second amendment. That is triply so for the police.

Body armor? Sure, I can buy that.

Full auto weapons manufactured after the mid 80's...Nope.

A HMMWV? Sure, I can get one at auction now. But no driving it on the streets unless I can too.

MRAP's....Nope because those are not available to the public.

The list goes on. There is a fine line between officer safety and forming a standing, and armed military force on US soil. We crossed that line sometime in the 90's.

This is all it really comes down to for me.

Unlike some, I refuse to paint with a broad brush (regarding cops misappropriation of power). -Bad apples in every bunch.

The idea one cannot respect the Gadsden and the Thin Blue Line at the same time is ridiculous.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[DrPhudd]

We have long had a constitutional provision that does not allow for the military to act on US soil. What we are doing by militarizing the police is forming an armed military on US soil. And an active one at that.

That is exactly what they are, used GI gear or no.

 

[SPM]

The idea one cannot respect the Gadsden and the Thin Blue Line at the same time is ridiculous.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Who do you suppose is going to be doing (and does) the treading?

It's like having a Molon Aabe sticker on your vehicle next to a Thin Blue Line decal. Who do you suppose is going to come and take them if a law is past that says do just that?

(and before you exclaim your pro-2A cop friend would never do it, remember these are the same folks that will kill you over a couple ounces of a natural plant, whether they agree with the law or not, and absolve themselves of any wrongdoing and pin the blame on the politicians who passed the laws or a citizenry who hasn't elected different politicians to change it.)

 

[Chuckman]

You and I seem to be thinking on the same page today. In another thread I spelled out the argument that having an active police constitutes a standing army and that until fairly recently there was no entity operating as an enforcement arm of the legislature or government.

If we are going to have such an agency, at a minimum it should be on par with the average citizenry in every measure with ZERO special privileges including the ability to make arrests or carry weapons, possess or use tools not available to the ordinary citizens. In fact, it is even questionable as to whether or not we should even have statutory offenses against various things that don't involve actual harm to another individual. Yes, I agree sometime in the 90s, or possibly the 80's with bringing police to bear on the perceived issue of drug use we crossed a line, but it was one of several lines that had been incrementally crossed. With every crossing, the State has grown bolder in it's violations and now, some of us at least, are calling for reigning that in.

Interesting premise, however it cannot be constitutionally or even semantically correct. An army can be deployed outside the US, a police force cannot. An army is representative and every state, the police force is not.

 

[Chuckman]

That is exactly what they are, used GI gear or no.

No, they are not. And any argument to support that is just hyperbole based on the evening news.

 

[IrishCannon]

Who do you suppose is going to be doing (and does) the treading?

It's like having a Molon Aabe sticker on your vehicle next to a Thin Blue Line decal. Who do you suppose is going to come and take them if a law is past that says do just that?

(and before you exclaim your pro-2A cop friend would never do it, remember these are the same folks that will kill you over a couple ounces of a natural plant, whether they agree with the law or not, and absolve themselves of any wrongdoing and pin the blame on the politicians who passed the laws or a citizenry who hasn't elected different politicians to change it.)

Not the local guys. Just look at CO. - You know how many sheriffs are against the anti-2A magazine restrictions there? Pretty much everywhere but Denver proper. They don't enforce it, and actively work against it.

For someone so well read and well educated, you got a lot of shit to learn about your countrymen.

And ya, if my buddies come after me for some "plant" or whatever unconstitutionally illegal product has been mandated as such- they'll be at the end of a barrel, friend or not. They know that. That's a choice they have to make on their own.

 

[Sneakymedic]

No personal attacks please. We are all adults.

 

[Burt Gummer]

No personal attacks please. We are all adults.

Ha.

 

[Sneakymedic]

Ha.

It sounded good in my head.

 

[Burt Gummer]

It sounded good in my head.

It looks good on screen but we all know that's bullshit.

I don't want to grow up, I'm a toys r us kid

 

[Sneakymedic]

Why do you have to pee on my head and tell me its raining? If I didnt like you, Id hate you.

 

[IrishCannon]

Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon, amiright ????

Grow up.

Every man is responsible for their own actions. The cop hate is growing nauseating.

Shitty people everywhere, cops included...feds more so. Get over it. You don't need to be Pollyanna to not be a jackass.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Dale Gribble]

We just want to get home safely at the end of the shift.

 

[SPM]

Not the local guys. Just look at CO. - You know how many sheriffs are against the anti-2A magazine restrictions there? Pretty much everywhere but Denver proper. They don't enforce it, and actively work against it.

Actively working against it? By arresting the lawmakers that passed this immoral and unconstitutional infringement on the Rights of Coloradans?

By not including it in the list of charges for someone they arrest for something else?

Yes, the local guys boots do their own fair share of treading, and will be the ones that "come and take" them.

The feds couldn't do it without the locals.

Besides, it wouldn't be done as some sort of mass disarmament campaign where these officers get briefed "the Second Amendment was repealed last night, and we're going to get the guns."

It'll play out more like this scenario written by a former DEA agent during the last Administration:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/david-hathaway/your-2nd-amendment-cop-buddy-will-take-your-guns/

This is the same way a few bad people get a whole lot of good people to do bad things. Hitler didn't round up 6 millions Jews, shoot them, work them to death and burn their bodies.

Stalin didn't starve 12.4 million Ukrainians to death in 1932/1933.

Tens of thousands of "regular" Germans and Soviets did. You know - neighbors and countrymen did.

Oh, I see..... they're rising up for a photo op for the NRA. What are they actively doing to defy the law?

For someone so well read and well educated, you got a lot of shit to learn about your countrymen.

I know my countrymen quite well. We are, if we would be honest with ourselves, a country of 330+ million petty tyrants who believe and vote to use the coercive force of government against those who believe differently than we do.

Republicans are ok with the surveillance state, or drone strikes, or government controlled healthcare so long as the GOP is in charge. Democrats are no different so long as they run the show.

Liberty isn't valued in these United States. The illusion of safety, though - we love us some security because of the terrorists.

Further, I have friends and family who are cops. I've heard them brag about shutting down peaceful protests. Or excuse killing and maiming innocents when mistakes happen (cost of doing business) if asked about high profile screw ups.

I know our countrymen quite well enough to know that of all the dangers facing the tattered remains of our Republic, We, the People are part and parcel with it's demise.

And ya, if my buddies come after me for some "plant" or whatever unconstitutionally illegal product has been mandated as such- they'll be at the end of a barrel, friend or not. They know that. That's a choice they have to make on their own.

They choose to do that every day, against folks they know will shoot them for being there and don't blink an eye.

You think you're something different?

Let's say they hit your house - you shoot and kill one of them, you'll be excoriated as a cop killer - flags will hang from overpasses and bagpipes will fill the air with their solemn, doleful tune.

The news folks will talk about how you flew the Gadsden flag and made some controversial anti-government statements on the internet (calling Obama out on something - again, the details would sideline the narrative), and be sure and get a good shot of the widow and the officer's now orphaned kids.

And the defenders of the thin blue line will demand even more powers and equipment to "make sure they go home safe at the end of shift."

 

[Average Joe]

I don't recognize your username, so I don't know how much you've followed some of the positions I've taken on this matter. In short, your assessment is correct. The politicians who deign themselves rulers are illegitimate. Their claim of "authority" is false and fake. All of the religious trappings and rituals , such as electoral process, do not legitimatize them and does not grant them power over The People. The idea that it does is irrational. People can't bestow upon or grant to others that which they don't themselves possess. Consequently, the notion that through a ritual we can take a subset of men, who by virtue of wanting that position makes them poor choices for such a position, and elevate them to super status to rule is absolutely absurd on its face. There is no such thing as consent of the governed. Governing is the antithesis of consent. They're mutually exclusive.

Yes, I have a problem with theft via the guise of taxation taken under the threat of violence being used to hire people to use violence to force the rule of these men upon the People.

Sorry for the late response. Come down with a cold and the over the counter meds always make me drowsy. I respect your opinion of our government. It's difficult to debate this topic with your beliefs. Based upon your response I couldn't even justify that the police need a pencil. That is not said to attack you personally. do your beliefs apply to fire departments and EMS?

 

[Average Joe]

I'm sorry, I thought civil conversation was tossed to the wind whenever you introduce your straw man as the position of the opposing viewpoint

Thank you for the civil response. I forgot to say that the other day.

 

[Average Joe]

COP isn't even in the top 10 of dangerous jobs in this country. I'm sick of hearing about officer safety and how rough it is out there...

One of the reasons it not in the top 10 any more is because the training has improved greatly over the 25 t0 30 years. In the early 70s Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET) wasn't even a requirement. Then when it was mandatory it was less than 200. In 1990 when I went through BLET it was only 425 hours of training. Currently its 616 hours. To become a barber and cut someones hair in NC you must complete 1528 hours of training. I fight constantly for the state to up the training requirements. It is crazy to think that you have to attend more training to be barber than a law enforcement officer. Me wanting more training isn't to make them soldiers or warriors. Teaching communication skills, Constitutional law and NC law takes more than 616 hours.

 

[SPM]

It is crazy to think that you have to attend more training to be barber than a law enforcement officer.

It's crazy to think folks have no problem with there being laws making people obtain training and a license to cut hair period. Laws that good cops will show up to enforce with guns, body armor and balaclavas to check for occupational licenses......

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...id-on-a-barbershop-was-totally-ridiculous-922

This is why police have a PR problem with the public.

Not because of BLM or leftists or AntiFa.

It's unapologetic heavy-handed use of force and bad behavior that comes to light in the public sphere.

 

[bigfelipe]

One of the reasons it not in the top 10 any more is because the training has improved greatly over the 25 t0 30 years. In the early 70s Basic Law Enforcement Training (BLET) wasn't even a requirement. Then when it was mandatory it was less than 200. In 1990 when I went through BLET it was only 425 hours of training. Currently its 616 hours. To become a barber and cut someones hair in NC you must complete 1528 hours of training. I fight constantly for the state to up the training requirements. It is crazy to think that you have to attend more training to be barber than a law enforcement officer. Me wanting more training isn't to make them soldiers or warriors. Teaching communication skills, Constitutional law and NC law takes more than 616 hours.

Not really my point. What I was getting at was that statistically, not many cops get shot or killed in the line of duty. Period. It's not the harrowing profession it's often made out to be. They aren't "going into battle" every day. The vast majority of cops never draw their weapon more than a handful of times in their career. Most of those never pull the trigger. It may be becoming more common, but that's an institutional problem not a danger problem. They seem to be faster to go to the gun these days... Of course that could be an image too, I don't know the numbers on that...

 

[bigfelipe]

It's crazy to think folks have no problem with there being laws making people obtain training and a license to cut hair period. Laws that good cops will show up to enforce with guns, body armor and balaclavas to check for occupational licenses......

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...id-on-a-barbershop-was-totally-ridiculous-922

This is why police have a PR problem with the public.

Not because of BLM or leftists or AntiFa.

It's unapologetic heavy-handed use of force and bad behavior that comes to light in the public sphere.

Thank you... I'd like it again if I could...

 

[Average Joe]

It's crazy to think folks have no problem with there being laws making people obtain training and a license to cut hair period. Laws that good cops will show up to enforce with guns, body armor and balaclavas to check for occupational licenses......

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...id-on-a-barbershop-was-totally-ridiculous-922

This is why police have a PR problem with the public.

Not because of BLM or leftists or AntiFa.

It's unapologetic heavy-handed use of force and bad behavior that comes to light in the public sphere.

Haven't seen the article before. Don't have to read it and comprehend right now. I will say that on it's face, a SWAT team preforming any type of administrative duty such as checking business license is completely absurd.

 

[noway2]

Sorry for the late response. Come down with a cold and the over the counter meds always make me drowsy. I respect your opinion of our government. It's difficult to debate this topic with your beliefs. Based upon your response I couldn't even justify that the police need a pencil. That is not said to attack you personally. do your beliefs apply to fire departments and EMS?

The police occupy a unique position in that they apprehend people by force and are in essence the force arm of the politicians in that they are paid through taxes to uphold the edicts of the politicians. Yesterday I started another thread after reading an article linked to by another user on the history of police in the US and what we have today is very different then what the nations founders would have ever imagined or intended. The disjoint I see is largely between the politicians and the people. This puts police in a potentially awkward position of "enforcing the law" but yet so much if "law" has become devoid of right and wrong and we have realms of victim-less crime and policing for revenue. While I am certain that the majority of people go into policing for positive reasons, it doesn't change what government police are doing as an institution. They may be well meaning, but the results are misguided.

To be fair, I would have to make similar arguments about fire and EMS which are similarly at least partially tax funded (my father got a decent bill when the FD showed up and he needed son ambulance ride). The justification for that same reasoning that overall they benefit society at large. In many ways the same thing can be said about police - and again my issue is with policing as an institution using violence to do the politicians bidding, regardless of the people's will. In all honesty I am repeatedly coming to the realization that government is not the answer - and I'll admit I didn't always feel this way. The problem with government isn't so much when it's used up created public services such as a fire department, but when it is used to grant a subset of people special powers and privileges that are denied to the public, which is in my view impossible and irrational.

 

[Trevillian]

Those other 9 dangerous jobs are they dangerous because people from other companies come up and shoot them in the head?

Maybe you choose not to see a difference but you know it's there.

Huh? Being law enforcement is dangerous because other officers come up and shoot other departments (companies) in the head??? That's a new one.

I usually refrain from these topics for my own reasons but this is silly. Having done several of the jobs "statistically" more life threatening than law enforcement, I feel compelled to post.....

I've worked construction off and on my whole life, it's my current occupation. I help professional tree squirrels on the side (if you ever meet me, you'll get why your not getting my clumsy behind up a tree) and I've had my cdl's for 14 years, driving, dump trucks, water trucks, highway sweepers and most recently a ten yard concrete truck here in the mountains.

Come try any of these jobs.. Natural dangers abound for all. But I want to show a similarity here as close as I can.....

What makes police work dangerous? Dealing with the public. (Very abbreviated, obviously). Guess what drivers deal with? The public. All driving 2000lb plus land missles at speed while typically distracted by what have you. The vast majority not having near the training to handle their "steed" compared to a cdl driver.

Yes I know, the place Leo must be to apprehend criminals isn't for the faint of heart at ALL and I take nothing away from that. Never will.

Specific example time. I did traffic control in Mecklenburg county for a few years. NOONE likes that a hole (me) who creates that traffic jam. Mobile or standing everyone groans internally if not turns red faced and foamy mouthed that their day may be slowed down or altered because "work" needed to be done. There are unending laws, rules, regulations, etc. that must be followed to close even the shoulder, much less multi-lane, multi exit closures. All for safety of the users of that road and the people doing the work. Plus doing everything possible to minimize congestion and traffic. I have an orange cone and a safety vest between me and an unknown person in a waxed mini dozer, who may or may not be insane but I have at least annoyed whoever it may be by inconveniencing them at a minimum by having them change lanes and pay attention.

Oh and trust me, the general public has much more respect and/or fear for the flashing blue and the uniform that my fat butt and the yellow lights that merely say "heads up, this is happening please do this so you or I don't end up dead".

Once again not belittling the trying times of being an Leo just saying. There are reasons it's not the most dangerous job in the world.

 

[J R Green]

Huh? Being law enforcement is dangerous because other officers come up and shoot other departments (companies) in the head??? That's a new one.

.

Other companies... Rivals?... competition?

Did you really not understand the reference or are you just being obtuse?

If you get killed driving a truck or building whatever and you get killed it's most likely because you screwed up. No so for the police (unless it was a car wreck and I don't classify them the same).

 

[Trevillian]

Other companies... Rivals?... competition?

Did you really not understand the reference or are you just being obtuse?

If you get killed driving a truck or building whatever and you get killed it's most likely because you screwed up. No so for the police (unless it was a car wreck and I don't classify them the same).

You said it broseph. Guess that it indeed flew right by when you stated " do people from other companies come up and shoot them in the head".

Wait, wait, wait... So every high risk occupation before LEO on the supplied chart, it is "most likely" the individuals fault because they screwed up" if they died and became a statistic. But it's never an LEO's fault that (God forbid) they became a statistic unless of course they caused a car wreck then obviously you don't classify it the same?

This will be good. Do tell. Please expound on this logic. I wish to learn

 

[J R Green]

Please expound on this logic. I wish to learn

I don't think you do.

 

[IrishCannon]

Oh, I see..... they're rising up for a photo op for the NRA. What are they actively doing to defy the law?

Not enforcing it, and acting as though it doesn't exist.

What more could you expect?

You seem to claim this liberty superiority that is either "you're for liberty, or you're against it" - I don't claim "you're either for the cops or you're against them."

You seem to misunderstand the complicated nature of Reality.

 

[Trevillian]

I don't think you do.

Of course I do? If you don't feel like typing the facts. Links will do just fine.

What human doesn't want to further their knowledge?

Especially when I find that should I become a statistic, I "most likely, screwed up". This news has me rethinking my career(s).

 

[IrishCannon]

.

What human doesn't want to further their knowledge?

).

Leftist progs.


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Trevillian]

Wait a second -- airline pilots? I'm ina friggin plane right now. That guy better be healthy....

Air"craft" pilots and engineers. Not airline . Remember if said pilot becomes a statistic its most likely because they screwed up...

 

[Trevillian]

Leftist progs.


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Fair point

 

[Sneakymedic]

Other companies... Rivals?... competition?

Did you really not understand the reference or are you just being obtuse?

If you get killed driving a truck or building whatever and you get killed it's most likely because you screwed up. No so for the police (unless it was a car wreck and I don't classify them the same).

I don't think you do.

Trevilian is just trying to debate your point and you just call him "obtuse" and assume he is just trolling you by assuming he wants you to waste your time explaining, which he isn't. Actually, I had a hard time understanding your point he asked you about, and I consider my self pretty well read. I learned pretty quickly in Interpersonal Communications that the online forum is the WORST place to have a "sender—> receiver" message. Have enough responsibility to take a look, and consider that what you put out isn't the way its received.

How about try to be nicer and not so confrontational. No one here is your enemy.

 

[Average Joe]

The police occupy a unique position in that they apprehend people by force and are in essence the force arm of the politicians in that they are paid through taxes to uphold the edicts of the politicians. Yesterday I started another thread after reading an article linked to by another user on the history of police in the US and what we have today is very different then what the nations founders would have ever imagined or intended. The disjoint I see is largely between the politicians and the people. This puts police in a potentially awkward position of "enforcing the law" but yet so much if "law" has become devoid of right and wrong and we have realms of victim-less crime and policing for revenue. While I am certain that the majority of people go into policing for positive reasons, it doesn't change what government police are doing as an institution. They may be well meaning, but the results are misguided.

To be fair, I would have to make similar arguments about fire and EMS which are similarly at least partially tax funded (my father got a decent bill when the FD showed up and he needed son ambulance ride). The justification for that same reasoning that overall they benefit society at large. In many ways the same thing can be said about police - and again my issue is with policing as an institution using violence to do the politicians bidding, regardless of the people's will. In all honesty I am repeatedly coming to the realization that government is not the answer - and I'll admit I didn't always feel this way. The problem with government isn't so much when it's used up created public services such as a fire department, but when it is used to grant a subset of people special powers and privileges that are denied to the public, which is in my view impossible and irrational.

The more we talk the more I believe I understand your position. There is no easy answer to some of these problems. Law enforcement does not make the laws but I will say we have a large impact on the way some (but not all) are carried out. Somethings are left to individual officers discretion, while others are made at a chief law enforcement officer level.

I will agree some officers discretion and common sense are lacking and some chief law enforcement officers have no business being in their position. A lot of the issues I've seen discussed in this forum do not apply to my Office. This is also probably why other officers vigorously defend law enforcement in general because the agency they work at doesn't have these issues.

I agree that government is a major problem. I am a firm believer that the Founding Fathers never meant for us to have career politicians. It is absurd that a person can be elected to serve to people stay in office for 20 plus years and when they're done be millionaires.

 

[Average Joe]

It's crazy to think folks have no problem with there being laws making people obtain training and a license to cut hair period. Laws that good cops will show up to enforce with guns, body armor and balaclavas to check for occupational licenses......

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...id-on-a-barbershop-was-totally-ridiculous-922

This is why police have a PR problem with the public.

Not because of BLM or leftists or AntiFa.

It's unapologetic heavy-handed use of force and bad behavior that comes to light in the public sphere.

I finally had time to read and research the linked article. The only thing that I can say, WHAT THEY DID IS COMPLETELY WRONG! At no point does administrative duties such as license inspections justify a SWAT Team and guns drawn. The Sheriff of Orange County Florida should be removed form office or not be re-elected and the supervisors whom authorized same along with the deputy that thought of the idea should be fired. The incident should be put before the prosecutor to see if any criminal charges are justified.

I have worked in every aspect of SWAT from being a new member to commanding the team. The use of SWAT team must be justified. My Office uses a matrix and scoring system. Once the matrix is completed then it is reviewed by another officer for accuracy, then it is reviewed and approved by a supervisor and forwarded to division commander and SWAT Commander for final approval. If the matrix fails to score high with substantial risk citizens, deputies and suspects then the operation is carried out by the division who initiated the case.

Courts have ruled numerous times the use of a SWAT team is a level of force and is subject to the same objective reasonableness standards that every law enforcement officer is judged by.

 

[SPM]

Courts have ruled numerous times the use of a SWAT team is a level of force and is subject to the same objective reasonableness standards that every law enforcement officer is judged by.

So reasonable, even NASA has one.....

 

[Average Joe]

So reasonable, even NASA has one.....

I'm not following your question, please explain for me? Objective reasonableness standards are the standards that the courts apply when determining if a officers actions and level of force were reasonable giving the circumstances. In the use of a SWAT team the courts apply the those same standards to determine if it was reasonable to use that level of force i.e. the SWAT team as SWAT teams are deemed a higher level of force than a patrol officer.