Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

  1. #11
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,703

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by Flamethrower View Post
    Back in Boy Scouts they talked about "being prepared" so there must be contingency plans and cops ready to go if there is an active shooter or threat---wherever they are. Inside or out.

    Being former military, and from a family of military guys and cops---I'm all for using the latest military tech to protect soldiers and police. It's just common freakin sense. Maybe if the criminals would become less violent, then the police could become less "militarized."
    I haven't done exhaustive research on the subject but from what I have been reading it doesn't seem that too many criminals are going after cops with AK's. Yes, cops are finding those weapons but it doesn't seem that they are getting used in any but a very few crimes. That's also why I recommend taking suspects out when they are away from their house. Even criminals don't usually head out the door in the morning with a long gun slung across their chest.

  2. #12
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,673

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by Flamethrower View Post
    Watch an episode of Dallas SWAT. They use armored trucks to pull down barred windows and doors.

    Maybe you think a better idea would be to have an unarmed, unprotected Sheriff like Andy Taylor from Mayberry knock on the doors of drug houses and violent armed suspects and talk them out.
    Maybe YOU should actually read what I wrote. <smh>

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,190

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

    Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
    <snip>

    First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

    I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

    On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

    But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

    So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

    This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

    What say ye?



    As an ex-cop I've been concerned about the increasing militarization of police for about 20 years. Not to mention other abuses.


    I'd support this bill. The single biggest thing though, is to end the so-called "War on Drugs" and roll back the enhanced search-and-seizure powers that resulted from it.

    Seriously. These days they send half a dozen cops geared up like Spec Ops to a situation we used to handle with two uniforms with sidearms...

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  4. #14
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

    Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
    <snip>

    First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

    I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

    On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

    But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

    So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

    This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

    What say ye?
    I'm as befuddled as you are. No easy answer. On the surface it sounds good, but the first time militarization is needed and it doesn't come, then people may sing a different tune.

    It'll be interesting to see how far this goes.

  5. #15
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    My personal opinion is that it's time to separate police work into two distinct functions. We need general law enforcement exercising the traditional roles of cops but we also need a more heavily armed and more aggressively trained force to act as a first response to acts of terrorism. If I had my way SWAT would be a civilian force acting more or less as a posse to be called up only by the Mayor, Chief of Police or Sheriff.
    SWAT teams are alteady under the direct charge of the police chiefs, aren't they? I think that's standard stuff.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,703

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    SWAT teams are alteady under the direct charge of the police chiefs, aren't they? I think that's standard stuff.
    Yes, but they aren't civilian.

  7. #17
    Guru
    RogueWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Atheist Utopia aka Reality
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,631

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

    Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
    <snip>

    First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

    I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

    On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

    But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

    So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

    This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

    What say ye?
    They may be paid to 'protect and serve' and even state that on their vehicles but they are not legally required to do either. Maybe that should be changed...
    Everyone is born a homo sapiens sapiens but not everyone is a human. -RW
    Trumplethinskin! 4 handicap and getting better every weekend!
    Alex Jones for Press Secretary!!!!!!


  8. #18
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,145

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

    Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
    <snip>

    First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

    I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

    On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

    But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

    So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

    This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

    What say ye?
    Damn, pansy-assed liberals... once again, they think they can sweet talk down a terrorist........ Wait, its Tom Colburn, R-OK that is behind this? Damn, pansy-assed liberals....

    The problem with giving our police department these toys is the overwhelming propensity to want to play with these toys..... This is what happens when police want to play (and, unfortunately, instead of playing cops and robbers, they want play army)...

    StLouis PD.jpg


    Sorry, this is beyond "protect and serve" and up to "intimidate and torment"..... its almost




    It's no way to run a community in a civil society.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 09-19-14 at 09:56 PM.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    I hate this situation ...... On one hand we have militant police and on the other we have rioters and looters....

    The only group that actually gave a **** was the Tea Party and they wen down there and spend thousands of dollars just to make sure those that were looted and vandalized had a few bucks for repairs.....

    What a bunch of racists right?

  10. #20
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,917

    Re: First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Nick View Post
    I hate this situation ...... On one hand we have militant police and on the other we have rioters and looters....

    The only group that actually gave a **** was the Tea Party and they wen down there and spend thousands of dollars just to make sure those that were looted and vandalized had a few bucks for repairs.....

    What a bunch of racists right?
    The Tea Party are the only people who helped out? I'm calling bull**** on that one.
    Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •