Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

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

  1. #1
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,672

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

    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?

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

  2. #2
    Educator Flamethrower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    01-13-15 @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,043

    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?
    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.
    “Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.”
    ― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary

  3. #3
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,697

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

    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.

  4. #4
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,667

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

    Ferguson was neither caused by nor stopped by police using "military" equipment. This is another case of the big gov't seeking a big gov't solution to a big gov't created problem. The typical knee jerk reaction to "do something" when (black?) folks get upset and riot.

    Ferguson was the local police being unable to preserve local order - not a national issue at all. The gov't solution tried was to mobilize state police (and possibly the national guard) to quell a (race??) riot that exceeded the capacity of the local PD to deal with it. If the Ferguson PD had helicopter gunships it would have still needed outside help.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #5
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,697

    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.

    In situations like that SWAT should have a support role, not a front line role. Whenever possible a suspect who is presumed to be a violent threat should be taken when they are outside their home. Trying to take a violent suspect in their home means sending resources into a situation where the suspect is most likely to have the defensive advantage.

  6. #6
    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'

    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?
    The problem is that cops have turned into "storm troopers" and some actual believe they're some sort of paramilitary operatives...

    I suppose force is actually needed at times, however it seem that this "storm trooper" nonsense has become the status quo over the past decade or so - or at least since 9/11..... So there is no doubt in my mind that the police have gone from civil servants to a military force in some areas.

    I can't respect a cop that treats every potential "contactee" as a potential terrorist or danger.

    This type of behavior doesn't only exist in "ghettos" this type of behavior is spilling over into some of the nicer middle class communities in the United States.

    I suppose this is what happens when you basically give cops unlimited power and outfit them with military weaponry and vehicles.. You end up with a bunch of ego maniac wanna be badass clowns thinking they're above the law.

    I would be glad to elaborate more, but I just wanted to be as brief as possible here.

  7. #7
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,989
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    I thought we already had this "problem" solved?

    There's the regular police force, comprised of beat cops, traffic, vice, etc.

    And then when the **** hits the fan, we have SWAT, who ARE a paramilitary force to be used at the discretion of our police.


    Right?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  8. #8
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post

    What say ye?
    I think the police militarization is just a back door around the Posse Comitatus act. So I support this bill. Last I checked IEDs are not a regular occurrence on our roads, heck I do not think they even happen on our roads at all. I do not even think I have ever heard of criminals laying down suppressive fire on the police with a automatic weapon. Why do police need camo?Shouldn't they be seen if they are trying to maintain a police presence somewhere? I do not think they are trying to blend in with the pavement and black and white police cars. Are there disgruntled army snipers who can shoot a mile away and the police are hoping the camo makes them unseen to those disgruntled army snipers? Are they hoping that badguys will assume they are military and **** their britches upon the site of police wearing camo?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #9
    Educator Flamethrower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    01-13-15 @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,043

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    In situations like that SWAT should have a support role, not a front line role. Whenever possible a suspect who is presumed to be a violent threat should be taken when they are outside their home. Trying to take a violent suspect in their home means sending resources into a situation where the suspect is most likely to have the defensive advantage.
    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."
    “Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.”
    ― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary

  10. #10
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,893

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

    I think one of the major issues are that many departments who receive this military gear are required to use it or they have to give it back, which give them incentive to go SWAT when the circumstances do not require it.

    Perhaps if they weren't forced to use their flashbangs or lose them, they wouldn't end up being used on a sleeping infant.

    IMO they should keep their toys for when they actually need them and lose them if they misuse them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flamethrower View Post
    Maybe if the criminals would become less violent, then the police could become less "militarized."
    You do realize violent crime has been on the decline for decades, right?
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •