• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Claire McCaskill: ‘We need to demilitarize’

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is calling for the “demilitarization” of the police in Ferguson, Missouri, deeming the response by law enforcement “the problem instead of the solution.”

McCaskill, who was in Ferguson on Thursday morning meeting with community leaders, said the community needs to do “better” to respond to the unrest in the St. Louis suburb. News reports have depicted heavily armed police officers staring down crowds demonstrating in response to the killing of teenager Michael Brown after a confrontation with police.


“We need to demilitarize this situation — this kind of response by the police has become the problem instead of the solution. I obviously respect law enforcement’s work to provide public safety, but my constituents are allowed to have peaceful protests, and the police need to respect that right and protect that right,” McCaskill said.


Read more: Claire McCaskill:

Couldnt agree more! A militarized, aggressive police force has put a giant hold on our first amendment right to freedom of speech. It has lead us to look more and more like a police state, rather than a state that uphold our Constitution.
 
WASHINGTON — Amid growing criticism of the military-style equipment and tactics deployed by police in Ferguson, Missouri, a Democrat from Georgia plans to introduce the “Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act” in Congress next month.
Rep. Hank Johnson asked his all his colleagues Thursday to join him in supporting the bill, which he said in a letter “will end the free transfers of certain aggressive military equipment to local law enforcement and ensure that all equipment can be accounted for.”
Images of assault rifle-carrying camouflaged police riding through Ferguson on military vehicles similar to the IED-resistant equipment used by American armed forces in combat have proven to be a jolt of energy for a long-simmering debate about police militarization.
In his letter to Congress, Johnson signaled that he expects his bill to break through the partisan gridlock in the House.
“Before another small town’s police force gets a $700,000 gift from the Defense Department that it can’t maintain or manage, it behooves us to reign in the Pentagon’s 1033 program and revisit the merits of a militarized America,” he wrote. “I hope we can work together on this important issue.”

Read more @: http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/d...olice-demilitarizatio?utm_term=13uayeg#ii732o

Man i hope it passes!
 
The police should have the equipment and training they need to put down violent rioters.

That said, going straight to tear gas and rubber bullets may have been more than a bit over the top, although none of us really know how dangerous the crowds were or were not to the general public as well as public and private property.

However, when people use a tragedy such as this to loot, destroy public and private property and endanger others lives, the police have a duty to not only respond but to do so in a way that reduces the amount of damage done to public and private property, protect the lives and safety of the general public and to reduce the amount of time that such violence lasts.

Using tragedies such as the horrific sounding shooting of this young man as an excuse to be uncivilized and violent is unsupportable on any level. Anyone that says otherwise - that the rioters were justified in their violent actions - is stating that they are in favor of anarchy and the justification of unchecked violence against society as a whole.

It doesn't matter whether it is the police or the violent protestors, neither are justified in using violence against peaceful people or their property.

Peaceful protests are a Constitutional First Amendment Right here in the US. Violence is not, has never been, and never should be considered a right, justified or accepted by anyone.

Using the military (National Guard or otherwise as was stated previously), should never be an option to use against citizens of this country... NEVER!!! With the sole exception of a full insurrection accompanied by home grown terrorism - wherein those that would be doing so would have relinquished their citizenship and rights.

If this was proposed when I was serving, I would have refused to comply - taking the Court Martial in lieu of taking up arms against my fellow citizens, or turning around and putting me between the military forces and the citizens. Even if those citizens are violent protestors as these are. Again, the military should never be used. That is what the civilian police are for, not the military.

And... to say that the response was due to the race of the protestors is just feeding the flames with lies for political purposes or to get better ratings if they are in the media. The same types of tactics and equipment (and types of police forces) are deployed and used in many cities regardless of the racial component of the group causing mayhem. Go to any college town after they either win or loose a national championship in almost any major sport and you'll see the same types of equipment, tactics and police forces staged just outside the area. If the people get out of hand, start breaking store windows, burning cars in the street and so on, then you will see the tear gas being fired into the crowd, rubber bullets, riot lines of highly equipped officers advancing on the crowd to regain order and if any of the people attack an officer by throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails or using other weapons, then you will also see busted heads and other injuries in the ranks of the protestors, regardless of race.

I just don't understand how any group of people can think that destroying public and private property as well as attacking others is in any way a reasonable form of protest, in so much that they feel that they will garner any sympathy from me or most others when the police respond in force against their violence.

Let the system work. This officer will be investigated and based solely on the limited amount of information we have so far, he will be more than likely be charged and then convicted (unless there is some evidence not made public that justifies his actions - which I doubt exists).

Let the system work. Anarchy and violence is not the answer.
 
When police departments patrol neighborhoods with military equipment and vehicles, they no longer "protect and serve", but have become an occupying force. And when police departments toast innocent civilians, they are no longer the police, but a group of murderers, who do not belong in any kind of a uniform.
 
Read more: Claire McCaskill:

Couldnt agree more! A militarized, aggressive police force has put a giant hold on our first amendment right to freedom of speech. It has lead us to look more and more like a police state, rather than a state that uphold our Constitution. [/FONT][/COLOR]

The first amendment does not protect looters and violence. When confronted with violence like these police are, show greater capability. If those being violent don't get that message, then waste the ****ers. Rubber bullets should never be used, lead is so much more effective.

Anyone doing this kind of lawless bull**** over something they don't even know the facts of are people society would be much better without and completely ****ing stupid. Let give Darwin a hand.
 
When police departments patrol neighborhoods with military equipment and vehicles, they no longer "protect and serve", but have become an occupying force. And when police departments toast innocent civilians, they are no longer the police, but a group of murderers, who do not belong in any kind of a uniform.

I can somewhat agree depending on the situation.

What is your response when someone kills a police officer?
How about someone killing another person for whatever reason.

How should the community respond? Interesting we rarely see public protest when a LE is shot. Or when someone in murdered during a crime (robbery).

The McCaskill is corrent on one thing, the community needs to do more. Protest in peace , yes. Yet what has been happening in the town the first few days were not peacefull.

If you were a business owner or homeowner, what type of protection would you want?
 
Read more: Claire McCaskill:

Couldnt agree more! A militarized, aggressive police force has put a giant hold on our first amendment right to freedom of speech. It has lead us to look more and more like a police state, rather than a state that uphold our Constitution. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Picketing, carrying signs, talking to the media, insisting on a trial for the officers involved, that is free speech and totally appropriate in this situation.

Rioting and looting is not free speech. It is violence and theft and is not an appropriate response to anything.
 
Read more: Claire McCaskill:

Couldnt agree more! A militarized, aggressive police force has put a giant hold on our first amendment right to freedom of speech. It has lead us to look more and more like a police state, rather than a state that uphold our Constitution. [/FONT][/COLOR]

when is looting and trashing private property peaceful?
 
Read more: Claire McCaskill:

Couldnt agree more! A militarized, aggressive police force has put a giant hold on our first amendment right to freedom of speech. It has lead us to look more and more like a police state, rather than a state that uphold our Constitution. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Police militarization was no doubt in response to violent demonstrations and the experiences the police have on a day to day basis.
If the police didn't have to deal with such violent people all the time, would they would feel the need to militarize?

Make me think that it's more a 2 sided coin there.

As always, there are probably only a very few 'bad apples' (on both sides) which are spoiling the barrel for all the good apples. Point being is that it's far from the one sided portrayal presently given. (How many cops have been shot or injured in the line of duty?)
 
The first amendment does not protect looters and violence. When confronted with violence like these police are, show greater capability. If those being violent don't get that message, then waste the ****ers. Rubber bullets should never be used, lead is so much more effective.

Anyone doing this kind of lawless bull**** over something they don't even know the facts of are people society would be much better without and completely ****ing stupid. Let give Darwin a hand.

Check out these "violent rioters".. Man they were really violent! Standing with their hands in the air, chanting. Quite "violent" i tell ya.
http://new.livestream.com/accounts/9035483/events/3271930
 
Picketing, carrying signs, talking to the media, insisting on a trial for the officers involved, that is free speech and totally appropriate in this situation.

Rioting and looting is not free speech. It is violence and theft and is not an appropriate response to anything.

When people are beaten and arrested during peaceful protests, then rioting and looting frequently becomes the next step.
 
When people are beaten and arrested during peaceful protests, then rioting and looting frequently becomes the next step.

It does indeed, but still doesn't make looting and rioting OK. For one thing, the loot is stolen from innocent third parties, not from the cops who did the beating and arresting. For another, the property damage that results from rioting also belongs to innocent third parties.
 
It does indeed, but still doesn't make looting and rioting OK. For one thing, the loot is stolen from innocent third parties, not from the cops who did the beating and arresting. For another, the property damage that results from rioting also belongs to innocent third parties.

Condemning people after the fact doesn't make the looting not happen. That needs to happen before hand as a preventative measure.

Personally, I would be ok with checks and balances, perhaps having a judge sign off on using more advanced equipment, but it still being available but only in the cases of an emergency. That would have slowed down and perhaps suspended the escalation process.
 
Condemning people after the fact doesn't make the looting not happen. That needs to happen before hand as a preventative measure.

Personally, I would be ok with checks and balances, perhaps having a judge sign off on using more advanced equipment, but it still being available but only in the cases of an emergency. That would have slowed down and perhaps suspended the escalation process.

Condemning criminals after the fact doesn't undo rape, murder, or other forms of theft either.
 
Condemning criminals after the fact doesn't undo rape, murder, or other forms of theft either.

We should seek to minimize those instances before they happen as well.
 
It does indeed, but still doesn't make looting and rioting OK. For one thing, the loot is stolen from innocent third parties, not from the cops who did the beating and arresting. For another, the property damage that results from rioting also belongs to innocent third parties.

There are no innocent third parties, all white people are evil and might as well of pulled the trigger themselves. All white people deserve to have their stuff taken away...

This is what the people supporting the looters sounds like.
 
Yes, we should. Catching people who commit that sort of crime and locking them away is a good way to minimize them.

That is only one piece of an effective strategy and by itself isn't usually very effective.
 
Check out these "violent rioters".. Man they were really violent! Standing with their hands in the air, chanting. Quite "violent" i tell ya.
I am Mike Brown Live from Ferguson, MO on Livestream

Number of people arrested, injured continues to rise in Ferguson | KMOV.com St. Louis

Instead of your nice little biased bull**** peddlers, why don't you try looking for real sources that show something different than your MSNBC and Al Jazeera brain washed mind wants to see.
 
Back
Top Bottom