• 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!

Are Cops Too Militarized?

Are police units going too far by being overly militarized?


  • Total voters
    55
Put the race card back in the deck... Militarized police is not good for ANYONE, except maybe the cops (until people start fighting back, you can only push people so far)

Few conservatives (whites) had a problem with domestic spying without reasonable suspicion, torture, foreign wars, and the militarization of police departments until Obama was elected, then all of a sudden those issues became a concern.
 
Few conservatives (whites) had a problem with domestic spying without reasonable suspicion, torture, foreign wars, and the militarization of police departments until Obama was elected, then all of a sudden those issues became a concern.

any proof of that claim?
 
When in our history did the American right wing begin the hard turn against law enforcement? At one time American conservatives and support for law enforcement went hand in hand. Now, its obvious that the hate for government that is part and parcel of libertarianism has been extended to law enforcement. When did this devolution happen?

This thread is merely the latest example of it here.

When US law enforcement started to take on the color of military.
 
You posted a link talking about a narcotic drugs convention in Vienna and a Wikipedia article discussing the War on Drugs in general.

Neither of these describe the "fallout" of the war on drugs and how it is the sole reason why there is violent crime in the inner city neighborhoods.

You also ignored my comment as to what you are implying via this.... So I'll ask a question instead...

Do you believe if the war on drugs ended tomorrow that we would see inner city crime-ridden gang-ridden neighborhoods become peaceful family friendly neighborhoods?

No, I didn't ignore it. All of those things were addressed in the links I provided. Like I said, we aren't the only country with a war on drugs, and it was started by US. Also, gang feuds and a lot of the related murders are related to drugs because there is a black market for them, just like what happens with practically everything the government tries to limit access to.

I think that legalization of some drugs would put a dent in the inner city gang violence, yes.
 
Massad Ayoob called the 1911 "the black belt's weapon" for gun fighting meaning for experts it is ideal. I have close to a half million rounds through a pistol-many of them in high stress timed events. Now I shoot a SW M&P CORE in Stock steel and a CZ "Czechmate" Race gun in open class but I spent years shooting USPSA and "Bowling Pin" Events with various incarnations of the 1911 including a Colt Series 70 Wilson LE-K Comp and a Fred Craig built Para/Caspian 15 round 1911. Very few pistols have the natural pointing characteristics of the 1911 and the sliding-as opposed to pivoting-trigger is hard to match for pure speed shooting. Combined with the fact that the 1911 paired with 45 ACP is a

1) very accurate round
2) a low pressure round meaning much greater service life than stuff like the 40 SW
3) and has proven stopping power even in military FMJ rounds

you have a great combination of self defense

additionally, unlike modern Double action.single action pistols-the trigger pull is constant on a 1911-unlike say a Beretta or Sig Sauer. sand while the Glocks and other striker fired weapons have a constant trigger pull, they aren' as smooth

magazine changes on the 1911 are slightly slower due to the single stack magazine compared to the double stacked 9mm or 40 SW firearms though.

the only argument against the 1911 as a service weapon is

a) 45 ACP ammo is heavier than 9mm
b) 1911s generally have lower capacity than 9mms

for weak shooters, the recoil is more severe than a 9mm. however, the recoil on a 1911 in 45 ACP is less damaging to your joints than the recoil in the 40 SW.

There is another argument against the 1911. They are just not as reliable as some more modern designs. They are no where near as forgiving when it comes to dirt or mud.
Also while the 45 may be a bigger round the actual difference between a 45 and 9mm as it relates to killing a person are very negligible. And as 9mm is softer recoiling it allows faster follow up shots
Multiple center mass shots done as quickly as possible are as I am sure you know the quickest way to end a gunfight.
 
There is another argument against the 1911. They are just not as reliable as some more modern designs. They are no where near as forgiving when it comes to dirt or mud.
Also while the 45 may be a bigger round the actual difference between a 45 and 9mm as it relates to killing a person are very negligible. And as 9mm is softer recoiling it allows faster follow up shots
Multiple center mass shots done as quickly as possible are as I am sure you know the quickest way to end a gunfight.

most of the arguments against the reliability are based on target guns that are built tight. as to killing a person you are right. as to stopping power, perhaps not. for novices you are right. my splits for double taps with USPSA major ammunition in a 1911 and minor USPSA power factor 9mm is negligible
 
Few conservatives (whites) had a problem with domestic spying without reasonable suspicion, torture, foreign wars, and the militarization of police departments until Obama was elected, then all of a sudden those issues became a concern.

First, conservatives are not a race based party... And really, when you dig deep enough, it's the democrats that were the party of the clan. Just like the NRA was about ensuring that black people could defend themselves from the klan. Side issue though.

Yes, conservatives did give bush a pass, just like democrats gave Clinton, and now Obama a pass...

That's what happens with "party" politics.

The crimes of one do not justify the crimes of another, and really, if you like Obama, you MUST HAVE LOVED bush, because the agenda continued like a relay racer passing the baton. (Or you hate bush because he did not do enough)
 
If by criminal you mean "not a cop", then yes its not good for criminals.

No.
I mean criminals.
Explain how police with military style equipment and tactics to be used in dangerous situations is not good for the public.

Your response should include something more descriptive than "It isn't"
 
Few conservatives (whites) had a problem with domestic spying without reasonable suspicion, torture, foreign wars, and the militarization of police departments until Obama was elected, then all of a sudden those issues became a concern.

Maybe you just weren't paying attention to what Conservatives were saying on the subject then?

BTW...... You are still being a race-douche.
 
When US law enforcement started to take on the color of military.

I think it is stupid and unnecessary to wear camouflage colors just to stand out on the city streets as well.... but...


Why all the fashion police?
 
When in our history did the American right wing begin the hard turn against law enforcement? At one time American conservatives and support for law enforcement went hand in hand. Now, its obvious that the hate for government that is part and parcel of libertarianism has been extended to law enforcement. When did this devolution happen?

This thread is merely the latest example of it here.

So not wanting the police to dress like commandos, but wear traditional police uniforms means we're anti-police? :roll: Do you always let your imagination run wild like that? Tell me what city police need camo for. Are they planning to hide in the trees?
 
No, I didn't ignore it. All of those things were addressed in the links I provided. Like I said, we aren't the only country with a war on drugs, and it was started by US. Also, gang feuds and a lot of the related murders are related to drugs because there is a black market for them, just like what happens with practically everything the government tries to limit access to.

I think that legalization of some drugs would put a dent in the inner city gang violence, yes.

How we are getting somewhere.

The above is something I agree with as well.

But you need to start articulating it in your post, rather than just saying, "ITS THE WAR ON DRUGS STUUUPID!!!" and then here read this link and then guess WTF my position is!

I think your posts would be taken more seriously if you could articulate what you are talking about up front.


But, the criminality of the inner city would be softened at first until a new vice is picked up, then it would go right back to what it was before. Why?

The anti-education no-morals parenting done in these neighborhoods is going to result in criminal activity regardless of what drug is legal or not.
 
Libertarians are neither right-winged nor conservative. Perhaps this is the stem of your confusion?

Your confusion is that you tend to try and define all libertarians. Maybe you should stop doing that.
 
In some areas perhaps, until the unforeseen happens, in others, they probably wish they were even better equipped. The more crazy people become, the more our law enforcement needs to adjust.
 
No.
I mean criminals.
Explain how police with military style equipment and tactics to be used in dangerous situations is not good for the public.

Your response should include something more descriptive than "It isn't"

Ok, Chris dorner reaction. Cops shot up multiple vehicles, some of them not even the tight make of model.

How much more should be needed?
 
You posted a link talking about a narcotic drugs convention in Vienna and a Wikipedia article discussing the War on Drugs in general.

Neither of these describe the "fallout" of the war on drugs and how it is the sole reason why there is violent crime in the inner city neighborhoods.

You also ignored my comment as to what you are implying via this.... So I'll ask a question instead...

Do you believe if the war on drugs ended tomorrow that we would see inner city crime-ridden gang-ridden neighborhoods become peaceful family friendly neighborhoods?

Obviously not overnight but yes much of the crime and gang activities in inner cities is caused by the war on drugs so ending it would alleviate the probems some.
 
Seems every government agency and city now has a SWAT team. And SWAT activity has gone up by 1500% in the last two decades.

John W. Whitehead: SWAT Team Mania: The War Against the American Citizen
The United States of SWAT? | National Review Online

Police departments are now being given surplus military vehicles too to wage war war against its own citizens.

TN Police Departments Get Tank-Like Military Vehicles - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports
Leftover armored trucks from Iraq coming to local police agencies - NY Daily News

SWAT teams now routinely use no-knock entry tactics and sometimes end up shooting innocent people when they enter the wrong house or due to faulty intel.

Jose Guerena shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Five Unnecessary SWAT Team Raids Gone Terribly Wrong
WND reports on SWAT raids on the innocent

Let us remember one thing, cops are not military personnel, they are classified as civilians, like everybody else who isnt military. Why should they be issued military weapons and dress like an army of occupation? Should something be done about this?

CiPhtE0.jpg


745hCwx.jpg

We all have the Drug Warriors to thank for it.
 
How we are getting somewhere.

The above is something I agree with as well.

But you need to start articulating it in your post, rather than just saying, "ITS THE WAR ON DRUGS STUUUPID!!!" and then here read this link and then guess WTF my position is!

I think your posts would be taken more seriously if you could articulate what you are talking about up front.


But, the criminality of the inner city would be softened at first until a new vice is picked up, then it would go right back to what it was before. Why?

The anti-education no-morals parenting done in these neighborhoods is going to result in criminal activity regardless of what drug is legal or not.

I don't really know what you mean, because I was addressing the post below. I thought my position was perfectly clear.

No, you are wrong, I viewed the statistics before I first answered your question. But in the past I have also, in earlier discussions, compared crime statistics in the US to those in other industrialized countries and the number of murders as well as the insane number of people jailed in the US show that there is a problem with violence in the US. Without these militarized police units the violence might be much worse.

So please don't thank yourself for things that live only in your mind and not in reality.

Our biggest problems with violence come from the inner city poor neighborhoods where gangs reign supreme. Most of this is related to drugs and the fallout of our "war against drugs."
 
I don't really know what you mean, because I was addressing the post below. I thought my position was perfectly clear.

you made perfect sense to me, I do not know what the issue is with this response towards you. I said a lot of violence and you stated that it was often due to gang violence and the ever present drug problem that fuels these gangs of thugs.
 
Do you believe if the war on drugs ended tomorrow that we would see inner city crime-ridden gang-ridden neighborhoods become peaceful family friendly neighborhoods?

We can't expect this, but I think we could expect an significant improvement if we are consistent in the new policy. If a career criminal can't make a living selling drugs at a huge markup, then they'll find something else.

Prior to Prohibition, which more or less rolled right into the WoD, illegal gambling, prostitution, and extortion was the norm for career criminals, alongside theft at all levels.

I'd argue gambling and prostitution should be similarly decriminalized, draining those illegal markets of their profits.

While it still happens, I'd wager a violent extortionist's and thief's jobs are getting harder, with the all the cameras around.

Freeing up police to investigate those crimes can't hurt. Without the massive profits from the vice trades, criminal will have a harder time corrupting police.

With fewer options and increased difficulty, we can hope that more folks who would otherwise become criminals will see legitimate work as the easier career path.
 
Your confusion is that you tend to try and define all libertarians. Maybe you should stop doing that.

I'm not defining all libertarians, it's a fact. On the popular, frequently used left/right paradigm scale, libertarianism does not fit. Some say libertarianism is the radical centrist position, some say it transcends it altogether. Either way, it does not fit. Now, on the little-known political compass, in which DP seems to use for leans, I would say that libertarians can be economically left or right. Key word there though, economically. Socially, it still doesn't fit within the left/right. The left wants social engineering, the right wants social conservation and traditionalism. Libertarians want neither as both compromise individual liberty to some degree. But since few people actually understand that chart, I stick with libertarianism is neither left-wing nor right-wing. It's simple.

As for libertarianism being conservatism, it's not really defining other libertarians to state that the two ideas are radically different and thus not compatible to be smashed together constantly.
 
First, conservatives are not a race based party... And really, when you dig deep enough, it's the democrats that were the party of the clan. Just like the NRA was about ensuring that black people could defend themselves from the klan. Side issue though.

Yes, conservatives did give bush a pass, just like democrats gave Clinton, and now Obama a pass...

That's what happens with "party" politics.

The crimes of one do not justify the crimes of another, and really, if you like Obama, you MUST HAVE LOVED bush, because the agenda continued like a relay racer passing the baton. (Or you hate bush because he did not do enough)

You won't find me defending Obama's policies of domestic spying without reasonable suspicion, torture, foreign wars, and the militarization of police departments. Human rights and civil liberties should always prevail over partisan advantage.
 
Maybe you just weren't paying attention to what Conservatives were saying on the subject then?

BTW...... You are still being a race-douche.

I was on another forum similar to this during the Bush II years and read the newspapers daily when conservatives routinely called anyone concerned about civil liberties and human rights issues "terrorist sympathizers."

Its not race-baiting when its true.
 
I'm not defining all libertarians, it's a fact. On the popular, frequently used left/right paradigm scale, libertarianism does not fit. Some say libertarianism is the radical centrist position, some say it transcends it altogether. Either way, it does not fit. Now, on the little-known political compass, in which DP seems to use for leans, I would say that libertarians can be economically left or right. Key word there though, economically. Socially, it still doesn't fit within the left/right. The left wants social engineering, the right wants social conservation and traditionalism. Libertarians want neither as both compromise individual liberty to some degree. But since few people actually understand that chart, I stick with libertarianism is neither left-wing nor right-wing. It's simple.

As for libertarianism being conservatism, it's not really defining other libertarians to state that the two ideas are radically different and thus not compatible to be smashed together constantly.

When it comes down to real-life issues, most libertarians stand with conservatives in protecting the power and privilege of the rich and powerful and their corporations as well as the military-industrial complex.
 
Ok, Chris dorner reaction. Cops shot up multiple vehicles, some of them not even the tight make of model.

How much more should be needed?

And having regular guns would have magically kept multiple vehicles from getting shot?
 
Back
Top Bottom