Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70

Thread: Article on the militarization of our police departments

  1. #1
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/60717

    Dave Gibson
    May 05, 2008

    Today, police departments across the United States more closely resemble an occupying army than they do public servants responding to calls for help. Police officers can now be seen wearing helmets and body armor and carrying AR-15's, just to deliver simple warrants. The militarization of our police departments not only gives the appearance of a military dictatorship but places the public at great risk.

    No less than 70 percent of U.S. cities now have SWAT teams. In cities with a population of 50,000 or more, 90 percent have SWAT teams.

    Eastern Kentucky University professor Peter Kraska told the Washington Post that SWAT teams are currently sent out 40,000 times a year in the U.S. During the 1980's, SWAT teams were only used 3,000 times a year. Most of the time, SWAT teams are being sent out to simply serve warrants on non-violent drug offenders.

    Many municipalities are using Homeland Security grants to even purchase large armored vehicles. The Pittsburgh Police Department now uses their 20-ton armored truck complete with rotating turret and gun ports to deliver many of their warrants. Pittsburgh Police Sgt. Barry Budd recently told the Associate Press: "We live on being prepared for 'what if'."

    Our police departments now regularly receive free surplus equipment from the U.S. military, which they readily accept. The training being given at many police academies appears to be the type of tactics one would use in Baghdad, rather than Baltimore. It would seem that our police officers are being readied for war, with the American public as the enemy. In the last several years, there has been a transformation from community policing to pre-emptive assaults

    On January 24, 2006, Dr. Salvatore Culosi was shot and killed outside his house by a Fairfax County SWAT officer. Police used the SWAT team to serve a documents search warrant, after Dr. Culosi came under suspicion for taking sports bets. The investigation began after Fairfax Detective David Baucom solicited a bet with Dr. Culosi at a local sports bar.

    Dr. Culosi was standing outside his home while talking with Det. Baucom, when SWAT Officer Deval Bullock quickly approached with his gun drawn and fatally shot Dr. Culosi in the chest. Court documents report that Culosi never made any threatening movements and made no attempt to run as he watched the SWAT team move in around him.

    Dr. Culosi had no history of violence nor any criminal history whatsoever. He operated two successful optometry clinics at Wal-Marts in Manassas and Warrenton, Va. His parents have filed a $12 million lawsuit against the county of Fairfax, Va.

    On the night of January 17, 2008, a police SWAT team surrounded Ryan Frederick´s home in Chesapeake, Va. The police were there to serve a drug warrant based on a tip from a criminal informant.

    As usual, 28 year-old Ryan Frederick had gone to sleep early in order to leave the house before dawn for his job with a soda distributor. He awoke to a commotion of screams and the distinct sound of someone breaking down his front door.

    Frederick´s house had been broken into a few days earlier, being a slight man of only a little over 100 pounds, Frederick feared for his safety. After the break-in, he purchased a gun.

    Understandably frightened, Frederick grabbed his gun and when he got to the front of his house, he saw a man trying to crawl through the bottom portion of his door. Terrified that the intruders had returned, he fired.

    The man he shot was not an aggressive burglar, nor a drug-crazed murderer, he was Det. Jarrod Shivers. The police detective and military veteran died almost immediately. Frederick was charged with first-degree murder and now sits in a jail cell awaiting trial.

    As for the marijuana-growing operation for which police were looking, nothing was found. Only a very small amount of marijuana was discovered on the Frederick property, only enough to charge him with misdemeanor possession. Frederick has admitted that he uses marijuana occasionally but has never been involved with producing nor selling the drug.

    Ryan Frederick has no prior history of violence, nor any criminal history whatsoever. He took care of his grandmother until her death two years ago, had a full-time job, and recently became engaged. In his spare time, he worked in his yard and tended to his Koi pond…Not quite the drug kingpin type!

    However, based solely on the word of an informant, police obtained a warrant and stormed into this man´s house in the dark of night. The information turned out to be false, a police officer and father of three is dead, and a decent young man´s life is now over.

    When Ryan Frederick awoke to the sounds of his home being invaded, he did what many of us would do. He acted reasonably when he grabbed his gun to defend himself and fired at a man who he believed was breaking into his home to do him harm.

    Had the police simply went to his home during the daytime and knocked on his door, they could have questioned Frederick and found their information to be groundless. A little traditional police work could have saved the life of a police officer and the Shivers and Frederick families would have remained whole.

    The Ryan Frederick story is truly frightening because this same scenario could play itself out in your home or mine. In the age of militarized police departments, we are all in danger.

    Here are a few more recent victims of our militarized police departments:

    Cheryl Lynn Noel, a mom who was shot by police for picking up her legally registered handgun. She went for her gun to defend herself after a SWAT team in the middle of the night, broke into her Baltimore, MD home. Police stormed her house that night because they claim to have found marijuana seeds in the family's trash can.

    Rev. Acelyne Williams, 75 of Boston, died of a heart attack as a SWAT team broke into his home. Police actually had the wrong address.

    92 year old Kathryn Johnston who was so fearful that she never left her home and would only open her door after friends who placed her groceries on the front porch had left, was killed by an Atlanta SWAT team last year. An erroneous tip from an informant was enough for the Atlanta Police Department to invade her home. Police have since admitted to lying to obtain a search warrant and to planting drugs in her home after killing her.

    In 2006, a 52 member SWAT team stormed into a Denver home in search of a friendly small-stakes poker game. The same thing happened a few months later when SWAT and K-9 units barged in on a charity poker game in Baltimore.

    When someone straps on body armor and large caliber weapons, their adrenalin levels begin to surge. As they arrive at the scene, those levels increase. When these now militarized police officers actually break into a dark home and begin shouting at terrified citizens, severe injury and death is likely to occur. It is beyond reason to employ these tactics on anyone other than hardened, violent criminals.

    SWAT teams were created in the wake of the 1966 University of Texas sniper shooting spree by ex-marine Charles Whitman. Police did not have the firepower to reach Whitman, who was perched atop the 27-story clock tower. Civilians with hunting rifles came to the scene and joined with police in the effort to stop Whitman. Eventually, police officers and a well-armed citizen scaled the stairs of the tower and killed Whitman, but not before he killed 17 people and injured another 31. As a result of the incident, police departments began to assemble small teams of highly trained officers with equipment specific to sniper shootings, hostage situations, bank robberies, etc.

    SWAT teams were designed to deal with very violent individuals who represent a clear and present threat to the public. However, they are now being used to execute warrants on non-violent offenders and even those who have no prior criminal history at all. Turning our neighborhood cops into shock troops will do nothing but erode public confidence in the police and endanger the lives of innocent Americans.

    Recently, Boston´s new police commissioner William Fitchet announced that the department´s Street Crimes Unit will begin wearing military-style black uniforms, to instill a sense of "fear." At last week´s city council meeting, police Sgt. John Delaney told council members that the black uniforms would send the message that officers were serious.

    Did someone declare martial law?
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Look at the rank for the police departments. DC has 4 star generals and many others have full bird colonels. The rank is all military and has been for years.

    I do not see departments becoming more military... they have always been military based.

    Unfortunately.... people have been known kill the police as they attempt to take legal action. No matter how much the homeowner may object....a valid search warrant must be allowed.

    So making entry may require additional protection such as a helmet and shield to protect against a history of homeowners shooting to stop the action.

    It is unfortunate that the police must take such safeguards but this is just how it is.

    Pistols and shotguns are no longer enough either. Rifles are a must have item now to fight those that wear body armor and are too far away with their own rifles.

    As with anything in life... the bag guys learn how to exploit the system to their benefit. In this case... most cops did not have rifles and cannot hit bad guys form a distance.

    Look at the LAPD bank robbery from a few years back.... the bad guys had rifles and the cops had shotguns... bad guys handed the cops their a$$es.


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I would agree that militarization is indeed necessary for the police departments of today.

    That is, police departments that do the dirty work of politicians who prey on malum prohibitum offenders, and who must violate citizens and their rights regularly in order to carry out these most offensive of tasks. Maybe if Big Brother would stop indirectly creating so many violent (and non-violent) criminals, we wouldn't need de facto martial law.

    The unfortunate truth is that opposing this militarization of police departments is putting officers' lives in danger. What we need to address is the political process that is putting the officers in these situations in the first place.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Please... tell me the best way to get the job done where it does not involve risk.... and I will back you up in Richmond!!

    But everything about the job has risk. The only way out of the risk is to do nothing.

    Cops that sit and do nothing are bashed by the citizens that want them out there getting bad people.

    The cycle continues...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post


    http://cfc.wjla.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=14148


    D.C. Police Being Equipped with Rifles
    Tuesday May 06, 2008 6:12PM
    Metropolitan Police Department officers are being equipped with rifles.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I've noticed a trend at the community-college police academies that they have adopted boot camp-like training methods. The recruits wear black and do the synchronized jogs in cadence and shouting "hoo-ahh" and such, replete with high-and-tight haircuts, etc. A far cry from the sheriff's fat drinking buddies getting deputized like when I was a kid.

    An inevitable, if unintended, consequence of this "militarization" is that contacts with citizenry will more readily escalate into adversarial/heated confrontations. My car recently stalled on the road and a canine unit just happened to be stopped behind me waiting for me to get the car going. The cop was getting the dog out approaching my car by the time I got it started. I just waived to the guy as I pulled away, but I'm sure he'd have had the dog check me and the car out by default. The dog was barking like mad and I didn't relish the though of it getting near me at all, so I'm glad it got resolved without incident. I've had enough "fishing trips" turn sour on me.

    I don't object to the police getting equipment they need to do their jobs otherwise. Let them carry rifles. It's appropriate that they have flexible response capabilities. I'm just concerned that they may come to rely on heavy-handed methods bydefault.

    -ljp


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    What is funny is that many here are prior military and most here support the military.

    So the military is not viewed in a bad light. But the notion that the police are becoming more military like is so awful and some find it appalling.

    The values and order that the military mentality beings has to be a good thing. Having a group of people operate in an orderly manner respecting the rank of those above them and understanding rules and regulations goes along with all that.

    But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

    Can you tell me how often you have seen the police walking around with shot guns slung up on traffic stops or while going to a fight call? The police have had shot guns for a long time and most all cars have them.

    Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    What is funny is that many here are prior military and most here support the military.

    So the military is not viewed in a bad light. But the notion that the police are becoming more military like is so awful and some find it appalling.

    The values and order that the military mentality beings has to be a good thing. Having a group of people operate in an orderly manner respecting the rank of those above them and understanding rules and regulations goes along with all that.

    But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

    Can you tell me how often you have seen the police walking around with shot guns slung up on traffic stops or while going to a fight call? The police have had shot guns for a long time and most all cars have them.

    Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.
    Not really, we are not reading about USmilitary units killing american citizens. Thats the difference.

    edited for spelling

  9. #9
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

    Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.
    Why so defensive? Not trying to bash you or police officers just curious..

    Question...How do you explain the Torch teams in NYC carrying M4's and MP5's around in public? How is that any different than a military unit during a peace keeping mission or specialized raid?

    Do you see the benefits in a society like ours in having a Posse Comitatus Act? If we equip and train our police to be soldiers then why have it?

    I don't have a problem with the police having rifles to combat the gang bangers and robbersthat shootat them and I do support the need for a SWAT team. However, I do have a problem with making soldiers out of them and making most or all of them SWAT team capable. Even as a police officer, don't you see the problems that would arisewiththat police state mentality?

    Look at all the countries that operate like that? Is that what you want,more or less anauthoritarian society?

    Most importantly, do you find all these acts above and in the articleto be constitutional?


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    What is funny is that many here are prior military and most here support the military.

    So the military is not viewed in a bad light. But the notion that the police are becoming more military like is so awful and some find it appalling.

    The values and order that the military mentality beings has to be a good thing. Having a group of people operate in an orderly manner respecting the rank of those above them and understanding rules and regulations goes along with all that.

    But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

    Can you tell me how often you have seen the police walking around with shot guns slung up on traffic stops or while going to a fight call? The police have had shot guns for a long time and most all cars have them.

    Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.
    I don't think that seeing the miltarizing of our civilian police force as being a slippery slope to violating posse comitatus as even slightly humorous or as "spin". Given the degree to which some department are now armed we are reaching a point where all levels of gov't essentially have their own military. It should scare the hell out of people to think that their county and city essentially have their own standing military. By historic standards of military small arms firepower, many American police depts are better armed on that level than many countries. Hell, give the LA County/City PD some artillary and they are pretty much as well or better armed as most latin American nations. And yeah, I have a problem with that.

    In response to an utter failure at every level of gov't to protect the citizens, protect the borders, prevent crime and actually enforce the laws against criminals instead of LACs who just made an unintentional mistake, LE thinks the answer is to better arm the enforcement arm of those failed levels of gov't. :shock: That is, in even an only marginally rational world, utterly retarded!! You don't further arm people or a gov't which has already proven it's utter inability to make good decisions. On top of all that, it IS essentially an end-run around posse comitatus so while perhaps not a violation by letter of law, it is certainly a violation of the spirit of the law, something LEOs (at least where I have lived) regularly arrest people for doing.

    Does anyone think that when the Posse Comitatus Act was passed that if the feds had pulled out the troops as required, and then brought in an administrator to give federal grants to the local political body, which in turn proceeded to hire hundreds of the recently evacuated, now honorably discharged, troops as LEOs, and then armed them almost exactly as they had been armed a month earlier when they were soldiers, that it would have been considered A-OK with everyone? Heck no!!

    Hiring a bunch of ex-US miltary, arming them nearly the same as when they were US military using money from the same federal gov't that trained them in the military, and making them co-ordinate with the feds in the name of homeland security, pretty much creates a "civilian" standing military calling itself LE. That is EXACTLY the kind of BS the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prevent. The lack of artillary and the fact that LE doesn't get their checks direct from the US Treasury in NO WAY changes what LE is becoming in many places.

    For the record, I do NOT blame the average LEO on the street for any of this. This is all taking place at higher levels. Most LEOs probably aren't even thinking about any of it in those terms. But trying to argue that this is all A-OK is preposterous! Firepower is NOT a substitute for good fundamental police work, but in many urban areas it is used that way.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    The only way out of the risk is to do nothing.
    In many cases, that's exactly what needs to be done. This isn't a criticism of the police, whose job it is to enforce the laws, it's a criticism of the legislators who pass bad laws.

    Not that I don't think there's criticism to be leveled at the police departments as well, but I'm sure others will cover that.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    [Removed by moderator]
    How does this info add to the discussion?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    How does it detract from the discussion? It is public info pertinent to the people and question. I note that you quoted it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

    Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.
    Why so defensive? Not trying to bash you or police officers just curious..

    Question...How do you explain the Torch teams in NYC carrying M4's and MP5's around in public? How is that any different than a military unit during a peace keeping mission or specialized raid?

    Do you see the benefits in a society like ours in having a Posse Comitatus Act? If we equip and train our police to be soldiers then why have it?

    I don't have a problem with the police having rifles to combat the gang bangers and robbersthat shootat them and I do support the need for a SWAT team. However, I do have a problem with making soldiers out of them and making most or all of them SWAT team capable. Even as a police officer, don't you see the problems that would arisewiththat police state mentality?

    Look at all the countries that operate like that? Is that what you want,more or less anauthoritarian society?

    Most importantly, do you find all these acts above and in the articleto be constitutional?
    Oh My.. Not being defensive... Just raising a question.

    I did not see "torch teams" in NYC so I cannot respond since I have no clue what they were doing. If you are speaking about teams assigned to protect the events surrounding the torch run... would you not agree that this is a special situation that had been attacked a few times already?

    Do you believe the federal government has some type of control to assemble and control local police departments to do their bidding?

    POLICE STATE:

    The classification of a country or regime as a police state is usually contested and debated. Because of the pejorative connotation of the term, it is rare that a country will identify itself as a police state. The classification is often established by an internal whistleblower or an external critic or activist group. The use of the term is motivated as a response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's concept of the social contract, human rights, and similar matters.

    Genuine police states are fundamentally authoritarian, and are often dictatorships. However the degree of government repression varies widely among societies. Most regimes fall into some middle ground between the extremes of pure civil libertarianism and pure police statism.


    I am not worried about the fear of a police state if cops are given another type of gun. This is not going to tip the scale. It only balances things with the bad guys being better armed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    I don't think that seeing the miltarizing of our civilian police force as being a slippery slope to violating posse comitatus as even slightly humorous or as "spin". Given the degree to which some department are now armed we are reaching a point where all levels of gov't essentially have their own military. It should scare the hell out of people to think that their county and city essentially have their own standing military. By historic standards of military small arms firepower, many American police depts are better armed on that level than many countries. Hell, give the LA County/City PD some artillary and they are pretty much as well or better armed as most latin American nations. And yeah, I have a problem with that.

    In response to an utter failure at every level of gov't to protect the citizens, protect the borders, prevent crime and actually enforce the laws against criminals instead of LACs who just made an unintentional mistake, LE thinks the answer is to better arm the enforcement arm of those failed levels of gov't. :shock: That is, in even an only marginally rational world, utterly retarded!! You don't further arm people or a gov't which has already proven it's utter inability to make good decisions. On top of all that, it IS essentially an end-run around posse comitatus so while perhaps not a violation by letter of law, it is certainly a violation of the spirit of the law, something LEOs (at least where I have lived) regularly arrest people for doing.

    Does anyone think that when the Posse Comitatus Act was passed that if the feds had pulled out the troops as required, and then brought in an administrator to give federal grants to the local political body, which in turn proceeded to hire hundreds of the recently evacuated, now honorably discharged, troops as LEOs, and then armed them almost exactly as they had been armed a month earlier when they were soldiers, that it would have been considered A-OK with everyone? Heck no!!

    Hiring a bunch of ex-US miltary, arming them nearly the same as when they were US military using money from the same federal gov't that trained them in the military, and making them co-ordinate with the feds in the name of homeland security, pretty much creates a "civilian" standing military calling itself LE. That is EXACTLY the kind of BS the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prevent. The lack of artillary and the fact that LE doesn't get their checks direct from the US Treasury in NO WAY changes what LE is becoming in many places.

    For the record, I do NOT blame the average LEO on the street for any of this. This is all taking place at higher levels. Most LEOs probably aren't even thinking about any of it in those terms. But trying to argue that this is all A-OK is preposterous! Firepower is NOT a substitute for good fundamental police work, but in many urban areas it is used that way.
    How do some of you even sleep at night? You have the wildest dreams.. I swear!

    If the government was gearing to operate in the states they would have issued guns and what not a long time ago to local departments for free. Rifles are being purchasedby departments and are not free. Local governments are paying for them and only in response to bad guys being better armed.

    As I said already.... having a rifle does not tip the scale for the federal government to take control and use the police to do what they command. They are now needed because the bad guys are exploiting this vulnerability they know the police have.

    "Firepower is NOT a substitute for good fundamental police work, but in many urban areas it is used that way."

    What!!! How does good police work stop two bad guys with full auto AK-47 machine guns and full body armor??? Pistols and shot guns did nothing! I guess good police work would be let the bad guys keep shooting and when they run out you can capture them alive.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    How does it detract from the discussion? It is public info pertinent to the people and question. I note that you quoted it.
    Why Doug? You just do not like me giving my point of view... do you?! You have some serious issues and need to get over it. If have something worthwhile to add to our discussion.. then post.

    Otherwise....



    Move along now.... nothing here to see...


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    Leo229 said: "Do you believe the federal government has some type of control to assemble and control local police departments to do their bidding"

    Yes, declare national state of emergency, then the feds will "Cordinate with local law enforcement".

    Not much to it really.


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    How does it detract from the discussion? It is public info pertinent to the people and question. I note that you quoted it.
    you are correct it doesnt detract really, seemed odd place to put already public information. sort of like me doing a screen shot from bigyellow.com for a pizza joint.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    smccomas wrote:
    Leo229 said: "Do you believe the federal government has some type of control to assemble and control local police departments to do their bidding"

    Yes, declare national state of emergency, then the feds will "Cordinate with local law enforcement".

    Not much to it really.
    The federal government had no "control" over any of the departments. The departments may have been asked to help and agreedto doso. They can refuse if they like.

    The local government paying for the services being rendered can also prohibit them from doing it as well.We all know that the local government is filled with elected people making decisions for the community.




  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    smccomas wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    How does it detract from the discussion? It is public info pertinent to the people and question. I note that you quoted it.
    you are correct it doesnt detract really, seemed odd place to put already public information. sort of like me doing a screen shot from bigyellow.com for a pizza joint.
    Kind'a like a picture-image, worth a thousand words but not specified by any but the observer.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    I'm ex-military and fully support the military. I also realize my training and police training should be very different. While small arms handling overlaps, military doctrine is very dangerous in urban ares - just ask your average Iraqi. This has always been true, even the Romans stationed their armies outside of Rome proper. Security from muggers doens not justify the risk posed by professional soldiers operating in US cities. The founding fathers were not fools.
    [img]chrome://piclens/content/launch.png[/img]

  23. #23
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I did not see "torch teams" in NYC so I cannot respond since I have no clue what they were doing. If you are speaking about teams assigned to protect the events surrounding the torch run...

    This was the issue ofTorch Teams thatI was reffering to:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...ht=torch+teams

    Do you believe the federal government has some type of control to assemble and control local police departments to do their bidding?
    Umm, actually... Yes.. Absolutely.. Who do you think takes over during "states of emergency?" FEMA, The Homeland Security Department, and Northcom.

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Losing.....-a0144563298

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/HSA_RoAPS.html

    Homeland Security Act

    Federal Supervision of First Responders

    The biggest charge that Jasper makes against the Homeland Security Act is that it "mandates federal supervision, funding, and coordination of `local first responders' -- specifically police and emergency personnel," thus expanding federal control of local law enforcement.

    The sections in the Homeland Security Act that concern "first responders" are in Title V: Emergency Preparedness and Response, but there is no specific mandate of federal control over local police. The provision simply provides for coordination and guidance. Although centralization appears to be the only way to properly handle emergency preparedness on a sufficiently large scale to protect our country, there is, nonetheless, reason for concern that central federal coordination could lead to loss of local control and to potential federal militarization, especially in view of the many other measures and events that support such a possibility -- such as, the Military Tribunals without constitutional procedural protections, the preemptive "war" on Iraq, the refusal of hearings and legal representation to "unlawful enemy combatants" and Guantanamo detainees, the indefinite detention of immigrants who are not even determined to be a danger (also often without hearings or representation), information-sharing provisions, the mixing of foreign and domestic investigations under FISA, Citizen Corps, and many more new measures now under the Homeland Security Act enumerated below.

    According to the United States Northern Command (USNC), "First responders are the men and women who are `first on the scene' as a natural or man-made disaster unfolds. They are also the last to leave the scene. First responders are policemen, firemen, emergency medical technicians. ... There are 11 million state and local first responders in 87,000 jurisdictions throughout the United States."[12]

    The USNC states that: "Our nation's structure of overlapping federal, state, and local governance -- more than 87,000 different jurisdictions -- provides a unique opportunity and challenge for U.S. Northern Command. Operations are underway to develop interconnected and complementary relationships and plans to support first responders. Everyone on this broad team, including U.S. Northern Command, wants to ensure the safety and security of the American people" (emphasis added).

    USNC notes that the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385)[13] "generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from interdicting vehicles, vessels and aircraft; conducting surveillance, searches, pursuit and seizures; or making arrests on behalf of civilian law enforcement authorities."

    USNC adds: "Prohibiting direct military involvement in law enforcement is in keeping with long-standing U.S. law and policy limiting the military's role in domestic affairs."

    However, the USNC notes four statutory exceptions to this prohibition: (1) counter-drug assistance (10 USC 371-81), (2) Insurrection Act (10 USC 331-34), (3) crimes using nuclear materials ( 18 USC 831), and (4) chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction (10 USC 382).

    According to a March 6, 2002 article by Gary Seigle on Government Executive Magazine, titled "`First responders' to terrorism seek federal strategy, equipment," first responders themselves were seeking federal assistance and guidance. Seigle writes: "A national training standard should be established and maintained by the federal government for first responders who are poorly prepared and equipped to recognize or respond to a weapon of mass destruction attack, emergency officials told a congressional subcommittee yesterday."[14]

    According to the New York Times, General Ralph E. Eberhart, now in charge of USNC, said earlier this year that he would welcome a review of existing restrictions against using military forces domestically. (See Part 2 of this series, footnote 8.) Meaning, presumably, overturning the Posse Comitatus Act. Doing so would essentially mean allowing a standing domestic army.

    James Madison, a proponent of strong national government, wrote:


    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the executive magistrate. Constant apprehension of war has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. [15]
    Patrick Henry said: "A standing army [will] execute the execrable commands of tyranny." This is "a most dangerous power," he declared.[16]

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    And also not to forget that the government sends in fully armedparamilitary operatives (civilians)under contract with Homeland Security to police our citizens during times of civil disobedience as well, not to mention the federal law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard that are involved during those times. What happens in Fairfax to the local law enforcement officials when the feds and troopsmove into a disaster or emergency?

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml

    This discussion is just that, a discussion of ideas and learning. It's not some paranoid delusionalstatus that causes me to lose any sleep. I simply stay informed and have opinions about what I see, hear, and read.I am a student of history and a constitutionalist. I am politically active and try to change things in the nation and my state through legal means by writing, voting, etc.. That's all these debatesare about for me. I don't anticipate changing anybody's mind..



    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I did not see "torch teams" in NYC so I cannot respond since I have no clue what they were doing. If you are speaking about teams assigned to protect the events surrounding the torch run...
    This was the issue ofTorch Teams thatI was reffering to:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...ht=torch+teams

    Do you believe the federal government has some type of control to assemble and control local police departments to do their bidding?
    Umm, actually... Yes.. Absolutely.. Who do you think takes over during "states of emergency?" FEMA, The Homeland Security Department, and Northcom.

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Losing.....-a0144563298

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/HSA_RoAPS.html

    Homeland Security Act

    Federal Supervision of First Responders

    ....snipped
    The torch teams with the guns were clearlyunderground protecting the subway with 5 million riders daily. This is a big target for terrorists. I have no problem with that. Why do you? Would you rather have the police patrol with handguns alone? Not having quick access to rifles in their police car up on the surface.

    Wait!! The police can call "TIME OUT!! Stop firing that AK so we can go get our rifles too!! We will be back in about 20 minutes!!"



    Your second half was too much reading about pretty much nothing. Police and Fire are first responders to events. Notice I said.. responders!!! As this is what they do. The federal government does not tell them to go to disasters as they are going to go anyway.

    Maybe you can point out the items you feel are of interest.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    The torch teams with the guns were clearlyunderground protecting the subway with 5 million riders daily. This is a big target for terrorists. I have no problem with that. Why do you? Would you rather have the police patrol with handguns alone? Not having quick access to rifles in their police car up on the surface.

    Wait!! The police can call "TIME OUT!! Stop firing that AK so we can go get our rifles too!! We will be back in about 20 minutes!!"



    Your second half was too much reading about pretty much nothing. Police and Fire are first responders to events. Notice I said.. responders!!! As this is what they do. The federal government does not tell them to go to disasters as they are going to go anyway.

    Maybe you can point out the items you feel are of interest.
    Wow, 229, if you are not evengoing to read my post, then why bother to comment?

    In this very thread, I previously mentioned that I think police officers should be issued rifles to combat robbers and gang bangers. However, your comment about there being nothing wrong with police armed with machine guns patrolling the subways because of the potential terrorist targeting is absurd and the opitome of the begginings of the police state you so eloquently mentioned in an ealier post. That argument can be made for anything because it relates to "safety."

    How many terrorists have mowed people down with AK's in the subways that police have had to deal with in NYC? I haven't read of any such incidents, in fact. If there are some, I'd like to read about them...And yes, Iam aware of the North Hollywood shootout, hence my reasoning for not having a problem with issuing rifles to officers in the first place. I thought it was sad that they had to raid a gun shop for weapons and ammunition...

    Additionally, what are soldier-equiped officers going to do to combat suicide bombers and other terrorists that have pre-planned a bombing, IED, or some other such terrorist plot that is concealed and much more likely to occurr than what you are describing?

    Umm, nothing... So it's a government presence to scare people into not doing anything? We haven't had any such incidents without such a presence.. Why now?

    That area is a citizen disarmed zone. Why not let the citizens be responsible for their own security as the SCOTUS has concluded, and let them carry arms for their own defense instead?
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •