Forum Thread

Militarization of the police

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 46 - 60 of 294 Prev 2 3 4 5 6 .. 20 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: J.C. As I told you many times, my neighbor is a State Police Trooper,he completely admits that the training is shoot at the torso or head; they never do any training to shoot at other parts of the body. He also admits that in Sweden they get the correct training; statistics prove that also. Sorry I'll stick to my statement : The police here gets basicly "military" training with a fringe only on how to write unjustified tickets. They certainly don't get any training in politeness or learn on how to smile. Only arrogance and being a bully is a hiring qualification.
    And as I said many times , shooting at limbs while in motion is very dangerous to bystanders, so while limbs are for the most part present a much smaller target and since lethal force situations are not a video game to be scored, lethal force is called LETHAL for a reason, someone is going to die,, that is the intent, and more often than not, that is the outcome. And for as military training goes, of course we are trained under the auspices of military tactics as far as firearms training is concerned, also the idea of a chain of command is also borrowed from the military, and in certain units in law enforcement there is a need for knowledge in urban combat methods in breeching certain types of barricaded people, but by and large that specialized training is restricted to certain tactical and task force units and not your everyday patrol officer., Now .I can't speak for all police agencies but in Philadelphia we do not employ a quota system for writing traffic citations, also at our Academy there are many hours spent both in the classroom and in hands on training in the area of community relations, crisis assessment and how to cope with volatile emotional situations. You are showing your own bias and by adding a summation of personal animus against police officers everywhere to either convince yourself of your own fantasy or maybe perhaps someone even less informed than you are.
    J.C. you are absolutely dead wrong. So if you shoot to kill on the heart and head you don't hit bystanders; thus only if you shoot on the legs. What world do you live in? You refuse to see on how other countries like Sweden train their people and who they hire. Anyway you finally admit the huge military influence in the forces here; be happy with it; we are the enemy which has to be killed for jay-walking. I wonder can you eat with knife and fork? Like Jared said you will never open up your eyes about the world around you.
    Now you are totally mistaken , shooting at the torso or head means you are trying to kill someone, the odds of missing your intended target and hitting a innocent bystander are greatly minimized by directing your rounds at the torso, these situations are not like cowboy movies where shooters routinely disable opposing shooters by shooting their weapons from their hands or just wounding them, a handgun is a lethal weapon to be employed in a situation where death is an option, not wounding. I do not admit the military has a huge influence here , our Academy is about 26 weeks long and fire arms training compromise less than 2 weeks of that training, we are trained ,more in rendering first aid , defensive driving, both criminal law and civil law and Pa. Motor vehicle Code, with the emphasis on Civil Rights, a large potion of the training is on writing reports and how to summarize reports, how to conduct first contacts with complainants, testifying in court, physical training, so, no the military does not have a huge influence on our training, again that is in your perception only and not a reality .Btw, who was ever killed by any police officer for Jay -walking?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: J.C. As I told you many times, my neighbor is a State Police Trooper,he completely admits that the training is shoot at the torso or head; they never do any training to shoot at other parts of the body. He also admits that in Sweden they get the correct training; statistics prove that also. Sorry I'll stick to my statement : The police here gets basicly "military" training with a fringe only on how to write unjustified tickets. They certainly don't get any training in politeness or learn on how to smile. Only arrogance and being a bully is a hiring qualification.
    And as I said many times , shooting at limbs while in motion is very dangerous to bystanders, so while limbs are for the most part present a much smaller target and since lethal force situations are not a video game to be scored, lethal force is called LETHAL for a reason, someone is going to die,, that is the intent, and more often than not, that is the outcome. And for as military training goes, of course we are trained under the auspices of military tactics as far as firearms training is concerned, also the idea of a chain of command is also borrowed from the military, and in certain units in law enforcement there is a need for knowledge in urban combat methods in breeching certain types of barricaded people, but by and large that specialized training is restricted to certain tactical and task force units and not your everyday patrol officer., Now .I can't speak for all police agencies but in Philadelphia we do not employ a quota system for writing traffic citations, also at our Academy there are many hours spent both in the classroom and in hands on training in the area of community relations, crisis assessment and how to cope with volatile emotional situations. You are showing your own bias and by adding a summation of personal animus against police officers everywhere to either convince yourself of your own fantasy or maybe perhaps someone even less informed than you are.
    J.C. you are absolutely dead wrong. So if you shoot to kill on the heart and head you don't hit bystanders; thus only if you shoot on the legs. What world do you live in? You refuse to see on how other countries like Sweden train their people and who they hire. Anyway you finally admit the huge military influence in the forces here; be happy with it; we are the enemy which has to be killed for jay-walking. I wonder can you eat with knife and fork? Like Jared said you will never open up your eyes about the world around you.
    Now you are totally mistaken , shooting at the torso or head means you are trying to kill someone, the odds of missing your intended target and hitting a innocent bystander are greatly minimized by directing your rounds at the torso, these situations are not like cowboy movies where shooters routinely disable opposing shooters by shooting their weapons from their hands or just wounding them, a handgun is a lethal weapon to be employed in a situation where death is an option, not wounding. I do not admit the military has a huge influence here , our Academy is about 26 weeks long and fire arms training compromise less than 2 weeks of that training, we are trained ,more in rendering first aid , defensive driving, both criminal law and civil law and Pa. Motor vehicle Code, with the emphasis on Civil Rights, a large potion of the training is on writing reports and how to summarize reports, how to conduct first contacts with complainants, testifying in court, physical training, so, no the military does not have a huge influence on our training, again that is in your perception only and not a reality .Btw, who was ever killed by any police officer for Jay -walking?
    J.C. In other words you mean if you use your weapon your objective is always shoot to kill; very sick and dangerous indeed. Shooting at the legs is low level; thus if you miss and hit someone else then that bullet does not kill someone else either but likely also in the leg. Shooting at "heart" or "head" then that bullet may also kill someone else dead shooting at that level. Get the picture? Ever learned "trajectory" analyses? Just your thinking makes you already pure "military" only shoot to kill is actually programmed in your mind as a "killer", not someone who should be trained to protect human life. What you describe shows exactly what is wrong in the training mostly " action/law/defense" issues very little on "behavior" and your mindset/position what it should be in this society. Which is shown in all your correspondence. Laws are mostly made to "protect" the "system" it seldom is made to make things better for common people. For instance; They opened a new very wide 3 lane road here; when it opened they posted a speed limit of only 45 mph and purposely zapped it for speeders (hardly any traffic at all) now they increased the speed limit to 55mph. I call that intentionally irritating people just to be able to write tickets. Why do you think cops are hated? just because of stubbornness to do the right things and show "authority" without reason.
    You show the same thing; start thinking who pays you; how can I please the people instead of pestering them. Don't hang out the bully and use "laws" only if it endangers the public, not just following the black and white inflexible laws. Indeed all your comments point to a "military" style indoctrinated mindset. I must say my neighbor (State cop) has an total different attitude than you. So flexibility/attitude/ tone of voice and a smile will help.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Btw, who was ever killed by any police officer for Jay -walking?
    Michael Brown.

    He was originally stopped for jaywalking and only later did Darren Wilson 'realize' he fit the description of someone who stole five dollars worth of cigars. Then he murdered Mike Brown for jaywalking and having five dollars worth of cigars that weren't his.

    If Wilson didn't harass Mike Brown for walking while black in the first place then Mike Brown would still be alive today.

    Hence the entire point of this subject--the militarization of our police is getting out of hand and the people must reign them in before it's too late. Our cops need to stop acting like they are an occupying army and start acting like they care about the people who pay their salaries.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    it was not jaywalking when you walk down the middle of street obstructing traffic and when questioned he attacked the officer while still in car causing the officers weapon to discharge, now he is no longer obstructing traffic ,he now has committed a felony ,assault on a police officer , it was later determined that he also robbed and assaulted a store owner for those cigars,. jay walking is walking against the light, or crossing in the middle of the street into traffic, Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid you sound silly.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: it was not jaywalking when you walk down the middle of street obstructing traffic and when questioned he attacked the officer while still in car causing the officers weapon to discharge, now he is no longer obstructing traffic ,he now has committed a felony ,assault on a police officer , it was later determined that he also robbed and assaulted a store owner for those cigars,. jay walking is walking against the light, or crossing in the middle of the street into traffic,
    It's not like Ferguson is a bustling city. White people don't get stopped for jaywalking on a neighborhood street. That's a 'crime' pretty much devoted exclusively for black people. And to say otherwise shows your bias when it comes to the rampant racism permeating throughout our nations police forces.

    And that's the side of the story that the DA wants you to believe, but isn't necessarily the truth. There are multiple sides to every story and unfortunately an unarmed black man doesn't get to tell his side because he is dead.
    johnnycee Wrote: Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid you sound silly.
    Who's more silly? Someone who wants our cops to stop murdering unarmed citizens or someone who constantly sticks up for cops who murder unarmed citizens?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch, when someone ,anyone pulls a weapon whether or cop or a civilian , the intent is implied and often articulated, that you will be shot possibility killed, you never use a weapon as an empty threat. The emblem on our vehicles says "To protect and Serve", Protect first and then serve, you figure out what that means,
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: it was not jaywalking when you walk down the middle of street obstructing traffic and when questioned he attacked the officer while still in car causing the officers weapon to discharge, now he is no longer obstructing traffic ,he now has committed a felony ,assault on a police officer , it was later determined that he also robbed and assaulted a store owner for those cigars,. jay walking is walking against the light, or crossing in the middle of the street into traffic,
    It's not like Ferguson is a bustling city. White people don't get stopped for jaywalking on a neighborhood street. That's a 'crime' pretty much devoted exclusively for black people. And to say otherwise shows your bias when it comes to the rampant racism permeating throughout our nations police forces.

    And that's one side of the story. That's the side of the story that the DA wants you to believe, but isn't necessarily the truth. There are multiple sides to every story and unfortunately an unarmed black man doesn't get to tell his side because he is dead.
    johnnycee Wrote: Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid you sound silly.
    Who's more silly? Someone who wants our cops to stop murdering unarmed citizens or someone who constantly sticks up for cops who murder unarmed citizens?
    if you are going to keep on insisting that it was jaywalking when it's not it does make you sound silly, when you keep trying to repudiate witnesses to the event, Forensic evidence and the Grand jury's determination based on those facts, then your very creditability is in question. By your statement of racism permeating throughout our nations police force is not even close to factual. The Fergusson Police Dept. was not deemed to racist, unless of course you believe the race baiters, the event itself was not deemed to be racist, unless again you chose to believe the agenda driven race baiters. You chose to not believe the system because it doesn't reflect your views, talk about deflecting the topic from militarization of the police to one of racist police , is something I thought you don't approve of.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: if you are going to keep on insisting that it was jaywalking when it's not it does make you sound silly, when you keep trying to repudiate witnesses to the event, Forensic evidence and the Grand jury's determination based on those facts, then your very creditability is in question.
    You choose to keep your blinders on; I choose to look at facts. To suggest that our police forces are not becoming more and more militarized shows that you have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about.

    I brought up Mike Brown because you asked for an example of police murdering someone for jaywalking and I provided the example. You chose to insist that the multiple eye witness accounts directly contradicting what the DA put forward should be ignored and that we should only listen to people who follow your preconceived views of that murder. I'm sorry--I have a very difficult time accepting the results of a nearly all white grand jury who heard evidence from a white DA who never wanted to investigate the murder in the first place. That's the justice system you keep insisting is the best in the world and that is the justice system I want to radically change.
    johnnycee Wrote: By your statement of racism permeating throughout our nations police force is not even close to factual.
    With regards to racial disparities throughout the nation--police are ten times more likely to arrest black individuals than they are a white individual who was accused of committing the same offense.

    Whites are convicted at a lower rate and spend far less time in prison if they are convicted of the same crime a black citizen was convicted of. (Six times shorter to be exact.)

    Judges, juries, and District Attorneys are likelier to take a more lenient stance against a white individual than they are a black individual, as well.

    If that's not proof enough that our criminal justice system is broken and stacked against people of color then I have no idea what the hell is. But keep digging that head deeper and deeper into the sand...
    johnnycee Wrote:The Fergusson Police Dept. was not deemed to racist, unless of course you believe the race baiters, the event itself was not deemed to be racist, unless again you chose to believe the agenda driven race baiters.
    Did you read the Justice Department report? They accused the department of blatant and systemic racism and are forcing them to radically change the way they police. They also forced the Police Chief to resign in disgrace. What in the world are you talking about? That department is racist as hell and is reflective of many small town departments throughout this country. I really encourage you to read the actual report before continuing to say it "was not deemed to racist (sic)."

    Story: The 12 key highlights from the DOJ’s scathing Ferguson report
    johnnycee Wrote: talk about deflecting the topic from militarization of the police to one of racist police , is something I thought you don't approve of.
    If you would like to get back on topic and keep insisting that our cops are not becoming more and more militarized then I would welcome that. But if you ask for examples of something that has nothing to do with the debate then expect me or someone else to provide it and prove you wrong.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You chose to believe a DOJ 's scathing report but refuse to believe a Grand Jury's findings. Findings, determinations, decisions as opposed to a report, which is full of, I believes, we think, should be's, could be's, guess's and you chosed which one to believe, kind of like selective reasoning, as I said before if it doesn't fit your preconceived notion then it must be wrong, and you were the one to stray from the original topic and bring up the race issue, which was about a military style of policing, so stay on topic unless you want be unfair and subjective rather fair and objective. The DOJ made an unproven accusation , that is why it is and was called a report, which you, chose to believe , but which has nothing to do with the military style of policing, which is the topic of this thread. P.S. The resignations were politically motivated and you know that .
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I explained in detail why I discussed Ferguson and Michael Brown. Dutch expressed frustration at the militarization of the police and how people get killed for jaywalking. You asked for an example of police murdering someone for jaywalking and I provided one of many instances of someone who was originally stopped for jaywalking only to wind up six feet under ground because an over zealous cop felt scared talking to a black man. So you only have yourself to blame as to how we began discussing this.

    And I will always believe an investigation that is full of facts and actual numbers over a DA who didn't want to bring charges and a nearly exclusively all white grand jury in a county that is rife with racial strife. But you don't like the Attorney General who conducted the investigation (I wonder why that is...) so you just write off a detailed and factually backed up federal report on the Ferguson Police Department because you don't like the person in charge of the agency overseeing it.

    I'd also encourage you to refrain from telling me what to do. Moderators hold conservative members to a higher standard so they don't hijack the website with right wing propaganda. Now, please get back on topic or stop responding to this thread.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Dutch, when someone ,anyone pulls a weapon whether or cop or a civilian , the intent is implied and often articulated, that you will be shot possibility killed, you never use a weapon as an empty threat. The emblem on our vehicles says "To protect and Serve", Protect first and then serve, you figure out what that means,
    J.C. I guess you did not read what I wrote as usual; I must say again that my neighbor (State Trooper) thinks totally different than you, how come?
    So I'm glad I don't live in Philly.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: J.C. I guess you did not read what I wrote as usual; I must say again that my neighbor (State Trooper) thinks totally different than you, how come?
    That's because there are plenty of cops who actually want to make a positive difference in this country. They understand who pays their salaries and that we are not the enemy who must be silenced. And they also look at the alarming rise of a militarized police force who uses weapons of war against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights and hangs their head in shame instead of thumping their chest like a gladiator.

    I just wish there were more cops like your State Trooper neighbor who sees our police turning into a paramilitary unit and realizes that something is very wrong. Weapons of war don't belong on American streets. Weapons of war shouldn't be used against people who just want their voices heard.

    A recent example of this crazy militarization comes from one of the most liberal towns in this country, my home town of Portland, OR. Thousands of protesters were marching in our annual May Day protest and cops decided to use flash grenades and pepper spray on a crowd because their feelings were hurt that a bridge was blocked for a few minutes. They initially claimed they didn't use any flash grenades or pepper spray until they were forced to admit that they did.

    This is what's going on in countless cities in this country. Police dressed in their military gear using weapons of war on peaceful protesters who want their voices heard. How anyone can stick up for that nonsense baffles me, but plenty of our conservative friends both on this website and throughout this country see absolutely nothing wrong with a system that allows police to be held accountable to no one and who has their own sets of rules. And they have no problem trampling on everyday American's First Amendment rights so long as we don't trample on their Second Amendment rights.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: Dutch, when someone ,anyone pulls a weapon whether or cop or a civilian , the intent is implied and often articulated, that you will be shot possibility killed, you never use a weapon as an empty threat. The emblem on our vehicles says "To protect and Serve", Protect first and then serve, you figure out what that means,
    J.C. I guess you did not read what I wrote as usual; I must say again that my neighbor (State Trooper) thinks totally different than you, how come?
    So I'm glad I don't live in Philly.
    You have decided to paint with a broad brush if not all of Law Enforcement Agencies at least the vast majority of them based on one trooper's opinion which coincidently fits your own, who would of thought.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: You chose to believe a DOJ 's scathing report but refuse to believe a Grand Jury's findings. Findings, determinations, decisions as opposed to a report, which is full of, I believes, we think, should be's, could be's, guess's and you chosed which one to believe, kind of like selective reasoning, as I said before if it doesn't fit your preconceived notion then it must be wrong, and you were the one to stray from the original topic and bring up the race issue, which was about a military style of policing, so stay on topic unless you want be unfair and subjective rather fair and objective. The DOJ made an unproven accusation , that is why it is and was called a report, which you, chose to believe , but which has nothing to do with the military style of policing, which is the topic of this thread. P.S. The resignations were politically motivated and you know that .
    Once again you talk out of your arse, JC!

    A Grand Jury's finding, in most cases, is nothing but political maneuvering by the police and prosecuter. I'll take a DOJ finding over ant Grand Jury's finding anything.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    P.R. a wasted effort; Jared, T.J. you and I tried, but this guy is a walking mine field. I'm afraid there are plenty like him, so the shoot to kill and bully doctrine will continue as long as the training is Gestapo like. Do not forget J.C. is also a member of the NRA which promotes gun ownership as well the more gun sales the better, totally forgetting that that organization is part of the blame for all the gun killings in this country