Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Tim the libertarian doesn't see the alarming shift in militarizing local small town police forces. What a joke.

No, that's not what I wrote. I don't see the specific connection to this situation. The question I asked was, SPECIFICALLY, how things would have been different this time around without the military hardware? But nobody has offered an answer to that. Instead, all I get are generalities about how alarming this sort of thing is and how I'm some kind of hypocrite for defending it. I haven't defended it. But what does it have to do with what happened at Ferguson?

People who are already generally suspicious of the police see them coming in armored vehicles. It looks like an occupying force. I bet if I combed through all of your posts on this site, I would find plenty of arguments you have made about the power of symbolism as it relates to controlling a population. In fact, the argument I'm making strikes me as one that you would readily make. Which causes me to question my own argument I suppose.

I bet you wouldn't. It's certainly an interesting subject, but not one that I can recall discussing.But in any event, you're still talking in general terms, and I don't think it applies to this situation. It certainly doesn't apply to the shooting itself, IMO. And as to the police overreaction and the protestors' response after the shooting, I suspect that racial attitudes on both sides play a much larger role.

Really? Really? You can't see how a ####### military show of force on a suburban protest could MAKE THE ####### PROTESTERS NERVOUS AND/OR MORE VIOLENT??!??! #### it. I'm done. You are a master troll.

My point is that the police don't need that hardware to have a "military" show of force. Helmets, batons, tear gas, water hoses- those will do the trick, as they did before. It's not the hardware that is creating the tension, IMO.

 

[msommer]

If this goes to trial, will the robbery even be able to be brought up?

Depends - but definitely maybe. As I understand the officer's story, albeit third or 4th hand, he will say that he was called about the robbery with a description that matched Brown. So, the defense will want to introduce it to show Brown is a bad dude why the officer acted as he did.

I thought the police department though has already said the robbery was not a factor in the stop/incident, but I don't know the details here about when/if the call did go out.

Oh, I thought it was being said that this was a random stop, unconnected to the robbery. I guess they'll have to prove that he heard the call come in. How far away was the convenience store and how long after the robbery was he shot?

There was a graphic earlier in the thread. walking distance and seven minutes or so

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

 

[Henry Ford]

I love you so much HF.

No matter how long it takes. No matter how far. I will find tim's old posts.

 

[jonessed]

And speaking of being silent.Anybody heard anything from Hillary on this?

She would be crazy to involve herself in this.

 

[timschochet]

Tim the libertarian doesn't see the alarming shift in militarizing local small town police forces. What a joke.

No, that's not what I wrote. I don't see the specific connection to this situation. The question I asked was, SPECIFICALLY, how things would have been different this time around without the military hardware? But nobody has offered an answer to that. Instead, all I get are generalities about how alarming this sort of thing is and how I'm some kind of hypocrite for defending it. I haven't defended it. But what does it have to do with what happened at Ferguson?

People who are already generally suspicious of the police see them coming in armored vehicles. It looks like an occupying force. I bet if I combed through all of your posts on this site, I would find plenty of arguments you have made about the power of symbolism as it relates to controlling a population. In fact, the argument I'm making strikes me as one that you would readily make. Which causes me to question my own argument I suppose.

I bet you wouldn't. It's certainly an interesting subject, but not one that I can recall discussing.

But in any event, you're still talking in general terms, and I don't think it applies to this situation. It certainly doesn't apply to the shooting itself, IMO. And as to the police overreaction and the protestors' response after the shooting, I suspect that racial attitudes on both sides play a much larger role.

The amendments did, the actual increased voting did not. Lets take African-Americans for instance. In the early 60s, they finally made an inroads in achieving civil rights in the South. How did they do this? Not through voting, but through wielding economic power through the use of boycotts and protests. If the State of Alabama had had a vote in 1963 over whether Woolworth counters should have been desegregated, at least 80% of the population would have voted a resounding "NO!" That desegregation was not won through voting and it never could have been. It was won through an economic boycott and some powerful visual symbolism by a small minority pluralistic movement. Again, the more people that vote, the stupider our society is.

The truth is that, almost from the beginning of his life, Adolf Hitler destested all forms of religion, especially Christianity. He admired the ways the Catholic church used symbolism and ritual and imitated this in the Nazi party. But he saw his movement as opposition to the Church, and this is clear from his very early speeches. Hitler's two greatest influences on his thinking about religion in the early years were Nietzsche and Hegel, both of whom considered German culture heavily weakened by Christianity. His greatest romantic influence was Wagner, who sought to return Germany to the anti-Christian folk of the pagan gods. Hitler chose the swastika as the Nazi symbol very specifically as an alternative to the cross.

All of Hitler's speeches and vague mentionings that appear to be favorable of Christianity were nothing more than a sop to the Bavarian working class, which was strongly Catholic and which Hitler needed to soldify power in the early years. He admitted as much to his cohorts, according to direct sources (Joseph Goebbels' diary among others.) Once in power, Hitler and his pal Walter Rosenberg, a lifetime opponent of the church, immediately began persecuting ministers and priests. Their ultimate goal was a Germany without Christianity.

All of this is very well established in history, and only certain people with an axe to grind are attempting to rewrite the facts. As most people here know, I am an atheist myself, and I have no love for religion. But what I really hate is when people attempt to twist facts in order to argue their warped POV.

Maybe the word "control" is just too strong?

I've discussed symbolism a lot. But in terms of change, not in terms of "controlling a population". Neither of your examples has anything to do with that, and I can't recall ever discussing it. But as I wrote, it's certainly worth a discussion.

 

[msommer]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I think it's the indiscriminate pointing of assault rifles that does it.

You might enjoy watching the linked John Oliver take on it

 

[BigJohn]

Is anyone doing that? I have not been keeping up with the whole thread. I have only seen the video once, and it certainly looks like he grabbed something and left - my only point is that it is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

You need to watch the video again.

Ok - why? What is that going to impact, or how are you wanting me to alter my views?

He doesn't just take the cigars and walk out. You conveniently leave out the assault, then charging back at the store owner when he confronts him again. It's not shoplifting, no matter how much you want it to be.

Ok - again, how does that impact this situation? Call it whatever you want, but I don't see the relevance to the matter at hand. His confrontation with a little man in a convenience store makes it likely that he bum rushed an armed cop? I am not ready to draw that conclusion. Sorry.

Likely? No. Possible? Absolutely.

 

[kentric]

The woman called into TheBlaze TV host Dana Loesch’s radio show on Friday, claiming thatBrown “bum-rushed” Wilson moments after pushing him into his squad car, punching him in the face and trying to grab the cop’s gun.

“Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something,” the caller added. “The final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two or three feet in front of the officer.”

So how does this jive with some saying hands were in the air surrendering then he got gunned down......this is really nuts. I am leaning to the Police side of the story as I usually do until they are proven to be negligent. They need to make a clear statement ASAP and give an official report on this. Time is not on their side. And the true fact remains we still have no clue what happened yet.

I want to know this officers service record and this guys criminal record. What are we dealing with here? A crazed trigger happy cop? Or a cop defending himself from assault and fear for his life if he indeed reached for his gun and them charged at him. Because if it is proven he reached for his gun.

Done. Life is threatened, he was fully justified to fire and kill this young man.

But I want to know who are these dozen or so witnesses?

The body was found about 10 yards from the police car with no gunshot residue on the skin.

It wasn't 10 yards it was 30 feet (or liters, not sure which). No residue on the skin, but they haven't come out with whether there was residue on the clothing. Todem. The person who called in with that info is a friend of the cop's wife. She may be a bit biased in this - though not saying she was.

The last shot, to the crown of the head was the killing one. Was there a bullet hole in the cap lying on the ground? if not there would be gsr on the head, if shot a few feet away.

Also last I checked 3 feet=1 yard

Good point on the head shot. Hadn't thought of that. Not sure how far away you'd need to be for residue, but I'd expect there to be some on his clothing at least from the gunshot in the car. In any case, the residue shouldn't be the smoking gun here if the officer's version (though the wife's friend or the background in one of the video's holds true). If this 6'4" 290 lb (not sure what that is in liters, sorry) guy was bumrushing the cop, the cop had a reason to shoot IMO.

Sure, if he was bum rushed, but only the caller who said she was a friend of the officers wife said that he was.

There was also the person heard in the background of the video which was shot while Brown lay dead on the ground. He also said that the officer was rushed by Brown and he sounded like he was from the neighborhood.

 

[msommer]

And speaking of being silent.Anybody heard anything from Hillary on this?

She would be crazy to involve herself in this.

Yep, she needs to know what she should firmly believe first

 

[Henry Ford]

Tim the libertarian doesn't see the alarming shift in militarizing local small town police forces. What a joke.

No, that's not what I wrote. I don't see the specific connection to this situation. The question I asked was, SPECIFICALLY, how things would have been different this time around without the military hardware? But nobody has offered an answer to that. Instead, all I get are generalities about how alarming this sort of thing is and how I'm some kind of hypocrite for defending it. I haven't defended it. But what does it have to do with what happened at Ferguson?

People who are already generally suspicious of the police see them coming in armored vehicles. It looks like an occupying force. I bet if I combed through all of your posts on this site, I would find plenty of arguments you have made about the power of symbolism as it relates to controlling a population. In fact, the argument I'm making strikes me as one that you would readily make. Which causes me to question my own argument I suppose.

I bet you wouldn't. It's certainly an interesting subject, but not one that I can recall discussing.

But in any event, you're still talking in general terms, and I don't think it applies to this situation. It certainly doesn't apply to the shooting itself, IMO. And as to the police overreaction and the protestors' response after the shooting, I suspect that racial attitudes on both sides play a much larger role.

The amendments did, the actual increased voting did not. Lets take African-Americans for instance. In the early 60s, they finally made an inroads in achieving civil rights in the South. How did they do this? Not through voting, but through wielding economic power through the use of boycotts and protests. If the State of Alabama had had a vote in 1963 over whether Woolworth counters should have been desegregated, at least 80% of the population would have voted a resounding "NO!" That desegregation was not won through voting and it never could have been. It was won through an economic boycott and some powerful visual symbolism by a small minority pluralistic movement. Again, the more people that vote, the stupider our society is.

The truth is that, almost from the beginning of his life, Adolf Hitler destested all forms of religion, especially Christianity. He admired the ways the Catholic church used symbolism and ritual and imitated this in the Nazi party. But he saw his movement as opposition to the Church, and this is clear from his very early speeches. Hitler's two greatest influences on his thinking about religion in the early years were Nietzsche and Hegel, both of whom considered German culture heavily weakened by Christianity. His greatest romantic influence was Wagner, who sought to return Germany to the anti-Christian folk of the pagan gods. Hitler chose the swastika as the Nazi symbol very specifically as an alternative to the cross.

All of Hitler's speeches and vague mentionings that appear to be favorable of Christianity were nothing more than a sop to the Bavarian working class, which was strongly Catholic and which Hitler needed to soldify power in the early years. He admitted as much to his cohorts, according to direct sources (Joseph Goebbels' diary among others.) Once in power, Hitler and his pal Walter Rosenberg, a lifetime opponent of the church, immediately began persecuting ministers and priests. Their ultimate goal was a Germany without Christianity.

All of this is very well established in history, and only certain people with an axe to grind are attempting to rewrite the facts. As most people here know, I am an atheist myself, and I have no love for religion. But what I really hate is when people attempt to twist facts in order to argue their warped POV.

Maybe the word "control" is just too strong?

I've discussed symbolism a lot. But in terms of change, not in terms of "controlling a population". Neither of your examples has anything to do with that, and I can't recall ever discussing it. But as I wrote, it's certainly worth a discussion.

I'm more interested in the difference between changing behavior and controlling behavior.

 

[timschochet]

I love you so much HF.

No matter how long it takes. No matter how far. I will find tim's old posts.

And that's a hard thing to do because they're are so few of them to hunt down. You're quite impressive.

 

[msommer]

The woman called into TheBlaze TV host Dana Loesch’s radio show on Friday, claiming thatBrown “bum-rushed” Wilson moments after pushing him into his squad car, punching him in the face and trying to grab the cop’s gun.

“Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something,” the caller added. “The final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two or three feet in front of the officer.”

So how does this jive with some saying hands were in the air surrendering then he got gunned down......this is really nuts. I am leaning to the Police side of the story as I usually do until they are proven to be negligent. They need to make a clear statement ASAP and give an official report on this. Time is not on their side. And the true fact remains we still have no clue what happened yet.

I want to know this officers service record and this guys criminal record. What are we dealing with here? A crazed trigger happy cop? Or a cop defending himself from assault and fear for his life if he indeed reached for his gun and them charged at him. Because if it is proven he reached for his gun.

Done. Life is threatened, he was fully justified to fire and kill this young man.

But I want to know who are these dozen or so witnesses?

The body was found about 10 yards from the police car with no gunshot residue on the skin.

It wasn't 10 yards it was 30 feet (or liters, not sure which). No residue on the skin, but they haven't come out with whether there was residue on the clothing. Todem. The person who called in with that info is a friend of the cop's wife. She may be a bit biased in this - though not saying she was.

The last shot, to the crown of the head was the killing one. Was there a bullet hole in the cap lying on the ground? if not there would be gsr on the head, if shot a few feet away.

Also last I checked 3 feet=1 yard

Good point on the head shot. Hadn't thought of that. Not sure how far away you'd need to be for residue, but I'd expect there to be some on his clothing at least from the gunshot in the car. In any case, the residue shouldn't be the smoking gun here if the officer's version (though the wife's friend or the background in one of the video's holds true). If this 6'4" 290 lb (not sure what that is in liters, sorry) guy was bumrushing the cop, the cop had a reason to shoot IMO.

Sure, if he was bum rushed, but only the caller who said she was a friend of the officers wife said that he was.

There was also the person heard in the background of the video which was shot while Brown lay dead on the ground. He also said that the officer was rushed by Brown and he sounded like he was from the neighborhood.

Right, and has this person been identified as someone who actually was there when it happened?

 

[Henry Ford]

I love you so much HF.

No matter how long it takes. No matter how far. I will find tim's old posts.

And that's a hard thing to do because they're are so few of them to hunt down. You're quite impressive.

Power is no longer in finding information, Tim. It's now in sifting information.

 

[timschochet]

Tim the libertarian doesn't see the alarming shift in militarizing local small town police forces. What a joke.

No, that's not what I wrote. I don't see the specific connection to this situation. The question I asked was, SPECIFICALLY, how things would have been different this time around without the military hardware? But nobody has offered an answer to that. Instead, all I get are generalities about how alarming this sort of thing is and how I'm some kind of hypocrite for defending it. I haven't defended it. But what does it have to do with what happened at Ferguson?

People who are already generally suspicious of the police see them coming in armored vehicles. It looks like an occupying force. I bet if I combed through all of your posts on this site, I would find plenty of arguments you have made about the power of symbolism as it relates to controlling a population. In fact, the argument I'm making strikes me as one that you would readily make. Which causes me to question my own argument I suppose.

I bet you wouldn't. It's certainly an interesting subject, but not one that I can recall discussing.

But in any event, you're still talking in general terms, and I don't think it applies to this situation. It certainly doesn't apply to the shooting itself, IMO. And as to the police overreaction and the protestors' response after the shooting, I suspect that racial attitudes on both sides play a much larger role.

The amendments did, the actual increased voting did not. Lets take African-Americans for instance. In the early 60s, they finally made an inroads in achieving civil rights in the South. How did they do this? Not through voting, but through wielding economic power through the use of boycotts and protests. If the State of Alabama had had a vote in 1963 over whether Woolworth counters should have been desegregated, at least 80% of the population would have voted a resounding "NO!" That desegregation was not won through voting and it never could have been. It was won through an economic boycott and some powerful visual symbolism by a small minority pluralistic movement. Again, the more people that vote, the stupider our society is.

The truth is that, almost from the beginning of his life, Adolf Hitler destested all forms of religion, especially Christianity. He admired the ways the Catholic church used symbolism and ritual and imitated this in the Nazi party. But he saw his movement as opposition to the Church, and this is clear from his very early speeches. Hitler's two greatest influences on his thinking about religion in the early years were Nietzsche and Hegel, both of whom considered German culture heavily weakened by Christianity. His greatest romantic influence was Wagner, who sought to return Germany to the anti-Christian folk of the pagan gods. Hitler chose the swastika as the Nazi symbol very specifically as an alternative to the cross.

All of Hitler's speeches and vague mentionings that appear to be favorable of Christianity were nothing more than a sop to the Bavarian working class, which was strongly Catholic and which Hitler needed to soldify power in the early years. He admitted as much to his cohorts, according to direct sources (Joseph Goebbels' diary among others.) Once in power, Hitler and his pal Walter Rosenberg, a lifetime opponent of the church, immediately began persecuting ministers and priests. Their ultimate goal was a Germany without Christianity.

All of this is very well established in history, and only certain people with an axe to grind are attempting to rewrite the facts. As most people here know, I am an atheist myself, and I have no love for religion. But what I really hate is when people attempt to twist facts in order to argue their warped POV.

Maybe the word "control" is just too strong?

I've discussed symbolism a lot. But in terms of change, not in terms of "controlling a population". Neither of your examples has anything to do with that, and I can't recall ever discussing it. But as I wrote, it's certainly worth a discussion.

I'm more interested in the difference between changing behavior and controlling behavior.

The first is usually a chance result, rarely anticipated by those using the symbolism. The second implies deliberate masterminding of a situation. Night and day.

 

[Fennis]

I love you so much HF.

No matter how long it takes. No matter how far. I will find tim's old posts.

And that's a hard thing to do because they're are so few of them to hunt down. You're quite impressive.

Power is no longer in finding information, Tim. It's now in sifting information.

I hear Tim's post broke the NSA data farming efforts.

 

[timschochet]

I love you so much HF.

No matter how long it takes. No matter how far. I will find tim's old posts.

And that's a hard thing to do because they're are so few of them to hunt down. You're quite impressive.

Power is no longer in finding information, Tim. It's now in sifting information.

A good defense of the NSA?

 

[kentric]

The woman called into TheBlaze TV host Dana Loesch’s radio show on Friday, claiming thatBrown “bum-rushed” Wilson moments after pushing him into his squad car, punching him in the face and trying to grab the cop’s gun.

“Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something,” the caller added. “The final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two or three feet in front of the officer.”

So how does this jive with some saying hands were in the air surrendering then he got gunned down......this is really nuts. I am leaning to the Police side of the story as I usually do until they are proven to be negligent. They need to make a clear statement ASAP and give an official report on this. Time is not on their side. And the true fact remains we still have no clue what happened yet.

I want to know this officers service record and this guys criminal record. What are we dealing with here? A crazed trigger happy cop? Or a cop defending himself from assault and fear for his life if he indeed reached for his gun and them charged at him. Because if it is proven he reached for his gun.

Done. Life is threatened, he was fully justified to fire and kill this young man.

But I want to know who are these dozen or so witnesses?

The body was found about 10 yards from the police car with no gunshot residue on the skin.

It wasn't 10 yards it was 30 feet (or liters, not sure which). No residue on the skin, but they haven't come out with whether there was residue on the clothing. Todem. The person who called in with that info is a friend of the cop's wife. She may be a bit biased in this - though not saying she was.

The last shot, to the crown of the head was the killing one. Was there a bullet hole in the cap lying on the ground? if not there would be gsr on the head, if shot a few feet away.

Also last I checked 3 feet=1 yard

Good point on the head shot. Hadn't thought of that. Not sure how far away you'd need to be for residue, but I'd expect there to be some on his clothing at least from the gunshot in the car. In any case, the residue shouldn't be the smoking gun here if the officer's version (though the wife's friend or the background in one of the video's holds true). If this 6'4" 290 lb (not sure what that is in liters, sorry) guy was bumrushing the cop, the cop had a reason to shoot IMO.

1.93 m and 131.5 kg

You the man. Now please convert that to liters and we'll hit perfection.

 

[timschochet]

Dammit, Fennis stole my joke.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I get what you're saying, but in my mind there is a qualitative difference between an armed cop walking his neighborhood beat and a SWAT team busting in somebody's door in full special forces gear.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I think it's the indiscriminate pointing of assault rifles that does it.

You might enjoy watching the linked John Oliver take on it

I watched it. It's propaganda. I like that show, but if you're watching that show to get your news, something's wrong.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm more interested in the difference between changing behavior and controlling behavior.

The first is usually a chance result, rarely anticipated by those using the symbolism. The second implies deliberate masterminding of a situation. Night and day.

Sure was lucky for Hitler, then.

 

[matttyl]

I love you so much HF.

No matter how long it takes. No matter how far. I will find tim's old posts.

And that's a hard thing to do because they're are so few of them to hunt down. You're quite impressive.

Power is no longer in finding information, Tim. It's now in sifting information.

Is this kinda situation where the term "metadata" came from?

 

[Fennis]

The woman called into TheBlaze TV host Dana Loesch’s radio show on Friday, claiming thatBrown “bum-rushed” Wilson moments after pushing him into his squad car, punching him in the face and trying to grab the cop’s gun.

“Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something,” the caller added. “The final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two or three feet in front of the officer.”

So how does this jive with some saying hands were in the air surrendering then he got gunned down......this is really nuts. I am leaning to the Police side of the story as I usually do until they are proven to be negligent. They need to make a clear statement ASAP and give an official report on this. Time is not on their side. And the true fact remains we still have no clue what happened yet.

I want to know this officers service record and this guys criminal record. What are we dealing with here? A crazed trigger happy cop? Or a cop defending himself from assault and fear for his life if he indeed reached for his gun and them charged at him. Because if it is proven he reached for his gun.

Done. Life is threatened, he was fully justified to fire and kill this young man.

But I want to know who are these dozen or so witnesses?

The body was found about 10 yards from the police car with no gunshot residue on the skin.

It wasn't 10 yards it was 30 feet (or liters, not sure which). No residue on the skin, but they haven't come out with whether there was residue on the clothing. Todem. The person who called in with that info is a friend of the cop's wife. She may be a bit biased in this - though not saying she was.

The last shot, to the crown of the head was the killing one. Was there a bullet hole in the cap lying on the ground? if not there would be gsr on the head, if shot a few feet away.

Also last I checked 3 feet=1 yard

Good point on the head shot. Hadn't thought of that. Not sure how far away you'd need to be for residue, but I'd expect there to be some on his clothing at least from the gunshot in the car. In any case, the residue shouldn't be the smoking gun here if the officer's version (though the wife's friend or the background in one of the video's holds true). If this 6'4" 290 lb (not sure what that is in liters, sorry) guy was bumrushing the cop, the cop had a reason to shoot IMO.

1.93 m and 131.5 kg

You the man. Now please convert that to liters and we'll hit perfection.

please its... litre

 

[avoiding injuries]

I see we have reached the point of ludicrocity.

Questioning the store owner if they call 911 for a theft in their store and shoving someone as they leave? Cost of doing business?

What sensible person would do this and not expect to have the police called? The attempt of justification here is absurd.

I think the evidence shows the store owner did not call 911. I doubt that most of these minimarts call 911 every time there is shoplifting. Yes, sadly, shoplifting is a cost of doing business for almost all retail establishments. Not suggesting that anyone likes that cost, or that stores do not try to reduce or eliminate it - but the reality is that almost all retail establishments will have to write off a percentage of their inventory due to theft.

I am not sure why you think I am trying to justify here. I don't think the store owner would call 911 over a small unarmed theft - the evidence shows that in this case the owner did not call 911. I am fairly certain that the police in this case were not aware of the incident so it has no impact on the shooting - despite those that are trying to argue that Brown would be predisposed to bull rushing a cop after walking away from him because he was afraid the cop was going to bust him for misdemeanor larceny even though we know the cop could not have brought it up in the initial confrontation.

This entire issue is just a sideshow imo.

I guess our views on shoplifting differ. If he had snuck the cigars (or anything else) into his pocket and calmly left the store, I could see how that would be a cost of doing business. That's just not even close to what happened in the video. As for the store owner not calling 911...somebody did. It should be no surprise that they came out and said they weren't the ones who called (or offered the tape). If they had admitted it, their store could very well be a pile of ash right now.

 

[Fennis]

Dammit, Fennis stole my joke.

it was a pretty obvious one

 

[timschochet]

I'm more interested in the difference between changing behavior and controlling behavior.

The first is usually a chance result, rarely anticipated by those using the symbolism. The second implies deliberate masterminding of a situation. Night and day.

Sure was lucky for Hitler, then.

The Nazis did not change the behavior of the German people. They capitalized on feelings that had always been there.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I get what you're saying, but in my mind there is a qualitative difference between an armed cop walking his neighborhood beat and a SWAT team busting in somebody's door in full special forces gear.

Sure. I agree with that. But SWAT was made with that difference in mind. That's the whole purpose of SWAT.

 

[kentric]

Sure, if he was bum rushed, but only the caller who said she was a friend of the officers wife said that he was.

There was also the person heard in the background of the video which was shot while Brown lay dead on the ground. He also said that the officer was rushed by Brown and he sounded like he was from the neighborhood.

Right, and has this person been identified as someone who actually was there when it happened?

This sounded like a local man who was giving color to the event. Brown was laying dead on the ground, so it wasn't long after the event. There isn't anything to suggest (if it wasn't a doctored video) that this wasn't what this person believed. And it was right after the event, not 1-6 days later like some of these other witnesses.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm more interested in the difference between changing behavior and controlling behavior.

The first is usually a chance result, rarely anticipated by those using the symbolism. The second implies deliberate masterminding of a situation. Night and day.

Sure was lucky for Hitler, then.

The Nazis did not change the behavior of the German people. They capitalized on feelings that had always been there.

I think we can end the conversation with this. If you ever feel like reversing this ridiculous position, let me know.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I get what you're saying, but in my mind there is a qualitative difference between an armed cop walking his neighborhood beat and a SWAT team busting in somebody's door in full special forces gear.

Sure. I agree with that. But SWAT was made with that difference in mind. That's the whole purpose of SWAT.

Well, then replace "militarized police" with "SWAT-ified police." My sense is that that's what people are really getting at with this. More and more it seems that police departments are going full-on SWAT as the first option rather than the final option. That's definitely what we've seen in Ferguson (e.g. firing tear gas at reporters and peaceful protestors).

 

[Sinn Fein]

There was also the person heard in the background of the video which was shot while Brown lay dead on the ground. He also said that the officer was rushed by Brown and he sounded like he was from the neighborhood.

 

[mr roboto]

 

[kentric]

The woman called into TheBlaze TV host Dana Loesch’s radio show on Friday, claiming thatBrown “bum-rushed” Wilson moments after pushing him into his squad car, punching him in the face and trying to grab the cop’s gun.

“Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something,” the caller added. “The final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two or three feet in front of the officer.”

So how does this jive with some saying hands were in the air surrendering then he got gunned down......this is really nuts. I am leaning to the Police side of the story as I usually do until they are proven to be negligent. They need to make a clear statement ASAP and give an official report on this. Time is not on their side. And the true fact remains we still have no clue what happened yet.

I want to know this officers service record and this guys criminal record. What are we dealing with here? A crazed trigger happy cop? Or a cop defending himself from assault and fear for his life if he indeed reached for his gun and them charged at him. Because if it is proven he reached for his gun.

Done. Life is threatened, he was fully justified to fire and kill this young man.

But I want to know who are these dozen or so witnesses?

The body was found about 10 yards from the police car with no gunshot residue on the skin.

It wasn't 10 yards it was 30 feet (or liters, not sure which). No residue on the skin, but they haven't come out with whether there was residue on the clothing. Todem. The person who called in with that info is a friend of the cop's wife. She may be a bit biased in this - though not saying she was.

The last shot, to the crown of the head was the killing one. Was there a bullet hole in the cap lying on the ground? if not there would be gsr on the head, if shot a few feet away.

Also last I checked 3 feet=1 yard

Good point on the head shot. Hadn't thought of that. Not sure how far away you'd need to be for residue, but I'd expect there to be some on his clothing at least from the gunshot in the car. In any case, the residue shouldn't be the smoking gun here if the officer's version (though the wife's friend or the background in one of the video's holds true). If this 6'4" 290 lb (not sure what that is in liters, sorry) guy was bumrushing the cop, the cop had a reason to shoot IMO.

1.93 m and 131.5 kg

You the man. Now please convert that to liters and we'll hit perfection.

please its... litre

I'm American damnit. I can call it whatever I want.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm more interested in the difference between changing behavior and controlling behavior.

The first is usually a chance result, rarely anticipated by those using the symbolism. The second implies deliberate masterminding of a situation. Night and day.

Sure was lucky for Hitler, then.

The Nazis did not change the behavior of the German people. They capitalized on feelings that had always been there.

I think we can end the conversation with this. If you ever feel like reversing this ridiculous position, let me know.

Tim has a reasonable point here. Hitler didn't create anti-Semitism, militarism, and nationalism out of thin air. That stuff all pre-dated him.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm more interested in the difference between changing behavior and controlling behavior.

The first is usually a chance result, rarely anticipated by those using the symbolism. The second implies deliberate masterminding of a situation. Night and day.

Sure was lucky for Hitler, then.

The Nazis did not change the behavior of the German people. They capitalized on feelings that had always been there.

I think we can end the conversation with this. If you ever feel like reversing this ridiculous position, let me know.

Tim has a reasonable point here. Hitler didn't create anti-Semitism, militarism, and nationalism out of thin air. That stuff all pre-dated him.

Feelings vs. behavior.

Is your actual position that the German people behaved the same way before and after Hitler took power?

 

[sublimeone]

I see we have reached the point of ludicrocity.

Questioning the store owner if they call 911 for a theft in their store and shoving someone as they leave? Cost of doing business?

What sensible person would do this and not expect to have the police called? The attempt of justification here is absurd.

I think the evidence shows the store owner did not call 911. I doubt that most of these minimarts call 911 every time there is shoplifting. Yes, sadly, shoplifting is a cost of doing business for almost all retail establishments. Not suggesting that anyone likes that cost, or that stores do not try to reduce or eliminate it - but the reality is that almost all retail establishments will have to write off a percentage of their inventory due to theft.

I am not sure why you think I am trying to justify here. I don't think the store owner would call 911 over a small unarmed theft - the evidence shows that in this case the owner did not call 911. I am fairly certain that the police in this case were not aware of the incident so it has no impact on the shooting - despite those that are trying to argue that Brown would be predisposed to bull rushing a cop after walking away from him because he was afraid the cop was going to bust him for misdemeanor larceny even though we know the cop could not have brought it up in the initial confrontation.

This entire issue is just a sideshow imo.

I guess our views on shoplifting differ. If he had snuck the cigars (or anything else) into his pocket and calmly left the store, I could see how that would be a cost of doing business. That's just not even close to what happened in the video.As for the store owner not calling 911...somebody did. It should be no surprise that they came out and said they weren't the ones who called (or offered the tape). If they had admitted it, their store could very well be a pile of ash right now.

That's sad. A guy calls the police because he just got robbed and now he has to back his way out of it for fear of mob retaliation. This should tell you all you need to know about the "protestors."

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I get what you're saying, but in my mind there is a qualitative difference between an armed cop walking his neighborhood beat and a SWAT team busting in somebody's door in full special forces gear.

Sure. I agree with that. But SWAT was made with that difference in mind. That's the whole purpose of SWAT.

Well, then replace "militarized police" with "SWAT-ified police." My sense is that that's what people are really getting at with this. More and more it seems that police departments are going full-on SWAT as the first option rather than the final option. That's definitely what we've seen in Ferguson (e.g. firing tear gas at reporters and peaceful protestors).

I'm definitely not defending Ferguson PD. Although, to be fair, I'm not condemning them yet, either. I just don't know enough about it all to say one way. But my issue, much like the whole "tank" thing is that when people use the word "militarized", they do it to get a negative reaction. For some reason, that sounds so horrible. A police force that acts like a military? How disgusting. But in reality, a police force is pretty much already an army. They are armed citizens, patrolling the neighborhood trying to keep the peace. They carry weapons. They wear body armor. They drive special vehicles. They are in the line of fire. Yet by simply throwing that work "militarized" in there, that normal cop takes on a negative connotation.

 

[mr roboto]

IS I mean no negative connotation when I use the term. It's literally, actually the military giving their technology and funding to local police to fight a War (the one on terror). That's the actual justification for these forces getting toys that are usually used for fighting wars. Cause DoD and other agencies are now calling the first responders our first line of defense.

Defense. War. These are military terms. The role of the police has become more like that of a military.

 

[msommer]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I think it's the indiscriminate pointing of assault rifles that does it.

You might enjoy watching the linked John Oliver take on it

I watched it. It's propaganda. I like that show, but if you're watching that show to get your news, something's wrong.

So you're cool with (documented) indiscriminate pointing of assault rifles. Gotcha

 

[timschochet]

I'm more interested in the difference between changing behavior and controlling behavior.

The first is usually a chance result, rarely anticipated by those using the symbolism. The second implies deliberate masterminding of a situation. Night and day.

Sure was lucky for Hitler, then.

The Nazis did not change the behavior of the German people. They capitalized on feelings that had always been there.

I think we can end the conversation with this. If you ever feel like reversing this ridiculous position, let me know.

Tim has a reasonable point here. Hitler didn't create anti-Semitism, militarism, and nationalism out of thin air. That stuff all pre-dated him.

Feelings vs. behavior.

Is your actual position that the German people behaved the same way before and after Hitler took power?

But again- (and this will be my last post on it because I don't want to hijack the thread)- the symbolism that the Nazis used- all the candlelight marches designed by Goebbels, as seen in the film Triumph of the Will, etc.- played into emotions that the German people already had. It didn't change their feelings or opinions. Populism never does, it takes advantage of emotions that already exist, and Hitler was the greatest populist of all time. If you want to argue that some behavior was changed as a result of the Nazi party, that's a different story, but not from symbolism.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I get what you're saying, but in my mind there is a qualitative difference between an armed cop walking his neighborhood beat and a SWAT team busting in somebody's door in full special forces gear.

Sure. I agree with that. But SWAT was made with that difference in mind. That's the whole purpose of SWAT.

Well, then replace "militarized police" with "SWAT-ified police." My sense is that that's what people are really getting at with this. More and more it seems that police departments are going full-on SWAT as the first option rather than the final option. That's definitely what we've seen in Ferguson (e.g. firing tear gas at reporters and peaceful protestors).

I'm definitely not defending Ferguson PD. Although, to be fair, I'm not condemning them yet, either. I just don't know enough about it all to say one way. But my issue, much like the whole "tank" thing is that when people use the word "militarized", they do it to get a negative reaction. For some reason, that sounds so horrible. A police force that acts like a military? How disgusting. But in reality, a police force is pretty much already an army. They are armed citizens, patrolling the neighborhood trying to keep the peace. They carry weapons. They wear body armor. They drive special vehicles. They are in the line of fire. Yet by simply throwing that work "militarized" in there, that normal cop takes on a negative connotation.

When the police "militarize" they are changing the tone from serving the public to controlling it through intimidation and force. That's the reason for the negative connotation. For example, consider the use of camo. Why use it? They're obviously not concealing themselves, nor should they be. The obvious goal is to intimidate the population by associating your presence with a military one.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

TIME FOR OUTRAGE AND RIOTS IN UTAH!

Cops gun down headphones-wearing Utah man because he wouldnt comply with orders

http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-08-15-cops-gun-down-headphones-wearing-utah-man-because-he-wouldnt-comply-with-orders#1

GENOCIDE!

MSNBC Guest: There’s a U.S. ‘War on Black Boys,’ Could Turn ‘Genocide’ if We Don’t Stop ItOn Hardball Monday, MSNBC contributor Michelle Bernard said the U.S. is on the verge of experiencing a “genocide” of young black men.

Bernard was on the program with the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson to discuss the ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Mo., following the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Bernard, who is black, said her 11-year-old son had asked her recently if someone was going to shoot him, as was the case with Brown.

“I don’t have an answer that is palatable to be able to look my children in the face and say there are people in this country who– not only do not like African-Americans, but they despise black men,” Bernard said. “There is a war on black boys in this country. In my opinion, there is a war on African-American men.”

Host Chris Matthews wrapped up the segment, saying he wished that other Americans would listen to Bernard and Robinson, who had said both racial and economic elements are at play in the Ferguson turmoil.

“I hope so,” Bernard said, “because this is, it’s going to turn into a genocide if it doesn’t stop.”

 

[msommer]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I get what you're saying, but in my mind there is a qualitative difference between an armed cop walking his neighborhood beat and a SWAT team busting in somebody's door in full special forces gear.

Sure. I agree with that. But SWAT was made with that difference in mind. That's the whole purpose of SWAT.

Well, then replace "militarized police" with "SWAT-ified police." My sense is that that's what people are really getting at with this. More and more it seems that police departments are going full-on SWAT as the first option rather than the final option. That's definitely what we've seen in Ferguson (e.g. firing tear gas at reporters and peaceful protestors).

I'm definitely not defending Ferguson PD. Although, to be fair, I'm not condemning them yet, either. I just don't know enough about it all to say one way. But my issue, much like the whole "tank" thing is that when people use the word "militarized", they do it to get a negative reaction. For some reason, that sounds so horrible. A police force that acts like a military? How disgusting. But in reality, a police force is pretty much already an army. They are armed citizens, patrolling the neighborhood trying to keep the peace. They carry weapons. They wear body armor. They drive special vehicles. They are in the line of fire. Yet by simply throwing that work "militarized" in there, that normal cop takes on a negative connotation.

The hardware used by military is selected for completely different tactical goals than policework

 

[Slapdash]

Tim the libertarian doesn't see the alarming shift in militarizing local small town police forces. What a joke.

No, that's not what I wrote. I don't see the specific connection to this situation. The question I asked was, SPECIFICALLY, how things would have been different this time around without the military hardware? But nobody has offered an answer to that. Instead, all I get are generalities about how alarming this sort of thing is and how I'm some kind of hypocrite for defending it. I haven't defended it. But what does it have to do with what happened at Ferguson?

People who are already generally suspicious of the police see them coming in armored vehicles. It looks like an occupying force. I bet if I combed through all of your posts on this site, I would find plenty of arguments you have made about the power of symbolism as it relates to controlling a population. In fact, the argument I'm making strikes me as one that you would readily make. Which causes me to question my own argument I suppose.

I bet you wouldn't. It's certainly an interesting subject, but not one that I can recall discussing.

But in any event, you're still talking in general terms, and I don't think it applies to this situation. It certainly doesn't apply to the shooting itself, IMO. And as to the police overreaction and the protestors' response after the shooting, I suspect that racial attitudes on both sides play a much larger role.

The amendments did, the actual increased voting did not. Lets take African-Americans for instance. In the early 60s, they finally made an inroads in achieving civil rights in the South. How did they do this? Not through voting, but through wielding economic power through the use of boycotts and protests. If the State of Alabama had had a vote in 1963 over whether Woolworth counters should have been desegregated, at least 80% of the population would have voted a resounding "NO!" That desegregation was not won through voting and it never could have been. It was won through an economic boycott and some powerful visual symbolism by a small minority pluralistic movement. Again, the more people that vote, the stupider our society is.

The truth is that, almost from the beginning of his life, Adolf Hitler destested all forms of religion, especially Christianity. He admired the ways the Catholic church used symbolism and ritual and imitated this in the Nazi party. But he saw his movement as opposition to the Church, and this is clear from his very early speeches. Hitler's two greatest influences on his thinking about religion in the early years were Nietzsche and Hegel, both of whom considered German culture heavily weakened by Christianity. His greatest romantic influence was Wagner, who sought to return Germany to the anti-Christian folk of the pagan gods. Hitler chose the swastika as the Nazi symbol very specifically as an alternative to the cross.

All of Hitler's speeches and vague mentionings that appear to be favorable of Christianity were nothing more than a sop to the Bavarian working class, which was strongly Catholic and which Hitler needed to soldify power in the early years. He admitted as much to his cohorts, according to direct sources (Joseph Goebbels' diary among others.) Once in power, Hitler and his pal Walter Rosenberg, a lifetime opponent of the church, immediately began persecuting ministers and priests. Their ultimate goal was a Germany without Christianity.

All of this is very well established in history, and only certain people with an axe to grind are attempting to rewrite the facts. As most people here know, I am an atheist myself, and I have no love for religion. But what I really hate is when people attempt to twist facts in order to argue their warped POV.

Maybe the word "control" is just too strong?

I've discussed symbolism a lot. But in terms of change, not in terms of "controlling a population". Neither of your examples has anything to do with that, and I can't recall ever discussing it. But as I wrote, it's certainly worth a discussion.

Shut the #### up, troll

 

[jamny]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I get what you're saying, but in my mind there is a qualitative difference between an armed cop walking his neighborhood beat and a SWAT team busting in somebody's door in full special forces gear.

Sure. I agree with that. But SWAT was made with that difference in mind. That's the whole purpose of SWAT.

Well, then replace "militarized police" with "SWAT-ified police." My sense is that that's what people are really getting at with this. More and more it seems that police departments are going full-on SWAT as the first option rather than the final option. That's definitely what we've seen in Ferguson (e.g. firing tear gas at reporters and peaceful protestors).

I'm definitely not defending Ferguson PD. Although, to be fair, I'm not condemning them yet, either. I just don't know enough about it all to say one way. But my issue, much like the whole "tank" thing is that when people use the word "militarized", they do it to get a negative reaction. For some reason, that sounds so horrible. A police force that acts like a military? How disgusting. But in reality, a police force is pretty much already an army. They are armed citizens, patrolling the neighborhood trying to keep the peace. They carry weapons. They wear body armor. They drive special vehicles. They are in the line of fire. Yet by simply throwing that work "militarized" in there, that normal cop takes on a negative connotation.

Cops are supposed to be with the people, part of the neighborhood, just like you and me. It's not supposed to be us vs. them.

 

[Greggity]

TIME FOR OUTRAGE AND RIOTS IN UTAH!

Cops gun down headphones-wearing Utah man because he wouldnt comply with orders

http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-08-15-cops-gun-down-headphones-wearing-utah-man-because-he-wouldnt-comply-with-orders#1

GENOCIDE!

MSNBC Guest: There’s a U.S. ‘War on Black Boys,’ Could Turn ‘Genocide’ if We Don’t Stop ItOn Hardball Monday, MSNBC contributor Michelle Bernard said the U.S. is on the verge of experiencing a “genocide” of young black men.

Bernard was on the program with the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson to discuss the ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Mo., following the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Bernard, who is black, said her 11-year-old son had asked her recently if someone was going to shoot him, as was the case with Brown.

“I don’t have an answer that is palatable to be able to look my children in the face and say there are people in this country who– not only do not like African-Americans, but they despise black men,” Bernard said. “There is a war on black boys in this country. In my opinion, there is a war on African-American men.”

Host Chris Matthews wrapped up the segment, saying he wished that other Americans would listen to Bernard and Robinson, who had said both racial and economic elements are at play in the Ferguson turmoil.

“I hope so,” Bernard said, “because this is, it’s going to turn into a genocide if it doesn’t stop.”

LOL too funny! Love me some guilt riddled Chris Mathews

 

[TheIronSheik]

IS I mean no negative connotation when I use the term. It's literally, actually the military giving their technology and funding to local police to fight a War (the one on terror). That's the actual justification for these forces getting toys that are usually used for fighting wars. Cause DoD and other agencies are now calling the first responders our first line of defense.

Defense. War. These are military terms. The role of the police has become more like that of a military.

I don't believe that one bit. The role of the police has not changed.

The main reason the police buy these things is because the army no longer needs them and the police departments can get equipment on the cheap.

When PD's are done with cruisers, they sell them to the public for cheap. Are we turning the citizens into a police force?

 

[jonessed]

TIME FOR OUTRAGE AND RIOTS IN UTAH!

Cops gun down headphones-wearing Utah man because he wouldnt comply with orders

http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-08-15-cops-gun-down-headphones-wearing-utah-man-because-he-wouldnt-comply-with-orders#1

GENOCIDE!

MSNBC Guest: Theres a U.S. War on Black Boys, Could Turn Genocide if We Dont Stop It

On Hardball Monday, MSNBC contributor Michelle Bernard said the U.S. is on the verge of experiencing a genocide of young black men.

Bernard was on the program with the Washington Posts Eugene Robinson to discuss the ongoing unrest in Ferguson, Mo., following the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Bernard, who is black, said her 11-year-old son had asked her recently if someone was going to shoot him, as was the case with Brown.

I dont have an answer that is palatable to be able to look my children in the face and say there are people in this country who not only do not like African-Americans, but they despise black men, Bernard said. There is a war on black boys in this country. In my opinion, there is a war on African-American men.

Host Chris Matthews wrapped up the segment, saying he wished that other Americans would listen to Bernard and Robinson, who had said both racial and economic elements are at play in the Ferguson turmoil.

I hope so, Bernard said, because this is, its going to turn into a genocide if it doesnt stop.

What would you call self-inflicted genocide anyway?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I still think it's humorous that people throw the phrase "militarized police" around like it means something. A cop with a gun and a bullet proof vest is cool. But put him in camo and give him an armored vehicle and everyone loses their ####.

I get what you're saying, but in my mind there is a qualitative difference between an armed cop walking his neighborhood beat and a SWAT team busting in somebody's door in full special forces gear.

Sure. I agree with that. But SWAT was made with that difference in mind. That's the whole purpose of SWAT.

Well, then replace "militarized police" with "SWAT-ified police." My sense is that that's what people are really getting at with this. More and more it seems that police departments are going full-on SWAT as the first option rather than the final option. That's definitely what we've seen in Ferguson (e.g. firing tear gas at reporters and peaceful protestors).

I'm definitely not defending Ferguson PD. Although, to be fair, I'm not condemning them yet, either. I just don't know enough about it all to say one way. But my issue, much like the whole "tank" thing is that when people use the word "militarized", they do it to get a negative reaction. For some reason, that sounds so horrible. A police force that acts like a military? How disgusting. But in reality, a police force is pretty much already an army. They are armed citizens, patrolling the neighborhood trying to keep the peace. They carry weapons. They wear body armor. They drive special vehicles. They are in the line of fire. Yet by simply throwing that work "militarized" in there, that normal cop takes on a negative connotation.

When the police "militarize" they are changing the tone from serving the public to controlling it through intimidation and force. That's the reason for the negative connotation. For example, consider the use of camo. Why use it? They're obviously not concealing themselves, nor should they be. The obvious goal is to intimidate the population by associating your presence with a military one.

OK.