Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)

[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.

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.

I agree.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

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

Fourteen minutes.

 

[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.

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

Which do you think is cheaper: Designing a piece of equipment for use by a local PD or buying a used piece of equipment that is cheap and fits some of your requirements?

 

[lod01]

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

I don't see why it wouldn't be admissible. You simply use it to show this guy's state of mind (pushes store owner in an act of defiance) and that he had that same mannerism when confronted by the police officer. You don't even need to bring the actual robbery into it.

 

[Slapdash]

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?

 

[Fennis]

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?

Before they sell them, they remove the police markings, sirens, lights, gun racks, rear cages, and anything else that makes them police vehicles. If they didn't it would be an inappropriate vehicle for citizens to own.

 

[Henry Ford]

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

I don't see why it wouldn't be admissible. You simply use it to show this guy's state of mind (pushes store owner in an act of defiance) and that he had that same mannerism when confronted by the police officer. You don't even need to bring the actual robbery into it.

Evidence of prior bad acts to show conformity therewith is inadmissible.

Might be admissible to show why he would have run from the police, but probably too prejudicial. They'll probably enter a stipulation that he had done whatever they can agree on him doing in that store.

 

[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.

OK.

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

 

[timschochet]

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.

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

Fourteen minutes.

i meant in terms of symbolism. That was the context of our discussion.

 

[cosjobs]

I already said that my wife is a rural carrier. I have an interest in what happens, especially when it comes to union contracts. If you would have dug a little deeper, you would have found a post of mine on that website that states my wife works for the Post Office. Not very good police work there Columbo.

As far as chasing people, you should do some more research. I would love to find a way to make a bet. If you had any money, I'd take everything you have. Not only did we apprehend shoplifters, but we also used handcuffs on shoplifters at JCPenney's. I'm sure you'll call that BS too. I also know people at other retail stores here in town and they are still making apprehensions. Some places have made a change to diversion, but not all.

You should probably quit while you're behind.

My wife worked in LP at both Target and BB. They were strictly forbidden to try and apprehend a shoplifter. They were allowed to approach them, and ask them, but not physically apprehend them. This goes back to the 90's. Not sure when you worked in LP, but PitBull is spot on with what he said.

I already agreed that Target no longer apprehends shoplifters. They changed their rules sometime in the mid-90's after I left. BB puts their LP at the front desk, they are more of a door greeter than loss prevention. I know there are stores that don't chase or physically apprehend shoplifters any longer. But there are stores that still do. Usually the policy and procedures state they can pursue if the suspect can be apprehended in a quick and safe manner, and within a reasonable distance. If retail stores no longer apprehend shoplifters, then how are people being charged with shoplifting?

Earlier you made a couple of decent posts, but this is out of line. You are always free to disagree here, but personal attacks like that are across the line.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the 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 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

Which do you think is cheaper: Designing a piece of equipment for use by a local PD or buying a used piece of equipment that is cheap and fits some of your requirements?

Which is why you have MRAPs on streets with no IEDs.

Why do you think an MRAP is needed now and wasn't before, in Ferguson or Doraville?

 

[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.

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

I didn't reply because it's pretty evident your mind is made up that the police in this country are out to kill citizens. Or at least that's what they want them to believe by intimidation. I have no interest in trying to persuade you from that.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

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

Fourteen minutes.

i meant in terms of symbolism. That was the context of our discussion.

There was no "our" discussion. I was discussing behavior, and you were discussing feelings.

 

[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.

Shut the #### up, troll

Don't think I've ever written this, or anything like it, to anyone else here. That's because there's a very explicit rule in this forum about trying to be excellent to one another.

 

[lod01]

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."

Exactly. I posted this same response yesterday. What kind of place is it where you are afraid to report a robbery?

 

[msommer]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

It is also pointless in an urban environment

 

[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.

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?

You are smarter than this. You don't 'think ' it has, but listen to the rhetoric since 9/11. I'm not 'feeling' like their roles have changed. They actually have. Sorry.

 

[timschochet]

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.

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

Fourteen minutes.

i meant in terms of symbolism. That was the context of our discussion.

There was no "our" discussion. I was discussing behavior, and you were discussing feelings.

Well that's what I meant. If it came out wrong I'm sorry.

 

[TheIronSheik]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

Should they wear suit and ties? Just wondering. I realize that camo scares the hell out of you guys.

Why didn't they special order new gear that was made just for them? Police departments have so much extra money, I don't get why they would just use what's available. Probably trying to kill some minorities through intimidation.

 

[Jim11]

Has anybody mentioned our President is black and he was voted into office twice, by the majority of our nation, and that maybe America/Americans are not quite as racist as some would suggest.

No, primarily because less than 60% of the eligible voters voted in the election, and just over half of those voted for Obama. Math suggests he was elected by about 20% of the U.S. population.

If the other 40% of eligible voters were racist they would have made damn sure they got out to vote...

Yeah, I don't see why the need to discount this. I don't think Europe has elected a black leader in any country.

I think it's a great leap forward for race relations in this country. I also think it's false to say that he was voted into office twice by the majority of our nation.

He was[/] voted into office twice by the majority of our nation. The majority of our nation didn't vote for him though. The majority rarely votes for any president. The last one I could think of would possibly be FDR.

No, he was voted into office twice by 125 million people out of 310 million people, over half of that 125 voting for him.

You left out the part where many of those 310 million weren't old enough to vote.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

It is also pointless in an urban environment

Other than as identifying clothing for tactical personnel. They need clothes that move, breathe, and carry like military uniforms and are instantly identifiable as "us" rather than "them." If it costs $50 to outfit someone through military surplus and $200 to order uniforms in blue in those specs from a private distributor, which one should the local police buy?

 

[Sinn Fein]

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

I don't see why it wouldn't be admissible. You simply use it to show this guy's state of mind (pushes store owner in an act of defiance) and that he had that same mannerism when confronted by the police officer. You don't even need to bring the actual robbery into it.

Evidence of prior bad acts to show conformity therewith is inadmissible.

Might be admissible to show why he would have run from the police, but probably too prejudicial. They'll probably enter a stipulation that he had done whatever they can agree on him doing in that store.

To be fair, Brown won't be on trial, or a witness, here, which is when these issues typically arise.

I imagine the defense for the police officer will be that he was aware of the robbery, and that the suspect matched Brown's description, which is why he confronted him with weapon drawn, and knew Brown to be dangerous.

If the call did not go out until after the shooting - then I agree, it will have no probative value at court. The only issue will be what the officer thought at the time.

 

[Jim11]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

Should they wear suit and ties? Just wondering. I realize that camo scares the hell out of you guys.

Why didn't they special order new gear that was made just for them? Police departments have so much extra money, I don't get why they would just use what's available. Probably trying to kill some minorities through intimidation.

Kill through intimidation...too funny.

 

[msommer]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

Should they wear suit and ties? Just wondering. I realize that camo scares the hell out of you guys.

Why didn't they special order new gear that was made just for them? Police departments have so much extra money, I don't get why they would just use what's available. Probably trying to kill some minorities through intimidation.

Some, like Ferguson, MO, has so much money they can buy body cameras they will never use..

 

[Bucky86]

Those cops are probably so excited to be breaking in all that gear. WE GET TO GO TO WAR!!!!!!!! OOOOOOOHHHHRRRRAAAAAH

 

[Henry Ford]

Has anybody mentioned our President is black and he was voted into office twice, by the majority of our nation, and that maybe America/Americans are not quite as racist as some would suggest.

No, primarily because less than 60% of the eligible voters voted in the election, and just over half of those voted for Obama. Math suggests he was elected by about 20% of the U.S. population.

If the other 40% of eligible voters were racist they would have made damn sure they got out to vote...

Yeah, I don't see why the need to discount this. I don't think Europe has elected a black leader in any country.

I think it's a great leap forward for race relations in this country. I also think it's false to say that he was voted into office twice by the majority of our nation.

He was[/] voted into office twice by the majority of our nation. The majority of our nation didn't vote for him though. The majority rarely votes for any president. The last one I could think of would possibly be FDR.

No, he was voted into office twice by 125 million people out of 310 million people, over half of that 125 voting for him.

You left out the part where many of those 310 million weren't old enough to vote.

No I didn't. They're still part of the nation, and didn't elect him. I also left out that many of those 310 million are adults who aren't eligible to vote. They're still part of the nation (and some of them might be a touch racist.)

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

 

[msommer]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

It is also pointless in an urban environment

Other than as identifying clothing for tactical personnel. They need clothes that move, breathe, and carry like military uniforms and are instantly identifiable as "us" rather than "them." If it costs $50 to outfit someone through military surplus and $200 to order uniforms in blue in those specs from a private distributor, which one should the local police buy?

Don't care.

Just pointing out that the camo theme is pointless.

If they are short of money, how about buying less assault rifles or MRAPs or body cameras that are not used?

 

[Sinn Fein]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

It is also pointless in an urban environment

Other than as identifying clothing for tactical personnel. They need clothes that move, breathe, and carry like military uniforms and are instantly identifiable as "us" rather than "them." If it costs $50 to outfit someone through military surplus and $200 to order uniforms in blue in those specs from a private distributor, which one should the local police buy?

Don't care.

Just pointing out that the camo theme is pointless.

If they are short of money, how about buying less assault rifles or MRAPs or body cameras that are not used?

But then the terrorists win

 

[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.

OK.

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

I didn't reply because it's pretty evident your mind is made up that the police in this country are out to kill citizens. Or at least that's what they want them to believe by intimidation. I have no interest in trying to persuade you from that.

Jesus, this is awful. And BTW you did reply.

Equating someone thinking that "the police are sometimes out to intimidate citizens" with "the police are out to kill citizens" is unfair and moronic.

I think you and I are done here. Good luck figuring out that whole "not replying to me" thing this time- I know you had trouble with it last time, but I have faith you can do it!

 

[Jim11]

Has anybody mentioned our President is black and he was voted into office twice, by the majority of our nation, and that maybe America/Americans are not quite as racist as some would suggest.

No, primarily because less than 60% of the eligible voters voted in the election, and just over half of those voted for Obama. Math suggests he was elected by about 20% of the U.S. population.

If the other 40% of eligible voters were racist they would have made damn sure they got out to vote...

Yeah, I don't see why the need to discount this. I don't think Europe has elected a black leader in any country.

I think it's a great leap forward for race relations in this country. I also think it's false to say that he was voted into office twice by the majority of our nation.

He was[/] voted into office twice by the majority of our nation. The majority of our nation didn't vote for him though. The majority rarely votes for any president. The last one I could think of would possibly be FDR.

No, he was voted into office twice by 125 million people out of 310 million people, over half of that 125 voting for him.

You left out the part where many of those 310 million weren't old enough to vote.

No I didn't. They're still part of the nation, and didn't elect him. I also left out that many of those 310 million are adults who aren't eligible to vote. They're still part of the nation (and some of them might be a touch racist.)

Yes you did. You gave the number of people in the country, as opposed to the number of eligible voters, to make it seem like a lesser percentage of people voted for him than actually did.

He could not have been elected without a significant number of "white people" voting for him.

 

[johnnycakes]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

Well, I had suggested using the Israeli crap cannon, but i don't think anyone took me seriously with that.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

It is also pointless in an urban environment

Other than as identifying clothing for tactical personnel. They need clothes that move, breathe, and carry like military uniforms and are instantly identifiable as "us" rather than "them." If it costs $50 to outfit someone through military surplus and $200 to order uniforms in blue in those specs from a private distributor, which one should the local police buy?

Don't care.

Just pointing out that the camo theme is pointless.

If they are short of money, how about buying less assault rifles or MRAPs or body cameras that are not used?

And I'm pointing out that it is an identifying clothing type. There is a very low chance that anyone else they encounter will be wearing the same thing. That's a benefit.

 

[TobiasFunke]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

It is also pointless in an urban environment

Other than as identifying clothing for tactical personnel. They need clothes that move, breathe, and carry like military uniforms and are instantly identifiable as "us" rather than "them." If it costs $50 to outfit someone through military surplus and $200 to order uniforms in blue in those specs from a private distributor, which one should the local police buy?

Why?

 

[msommer]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

Thanks for missing my point/ As mentioned I have no problem with using tear gas or water cannons to break up rioting.

I do have a problem with police in armored vehicles and using assault rifles.

It's not as if there hasn't been riots handled by water cannons and tear gas. No need to escalate from there.

 

[Henry Ford]

Has anybody mentioned our President is black and he was voted into office twice, by the majority of our nation, and that maybe America/Americans are not quite as racist as some would suggest.

No, primarily because less than 60% of the eligible voters voted in the election, and just over half of those voted for Obama. Math suggests he was elected by about 20% of the U.S. population.

If the other 40% of eligible voters were racist they would have made damn sure they got out to vote...

Yeah, I don't see why the need to discount this. I don't think Europe has elected a black leader in any country.

I think it's a great leap forward for race relations in this country. I also think it's false to say that he was voted into office twice by the majority of our nation.

He was[/] voted into office twice by the majority of our nation. The majority of our nation didn't vote for him though. The majority rarely votes for any president. The last one I could think of would possibly be FDR.

No, he was voted into office twice by 125 million people out of 310 million people, over half of that 125 voting for him.

You left out the part where many of those 310 million weren't old enough to vote.

No I didn't. They're still part of the nation, and didn't elect him. I also left out that many of those 310 million are adults who aren't eligible to vote. They're still part of the nation (and some of them might be a touch racist.)

Yes you did. You gave the number of people in the country, as opposed to the number of eligible voters, to make it seem like a lesser percentage of people voted for him than actually did.

He could not have been elected without a significant number of "white people" voting for him.

I've never said otherwise. I said that the statement I replied to is inaccurate. Which is true. And it's hard to say I misrepresented the percentage of people who voted for him when I actually included those percentages in my original post.

 

[Henry Ford]

OK, then why do you think these guys are wearing camo if not to intimidate? You think there's a green gas station around the corner they want to blend into? And even if so, who are they hiding from?

BTW, the Peens-esque reply is not a good look.

It's cheap tactical clothing - they can get it surplus from the military.

It is also pointless in an urban environment

Other than as identifying clothing for tactical personnel. They need clothes that move, breathe, and carry like military uniforms and are instantly identifiable as "us" rather than "them." If it costs $50 to outfit someone through military surplus and $200 to order uniforms in blue in those specs from a private distributor, which one should the local police buy?

Why?

I don't mean to say definitively that they need it for this situation, I'm just saying that there are situations where that's necessary.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

Thanks for missing my point/ As mentioned I have no problem with using tear gas or water cannons to break up rioting.

I do have a problem with police in armored vehicles and using assault rifles.

It's not as if there hasn't been riots handled by water cannons and tear gas. No need to escalate from there.

So when the criminals (and I'm talking in general terms) start shooting at the police with assault weapons, what would you like to see the police return fire with.....and this has happened in the past.

 

[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

Don't think I've ever written this, or anything like it, to anyone else here. That's because there's a very explicit rule in this forum about trying to be excellent to one another.

Amount of ####s given: zero

 

[Doug B]

The mentality of the looters:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/19/Looter-I-m-Proud-of-Us-We-Deserve-This?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

According to the Washington Post, a looter in Ferguson, Missouri, expressed pride and admiration for looters and said their actions are justified.

"I'm proud of us. We deserve this, and this is what's supposed to happen when there's injustice in your community," said DeAndre Smith, whom the Washington Post says was "fresh from looting the QuikTrip."

You're bat#### crazy, and the site you linked to seems right on par with your antics, but if that's an actual quote or if there's a shred of truth to that story, it is as pathetic as it gets. "We deserve this..." (WTF ???) "This is not the time for no peace. We are jobless men, and this is our job now--getting justice," the Chicago militant told the Post. "If that means violence, that's okay by me. They've been doing this to us for years."

This is a great example of what I waq getting at a few pages back. Jim11 looks at Breitbart, and info there fits his internal version of reality and so is accepted uncritically. Dondante looks at the same info and jumps straight to "that schmidt is facbricated BS -- no way someone actually said that." -- and to Dondante, his take is blindingly obvious.

So ... where's "the truth"?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

What I'm getting out of this thread now is: that the rioting and looting are a response to the military tactics the police are using and not the possibly unnecessary killing of an 18 year old boy.....What I also am getting is that in a time when the criminal is getting more violent and brazen, we would like to see our police become more compassionate and understanding, and maybe not even carry side arms anymore.

 

[matttyl]

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

I don't see why it wouldn't be admissible. You simply use it to show this guy's state of mind (pushes store owner in an act of defiance) and that he had that same mannerism when confronted by the police officer. You don't even need to bring the actual robbery into it.

Evidence of prior bad acts to show conformity therewith is inadmissible.

Might be admissible to show why he would have run from the police, but probably too prejudicial. They'll probably enter a stipulation that he had done whatever they can agree on him doing in that store.

Try to find any potential jurors at this point that don't know about the robbery.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

To be fair, Brown won't be on trial, or a witness, here, which is when these issues typically arise.I imagine the defense for the police officer will be that he was aware of the robbery, and that the suspect matched Brown's description, which is why he confronted him with weapon drawn, and knew Brown to be dangerous.

If the call did not go out until after the shooting - then I agree, it will have no probative value at court. The only issue will be what the officer thought at the time.

I don't recall any witness account of Wilson & Brown's interaction that begins with Wilson confronting Brown with his weapon drawn. That includes Dorian Johnson's account which is the least favorable to Wilson.

I also imagine that you're wrong about Wilson's likley defense at trial. The emphasis will not be on Brown's actions before his encounter with Wilson nor on what Wilson knew about the mini-mart robbery. The emphasis will be on Brown striking and charging at Wilson (if that is indeed Wilson's account). Whether Brown was a model citizen or a seasoned hood and whether Wilson knew Brown's history and most recent offense becomes almost irrelevant if Brown struck Wilson and charged at him. Wilson would likely argue that he feared for his life and needed to shoot to protect his life.

 

[msommer]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

Thanks for missing my point/ As mentioned I have no problem with using tear gas or water cannons to break up rioting.

I do have a problem with police in armored vehicles and using assault rifles.

It's not as if there hasn't been riots handled by water cannons and tear gas. No need to escalate from there.

So when the criminals (and I'm talking in general terms) start shooting at the police with assault weapons, what would you like to see the police return fire with.....and this has happened in the past.

Wait, there are no police left? They have all been killed by assault rifle wielding criminals?

So, those are the ones in Ferguson, then.

I thought they were the police, Now I understand everything



If you want to use this argument as it pertains to the present situation in Ferguson, then please link to how many police have lost their lives from being attacked by rioters with assault rifles in Ferguson, MO since August 11th

 

[TobiasFunke]

What I'm getting out of this thread now is: that the rioting and looting are a response to the military tactics the police are using and not the possibly unnecessary killing of an 18 year old boy.....What I also am getting is that in a time when the criminal is getting more violent and brazen, we would like to see our police become more compassionate and understanding, and maybe not even carry side arms anymore.

What I'm getting out of this post is that you see everything in absolute and sometimes hyperbolic terms.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

If Slapdash doesn't get banned for life we all should riot and loot this forum.

 

[tom22406]

How Is Gov. Nixon being treated in the local press?

Seems to me he has fumbled his way right along in this as well.Calls out the police for using military style force and then proceeds to call in the national guard a few days later amongst other things.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I want to discuss this issue of the militarization of police, because it keeps getting brought up, and I'm not quite seeing the connection. I don't understand how it contributed to the shooting of Michael Brown, and I don't understand how it has contributed to the actions of the police afterwards in response to the protests and rioting. My assumption is that if the police didn't have any military hardware, very little about this entire story would be different.

Is this a wrong assumption on my part? If so, why?

You claim to be a big fan of the libertarians, right? I'll let Rand Paul explain it to you.

To simplify- when you treat citizens as enemy combatants instead of the people you are supposed to serve and protect, you're gonna get justifiable distrust at a minimum, and on occasion much more than that.

I guess the police are suppose to just walk up and explain to the thrower, that the Molotov cocktail toss is not a game they should be playing out in the street with all of those people around.

You tear gas their asses, then water cannon them. All done with out military hardware

Oh ok, I get it.....Don't wear fatigues or battle helmets or any riot gear because it comes off as an intimidating tactic....but no problem shooting tear gas or water cannons at the people.

Thanks for missing my point/ As mentioned I have no problem with using tear gas or water cannons to break up rioting.

I do have a problem with police in armored vehicles and using assault rifles.

It's not as if there hasn't been riots handled by water cannons and tear gas. No need to escalate from there.

So when the criminals (and I'm talking in general terms) start shooting at the police with assault weapons, what would you like to see the police return fire with.....and this has happened in the past.

Why should the people who are sworn to defend the city have better equipment than the people they are defending it against? I think police should drive in Shriner's mini cars and carry empty wrapping paper tubes. Anything more, and they are just asking for the community to get out of hand.

 

[urbanhack]

When are the militarized-police units going to hit Wall Street?