Topic: Police State? - page 6. (Read 25904 times)

No, not really. One is, and looks like, a police uniform. The other is, and looks like, a military uniform. Cops do not need camo.

Ironically, your comrade in arms, Viceroy, is a hardcore leftie. And he was cheering just as hard as you. At least you've yet to call me names, so that's an improvement. I myself am a hardcore libertarian - that is to say, I'm an anarchist. As such, I may be a little biased against the actions of the State, but even with that bias, I can see that this is clearly going to far, and not how a manhunt in a friendly city should be executed.

Hey, it's great that they got the guy. It's great that the citizens were happy that they got the guy. But the populace cheering isn't always a good thing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAfW7KA76gQ

They're doing their jobs. They signed up for it. I don't know why people doing their jobs well should get some kind of special treatment. Recognition for protecting the public from a danger is an understandable reward. But the incessant drumbeat of talking about civilian cops as one would talk about soldiers is a little pathological.

Personally I'm socially left and fiscally right.

They are two different things but is this not a small step in that direction?

I value my rights so much that I'm upset that they(our loyal police servicemen) are searching peoples houses regardless of their consent.

Do you not value your rights and freedoms? You say you do but it seems you couldn't give less of a fuck about this encroachment on our rights.

It's in the name of safety ... for the children. It always is "eye roll"

Oh, we're getting pedantic about the definition of "tank," now, are we?

Very well, APC (still a military vehicle, btw).
As for the body armor,

OK:


NOT OK:

Look what ended up catching the guy ... a diligent citizen.
 
Does that not prove we don't need tanks and police in military style camo outfits?

Look what tanks and police in military style outfits do ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989#3_and_4_June:_Military_advances_to_Tiananmen_Square (warning link requires reading and learning to grasp what i'm trying to get at I believe you can do it though!)

Of course that could never happen in America though - this is true, but only true as long as people like mykrul and others exist.

If people like mykrul don't exist then it's only a matter of time.

No, you don't. Body armor, maybe. A swat team, once you've found him, if he won't come easy. Not tanks and door-to-door military-style sweeps.

Did you read anything in my post?

Did I say anything about not training them? No. I believe I said things about not equipping them for going to war on the populace instead of capturing a fugitive. In fact, you quoted what I said. Read it again.

See this guy?



You send him, and a few hundred of his buddies, around and have them, as Matt says, ask to have a look around. If someone doesn't cooperate, you get a warrant.

You don't need tanks, you don't need military-style camo outfits, you don't need assault rifles.

When you find the guy, you don't fill him full of holes. You take him in and find out why he did it, and if there is anyone else involved.

In other words, you act like cops, not soldiers.

You ask people to cooperate in helping them do their job. I would.

Do not force them to. In my childhood in the USA, I had lived in the ghetto for a while. Police were chasing people through our yard on a regular basis (shootings happened like clockwork and gang violence was prevalent). They *always* asked to enter our house (despite our relation to law enforcement). They always notified us of what was going on with assumption that we were not related to the individual and were innocent. Watching the Boston videos it seems that they weren't being professional police, they were being professional soldiers.

If someone declines and you still have grounds to believe that the person you're looking for may be in the house, you ask a judge for a warrant to search and present him with your evidence. At least then there is accountability on the judge, versus not even knowing a cop's badge number as he forces you out of your house. You can sue later and have laws changed when warrants are improperly issued. Not so easy with vague "justified entry" by a single cop whom you don't even know his name and no one will tell you because "shut up, truther".

The point is, if we are supposed to have a law in society, the police need to follow it too, even to our detriment. If something needs to be changed, let it be agreed upon and not forced upon us.

Disclaimer: I've never been to Boston in my life, I don't know what the mood or tolerance to crime is like there. All I know is that if I had sworn to protect people, I'd protect them from myself and my kind as well.

He wasn't implying that. Yes see https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/iran-should-have-nukes-to-keep-the-jews-in-check-174748

I'm quite familiar with the problem but tell me this:

How would YOU have rooted out the Boston bomber jerkoff?

You run the PD.  Deploy WHO?  HOW?  With WHAT?

Oh, I agree, the no-knock raids and other abuses by the police are bad enough. But the militarization of the police should be enough to wake up anyone. (See my first post in this thread.)

Cops make poor soldiers and soldiers make terrible cops.

But look, we had and continue to have serious problems with no knock raids and hundreds dead from wrong doors bashed in.....and that's almost entirely without the tanks and paramilitary uniforms.  For delails, google Radley Balko and follow his development of the problem. 

I believe the paramilitarization is understandable largely as a result of "beefing up" the various PD after 9/11.  It's logical as a government response to a problem, which of course means it's utter nonsense.

Something I'd like to share that happened in this police state of USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8

Always record the LEO's.

The word he's looking for is "zealot." If he knows it, I suspect he avoids it, because it describes him as well.

Well, you implied that you had:

I was simply pointing out that if you "feel compassion for your fellow citizens," excluding a group of us because we think the BPD have stepped over a line with the use of tanks and paramilitary uniforms - a very disturbing line, at that - is rather hypocritical.

Of course, hypocrisy is par for the course from a statist, but I can't help but try and correct it.

"Profanity is the last refuge of the truly ignorant." - Anonymous

You're in luck!  English has the most words of any language currently in use.  I bet there is one out there that very closely reflects your meaning.

I bet Myrkul could help; he seems to be pretty good with language, and smart too!

One does not need a formal qualification to state the obvious. Very cold water is solid. Terrorist are usual deluded, brainwashed victims of their ideology. If you are insolvent, you are bankrupt.

I am not formally qualified to make any of these statement as I am neither a phyisicist not a anti terror psychologist nor an MBA. Still I feel it is within my liberty to do so. Of course, you disagree.

Unfortunately there are only so many words in the English language.  The thinking man calls them "mother fucking pieces of shit" but people get mad when you say that in public.  There is no word to express my hatred for people committing heinous acts like the Boston bombers.

coward, fuck face, shit fuck, asshole, motherfucker, myrkul   -    they are all synonymous.  None of them captures the meaning.

See, this is where we need to stop this nonsense.  I lost nobody, but that's not relevant.  What is relevant is that you are trying to tell somebody who you think was personally effected by the bombing how they should think.  

You are supporting terrorism while trying to prove some point that you are intellectually superior to me/us.  You are not.  Now I know why your mother left you.  You are not better than us, you piece of shit terror lover.