User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 140

  1. #11
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    You've got the cause and effect completely wrong. The police had been militarizing long before that event. The police have militarized because of the drug war. Drug seizures give them lots of cash to spend on expensive "toys" that they can use to terrorize the citizens (which is what they're doing in Ferguson, Missouri right now).
    Fine, it accelerated/enabled/justified the trend. It would definitely be a 'reason' in an official challenge. *shrug*

    Wikipedia:

    The ineffectiveness of the standard police patrol pistols and shotguns in penetrating the robbers' body armor led to a trend in the United States (including cities such as Miami) toward arming selected police patrol officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower such as semi-automatic 5.56 mm AR-15 type rifles. SWAT teams, whose close quarters battle weaponry usually consisted of submachine guns that fired pistol cartridges such as the Heckler & Koch MP5, began supplementing them with AR-15-based assault rifles and carbines.[15] Seven months after the incident, the Department of Defense gave 600 surplus M16s to the LAPD, which were issued to each patrol sergeant;[32][33] LAPD patrol vehicles now carry AR-15s as standard issue, with bullet-resistant Kevlar plating in their doors as well.[34] Also as a result of this incident LAPD authorized its officers to carry .45 ACP caliber semiautomatic pistols as duty sidearms, specifically the Smith and Wesson Models 4506 and 4566. Prior to 1997, only LAPD SWAT officers were authorized to carry .45 ACP caliber pistols, specifically the Model 1911A1 .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol.[35]

  2. #12
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    Fine, it accelerated/enabled/justified the trend. It would definitely be a 'reason' in an official challenge. *shrug*
    Your argument is basically that rare incidents are used to justify doing the absolute maximum possible to stop those incidents from ever happening again, but that's demonstrably false. There are numerous cases where that has not happened, such as the Russian meteor last year. A meteor impact on a US city would be infinitely more harmful to this country than the armed robbers you're referencing. Clearly the possibility, alone, is not what causes this sort of spending. Your simplistic view of cause and effect explains nothing.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #13
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Your argument is basically that rare incidents are used to justify doing the absolute maximum possible to stop those incidents from ever happening again, but that's demonstrably false. There are numerous cases where that has not happened, such as the Russian meteor last year. A meteor impact on a US city would be infinitely more harmful to this country than the armed robbers you're referencing. Clearly the possibility, alone, is not what causes this sort of spending. Your simplistic view of cause and effect explains nothing.
    I never implied it was that simple. You're missing a very important psychological component that does explain everything. People take acts of nature and accident way less seriously than they take acts of intentional violence. It's a matter of human psychology. It's why millions can die in car accidents every year and the reaction is of concern, but if there is a sensational shootout in California injuring a few police officers, there is a wave of sensation that leads to weapons upgrades.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Perhaps you need jackbooted thugs to keep your host of well-regulated militias in check.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    I never implied it was that simple. You're missing a very important psychological component that does explain everything. People take acts of nature and accident way less seriously than they take acts of intentional violence. It's a matter of human psychology. It's why millions can die in car accidents every year and the reaction is of concern, but if there is a sensational shootout in California injuring a few police officers, there is a wave of sensation that leads to weapons upgrades.
    That explains some, but not everything. The police shoot and kill more Americans every year than all these types of heavily-armed robbers, combined. The police are clearly more dangerous.

    How Many People Are American Police Killing?

    If it seems to you that the police are becoming more violent, you may be right. In 2011, Los Angeles County police shot to death 54 people, some 70 percent more than in 2010. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of people shot by Massachusetts police increased every year. In 2012, police in New York City shot and killed 16 people, nine more the previous year and the most in 12 years. In 2012, Philadelphia police shot 52 people-the highest number in 10 years.

    But whether these statistics reflect a national trend is, at this point, an unanswerable question.

    That's because many of the country's 17,000 police departments don't release information on use of force by police, and the federal government makes no serious effort to collect it. While the government gathers and releases extensive information about violence by citizens, it conceals information about violence by police.
    A credible national database on use of force by police is a longtime goal of criminologists and reformers. A 1996 Bureau of Justice report notes that, "For decades, criminal justice experts have been calling for increased collection of data on police use of force."

    "We don't have a mandate to do that," William Carr, a FBI spokesperson told the Los Vegas Review Journal. "It would take a request from Congress to collect that data." Carr's claim is false: the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act instructs the Attorney General to "acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers" and to "publish and annual summary of the data acquired." Yet 20 years later the data dearth persists.

    Many, if not all, police accountability activists believe the police are wounding and killing more people than they were five or ten or twenty years ago, and that a higher percentage of the incidents are unjustified. The trend, they say, is all the more alarming because it has accompanied an overall decline in violent crime.
    But back to your original post in this thread, you clearly believe that the police need military weaponry. You believe they "should" be heavily armed.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #16
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Perhaps you need jackbooted thugs to keep your host of well-regulated militias in check.
    If most police conflicts were with those militias, you might have a point. Unfortunately, most police conflicts are with either young black males or family pets that growled a little too much during a drug raid. AR-15s are great for killing Labrador Retrievers.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #17
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    That explains some, but not everything. The police shoot and kill more Americans every year than all these types of heavily-armed robbers, combined. The police are clearly more dangerous.

    How Many People Are American Police Killing?





    But back to your original post in this thread, you clearly believe that the police need military weaponry. You believe they "should" be heavily armed.
    That's amazingly rude, you must really want somebody to argue with you, appointing me with a conveniently dissenting opinion. You'd be sorely disappointed with my performance.

    As I said, I am interested in hows and whys.

    I'll be paying much more attention whey you start asking, "how should this be and why?". And, "how will we change this?"

  8. #18
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    That's amazingly rude, you must really want somebody to argue with you, appointing me with a conveniently dissenting opinion. You'd be sorely disappointed with my performance.

    As I said, I am interested in hows and whys.

    I'll be paying much more attention whey you start asking, "how should this be and why?". And, "how will we change this?"
    When the criminals have this, yes, it's necessary:
    That's a value judgment. You believe the police need, and therefore "should have", those weapons. I'm not appointing you with a dissenting opinion. You clearly expressed a dissenting opinion. You are pro-police militarization.

    I find it amusing that you call me rude. I find you incredibly annoying. You express a clear opinion, but then you say it's not really your opinion. You say you're only interested in "why's" and "how's", not "should's", despite the fact that you expressed a "should" in your first post, and you originally ignored the "why" questions I posted. You say you don't want to debate anything, yet you keep responding, debating. You are a mass of contradictions.

    I think a lot of people are unaware of just how out-of-control things have gotten with the police in this country.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #19
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    That's a value judgment. You believe the police need, and therefore "should have", those weapons. I'm not appointing you with a dissenting opinion. You clearly expressed a dissenting opinion. You are pro-police militarization.

    I find it amusing that you call me rude. I find you incredibly annoying. You express a clear opinion, but then you say it's not really your opinion. You say you're only interested in "why's" and "how's", not "should's", despite the fact that you expressed a "should" in your first post, and you originally ignored the "why" questions I posted. You say you don't want to debate anything, yet you keep responding, debating. You are a mass of contradictions.

    I think a lot of people are unaware of just how out-of-control things have gotten with the police in this country.
    Oh, I really don't care if you find me annoying, and I don't feel the need to explain my interest any more than I already have. I'll be watching for your answer and your reasoning to what you suggest is a problem, and then maybe I'll actually learn something, since I presume you know more about it than you know about me.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    Oh, I really don't care if you find me annoying, and I don't feel the need to explain my interest any more than I already have. I'll be watching for your answer and your reasoning to what you suggest is a problem, and then maybe I'll actually learn something, since I presume you know more about it than you know about me.
    You scoff at the idea of this being a problem. Neocon?

    11 chilling facts about America’s militarized police force:
    1. It harms, and sometimes kills, innocent people.
    2. Children are impacted.
    3. The use of SWAT teams is unnecessary.
    4. The “war on terror” is fueling militarization.
    5. It’s a boon to contractor profits.
    6. Border militarization and police militarization go hand in hand.
    7. Police are cracking down on dissent.
    8. Asset forfeitures are funding police militarization.
    9. Dubious informants are used for raids.
    10. There’s been little debate and oversight.
    11. Communities of color bear the brunt.
    These are just the bullet points. The article goes into detail.

    11 chilling facts about America’s militarized police force - Salon.com

    If you don't find that persuasive, perhaps you should try this:

    https://www.aclu.org/war-comes-home-...rican-policing

    or this:

    Rise of the Warrior Cop - WSJ

    or this:

    If Decency Won't Stop Cops From Shooting Dogs, Maybe Lawsuits Will, Suggests Justice Department - Hit & Run : Reason.com

    I could post a dozen more articles on the issue if you'd like.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. Riot Clowns Charge Jack-Booted Thugs at G8
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-24-2013, 12:38 PM
  2. Street Thugs get a surprise
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 01:52 PM
  3. Thug hoiks woman's eye out of window
    By matmos in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-24-2009, 05:46 PM
  4. Framing: Thug, Terrorist, Pirate, any Difference?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-24-2009, 04:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO