[Wesley Lawrence]

My one and only thought about the subject. I'll leave it as such.

[Hungames]

I'm going to put this article out here. It talks about armored police vehicles and references militarization

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: https://www.policemag.com/channel/vehicles/articles/2015/09/justifying-your-agency-s-acquisition-of-armored-vehicles.aspx Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

https://www.policemag.com/channel/vehicl...icles.aspx

[Kung Fury]

Those who are defending the officer in the video are saying that the officers safety is paramount because it was during a riot where he believed there were armed people in the crowd. It it ok for the officer to endanger the lives of other people to save his own? As can be seen in the video, the officer also has poor trigger discipline, so he could've easily accidentally discharged his weapon and killed an innocent person. Would that also be disregarded just because the officer "cracked under pressure"? Why even put the lives of civilians at risk in the first place? To those who still believe that the officer in the video is justified in his actions, I would like to point out that he was fired following the incident. Not even the police union defended him.

On the subject of the first picture, 2nd amendment advocates and practitioners generally don't raid the homes of people who commit nonviolent offenses (sometimes even no crime at all) with a disregard for their lives, rights, or dignity.


On the subject of the second picture, do people really think that criminals used to be like the caricature that is shown?
The real reason for police militarization in recent years has been the war on drugs, as well as the war on terror. The criminalization of drugs like marijuana created a financial incentive for criminal organizations to get involved in the drug trade. Logically, these organizations arm themselves in order to protect their profits, and in return law enforcement armed themselves more as an equalizing reaction. This creates a vicious cycle, one that is perpetuated by policy. The prohibition era is an example of this kind of thing happening, with organized crime rising and therefore police armament as well, all because of bad legislation that is now regarded as a massive failure.

[Preditor]

On the subject of the second picture, do people really think that criminals used to be like the caricature that is shown?
The real reason for police militarization in recent years has been the war on drugs, as well as the war on terror. The criminalization of drugs like marijuana created a financial incentive for criminal organizations to get involved in the drug trade. Logically, these organizations arm themselves in order to protect their profits, and in return law enforcement armed themselves more as an equalizing reaction. This creates a vicious cycle, one that is perpetuated by policy. The prohibition era is an example of this kind of thing happening, with organized crime rising and therefore police armament as well, all because of bad legislation that is now regarded as a massive failure.

Okay. So lets just legalize all these drugs and let all the bad guys run around robbing people with AKs and kidnapping everyone because it's suddenly okay if the criminals deck themselves out but not the police who are supposed to protect us.

You do realize, that the drugs and cartels you are speaking about is not just weed, but also cocaine and methamphetamine. Legalizing weed will not stop those guys at all. If you want to stop them, legalize EVERYTHING. Because they will not stop.

[Kung Fury]

Okay. So lets just legalize all these drugs and let all the bad guys run around robbing people with AKs and kidnapping everyone because it's suddenly okay if the criminals deck themselves out but not the police who are supposed to protect us.

Nice hyperbole.

If you want to stop them, legalize EVERYTHING. Because they will not stop.

Ok, sure. I know I'm getting into super unpopular opinion territory here, but why would legalizing all drugs be a bad thing? Why should the government decide what people can put in their bodies if its not harming someone else? Because they can be addictive or deadly? We already have addictive and deadly substances that any adult can go out and buy. The solution to these things is education so people know the facts and make informed decisions, and rehabilitation because addiction of any substance is a health problem and not a criminal one. Prohibition was a bad idea a century ago and it still is today. To throw people in jail for making decisions that affect them and nobody else is destructive, a non-solution, and goes against they very freedoms we as a nation pride ourselves on.

As much as I'd like to continue having this conversation, it belongs in a different thread. I'd prefer if this thread stays on the topic of police militarization and police accountability.

[Hungames]

People doing drugs don't only affect themselves. They are a danger to the people around them. If someone is high and driving, there is a higher risk of a car crash, which could be fatal. Also, don't say stop the asking about the drugs topic when you made it up.

[Kung Fury]

People doing drugs don't only affect themselves. They are a danger to the people around them. If someone is high and driving, there is a higher risk of a car crash, which could be fatal. Also, don't say stop the asking about the drugs topic when you made it up.

You could make the same argument for alcohol and the many legal drugs that are readily available, but most people agree that those things shouldn't be banned. If someone drives while high, then that is something that puts other peoples lives in danger and should be punished, but if they're not doing anything wrong then they shouldn't be.

Also I'm not saying stop talking about drugs, I'd be happy to keep talking about them. But to have a discussion about drugs in a thread about police militarization and accountability kind of dilutes the discussion about militarization and accountability. I can't stop you if you wanna keep talking about it, I just think it deserves its own thread.

[Soviethooves]

The problem with the few legalized drugs we allow are, iffy. Alcohol for example is so ingrown in society, that we forget about the negatives that overwhelm the positives. On the other hand, drugs like cocaine, meth, and LSD are gathering more evil "labels", causing the people to frown upon them. Sure, some are alright and can be controlled by the user. But some should never be legalized, as they can lead to high levels of addiction that can lead to violence, which in turn is a threat to the public. If not, it's the drugs effect on a person's pyschological state, which can interfere with you making the right and wrong choices, like alcohol.

[francysol3c]

On the subject of the second picture, do people really think that criminals used to be like the caricature that is shown?
The real reason for police militarization in recent years has been the war on drugs, as well as the war on terror. The criminalization of drugs like marijuana created a financial incentive for criminal organizations to get involved in the drug trade. Logically, these organizations arm themselves in order to protect their profits, and in return law enforcement armed themselves more as an equalizing reaction. This creates a vicious cycle, one that is perpetuated by policy. The prohibition era is an example of this kind of thing happening, with organized crime rising and therefore police armament as well, all because of bad legislation that is now regarded as a massive failure.

Okay. So lets just legalize all these drugs and let all the bad guys run around robbing people with AKs and kidnapping everyone because it's suddenly okay if the criminals deck themselves out but not the police who are supposed to protect us.

You do realize, that the drugs and cartels you are speaking about is not just weed, but also cocaine and methamphetamine. Legalizing weed will not stop those guys at all. If you want to stop them, legalize EVERYTHING. Because they will not stop.

i disagree with both of you
yes, the police needs to be militarized because citizens are militarized, and on that no one can say otherwise. if civilians have plate carriers and fully automatic M4's, makes sense that cops have the same things if not more.
however, in my opinion, the only way to resolve this situation is gun control. the 2nd amendament advocates do not realize that, if the government would like to impose a dictatorship, either:
- the government would send the army with tanks to mow them down.
- they would probably not have the balls to kill and would end up giving up their guns anyway. i do not think that a lot of people would become guerillas.
everything said, this should be a slow process to have the time to confiscate the automatics and nothing more. i personally oppose the licensing system (i believe only in quite harsh fire mode and capacity restrictions) as if you have the courage to murder a person with guns, you'll probably do the same with knives, and if you want to suicide with a gun, without it you would throw yourself off a cliff.
to preditor i want to say that drug addiction is a MEDICAL issue and not a judicial one and that legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco or gambling are a lot more dangerous than weed or even LSD and MDMA

[Preditor]

On the subject of the second picture, do people really think that criminals used to be like the caricature that is shown?
The real reason for police militarization in recent years has been the war on drugs, as well as the war on terror. The criminalization of drugs like marijuana created a financial incentive for criminal organizations to get involved in the drug trade. Logically, these organizations arm themselves in order to protect their profits, and in return law enforcement armed themselves more as an equalizing reaction. This creates a vicious cycle, one that is perpetuated by policy. The prohibition era is an example of this kind of thing happening, with organized crime rising and therefore police armament as well, all because of bad legislation that is now regarded as a massive failure.

Okay. So lets just legalize all these drugs and let all the bad guys run around robbing people with AKs and kidnapping everyone because it's suddenly okay if the criminals deck themselves out but not the police who are supposed to protect us.

You do realize, that the drugs and cartels you are speaking about is not just weed, but also cocaine and methamphetamine. Legalizing weed will not stop those guys at all. If you want to stop them, legalize EVERYTHING. Because they will not stop.

i disagree with both of you
yes, the police needs to be militarized because citizens are militarized, and on that no one can say otherwise. if civilians have plate carriers and fully automatic M4's, makes sense that cops have the same things if not more.
however, in my opinion, the only way to resolve this situation is gun control. the 2nd amendament advocates do not realize that, if the government would like to impose a dictatorship, either:
- the government would send the army with tanks to mow them down.
- they would probably not have the balls to kill and would end up giving up their guns anyway. i do not think that a lot of people would become guerillas.
everything said, this should be a slow process to have the time to confiscate the automatics and nothing more. i personally oppose the licensing system (i believe only in quite harsh fire mode and capacity restrictions) as if you have the courage to murder a person with guns, you'll probably do the same with knives, and if you want to suicide with a gun, without it you would throw yourself off a cliff.
to preditor i want to say that drug addiction is a MEDICAL issue and not a judicial one and that legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco or gambling are a lot more dangerous than weed or even LSD and MDMA

I'm not referring to the drug addicts here with that statement. I'd also like to say living near the US/Mexican border I can say I've seen first hand the shit that happens. For starters it's not drug addicts that run these organizations, sure they may take the drugs but they're in it for the money. People do get addicted to drugs which is an honest issue that needs to be sorted. Though that does not excuse them from committing crime such as murder or vandalism.

And to top my statement even more, a cartel does not work with just drugs. They also do human trafficking and smuggling. El chapo (I'm sure you all know) even has underground tunnels and networks along the border that allows people to cross. With that cartels even have snipers taking shots at border patrol agents nearly along the lines of how you'd expect like Iraq or Afghanistan.

To anyone who thinks we should not allow police to get more equipment, then don't complain when individuals like I just stated previously kick down your door and kidnap/murder you. Because if our police forces are not ready to fight them, then they will simply turn the country into anarchy.

[francysol3c]

On the subject of the second picture, do people really think that criminals used to be like the caricature that is shown?
The real reason for police militarization in recent years has been the war on drugs, as well as the war on terror. The criminalization of drugs like marijuana created a financial incentive for criminal organizations to get involved in the drug trade. Logically, these organizations arm themselves in order to protect their profits, and in return law enforcement armed themselves more as an equalizing reaction. This creates a vicious cycle, one that is perpetuated by policy. The prohibition era is an example of this kind of thing happening, with organized crime rising and therefore police armament as well, all because of bad legislation that is now regarded as a massive failure.

Okay. So lets just legalize all these drugs and let all the bad guys run around robbing people with AKs and kidnapping everyone because it's suddenly okay if the criminals deck themselves out but not the police who are supposed to protect us.

You do realize, that the drugs and cartels you are speaking about is not just weed, but also cocaine and methamphetamine. Legalizing weed will not stop those guys at all. If you want to stop them, legalize EVERYTHING. Because they will not stop.

i disagree with both of you
yes, the police needs to be militarized because citizens are militarized, and on that no one can say otherwise. if civilians have plate carriers and fully automatic M4's, makes sense that cops have the same things if not more.
however, in my opinion, the only way to resolve this situation is gun control. the 2nd amendament advocates do not realize that, if the government would like to impose a dictatorship, either:
- the government would send the army with tanks to mow them down.
- they would probably not have the balls to kill and would end up giving up their guns anyway. i do not think that a lot of people would become guerillas.
everything said, this should be a slow process to have the time to confiscate the automatics and nothing more. i personally oppose the licensing system (i believe only in quite harsh fire mode and capacity restrictions) as if you have the courage to murder a person with guns, you'll probably do the same with knives, and if you want to suicide with a gun, without it you would throw yourself off a cliff.
to preditor i want to say that drug addiction is a MEDICAL issue and not a judicial one and that legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco or gambling are a lot more dangerous than weed or even LSD and MDMA

I'm not referring to the drug addicts here with that statement. I'd also like to say living near the US/Mexican border I can say I've seen first hand the shit that happens. For starters it's not drug addicts that run these organizations, sure they may take the drugs but they're in it for the money. People do get addicted to drugs which is an honest issue that needs to be sorted. Though that does not excuse them from committing crime such as murder or vandalism.

And to top my statement even more, a cartel does not work with just drugs. They also do human trafficking and smuggling. El chapo (I'm sure you all know) even has underground tunnels and networks along the border that allows people to cross. With that cartels even have snipers taking shots at border patrol agents nearly along the lines of how you'd expect like Iraq or Afghanistan.

To anyone who thinks we should not allow police to get more equipment, then don't complain when individuals like I just stated previously kick down your door and kidnap/murder you. Because if our police forces are not ready to fight them, then they will simply turn the country into anarchy.

i would not agree with you normally, but with the common use of guns in the US, police needs to be ready for everything. the problem is not drugs, the problem is you can buy a SCAR-H while 16 in a supermarket.

[Hungames]

however, in my opinion, the only way to resolve this situation is gun control. the 2nd amendament advocates do not realize that, if the government would like to impose a dictatorship, either:
- the government would send the army with tanks to mow them down.
- they would probably not have the balls to kill and would end up giving up their guns anyway. i do not think that a lot of people would become guerillas.

 Even if the American government sent tanks after gun owners, they would still lose. There are way too many patriots and gun owners in the US that will not give up their second amendmentent, even if that means fighting the government. Civilians have anti-tank weapons, armor piercing .50 rounds, etc. that are equal in power to the military. Compare the 300 million people of the US to the 1.4 million in the military, and you have yourself one tough battle. One of the major reasons no country would dare to invade the US right now is because of the massive amounts of firearms in the US. They wouldn't stand a chance against the civilians fighting them back.

16 year olds can't buy firearms. The minimum age for firearm ownership is 18.

[francysol3c]

however, in my opinion, the only way to resolve this situation is gun control. the 2nd amendament advocates do not realize that, if the government would like to impose a dictatorship, either:
- the government would send the army with tanks to mow them down.
- they would probably not have the balls to kill and would end up giving up their guns anyway. i do not think that a lot of people would become guerillas.

 Even if the American government sent tanks after gun owners, they would still lose. There are way too many patriots and gun owners in the US that will not give up their second amendmentent, even if that means fighting the government. Civilians have anti-tank weapons, armor piercing .50 rounds, etc. that are equal in power to the military. Compare the 300 million people of the US to the 1.4 million in the military, and you have yourself one tough battle. One of the major reasons no country would dare to invade the US right now is because of the massive amounts of firearms in the US. They wouldn't stand a chance against the civilians fighting them back.

16 year olds can't buy firearms. The minimum age for firearm ownership is 18.

civilian do not possess coordination, tactics or high grade equipment. if, for example, the RGF beats the army and an armistice is signed, the RGF could simplily use a "Ten For One" tactic or directly raze cities.
TLDR: rocket launchers and anti materiel rifles do not kill tanks in one hit, they take several. not many people have the courage to kill other people. if i was an US dictator, what would prevent me from doing genocide in, let's say texas, with gas canisters? it doesen't damage the other stuff anyway
and a 16 year old, in some shops, may not even have to present a document. i live in italy and people sneak in 18+ clubs no problem

[Hungames]

civilian do not possess coordination, tactics or high grade equipment. if, for example, the RGF beats the army and an armistice is signed, the RGF could simplily use a "Ten For One" tactic or directly raze cities.
TLDR: rocket launchers and anti materiel rifles do not kill tanks in one hit, they take several. not many people have the courage to kill other people. if i was an US dictator, what would prevent me from doing genocide in, let's say texas, with gas canisters? it doesen't damage the other stuff anyway
and a 16 year old, in some shops, may not even have to present a document. i live in italy and people sneak in 18+ clubs no problem

The first part of that is even becoming a dictator. The US Congress could impeach you if you were found to be starting a dictatorship. 

You can't compare sneaking into a club to buying a firearm illegally. They are two completely different things.

You can't destroy a tank with one hit, obviously, but if you hit a tank with a RPG or explosive in the tracks with enough power, the people inside would need to get out and fix the tracks, which could some time. In this time, the soldiers could be exposed to civilian fire and take causalities.

[Preditor]

On the basis of civil war, the US military could conquer its own people. That's a fact. However:

Many branches in the US armed forces, their top generals I mean have stated before that they would side with the constitution. On top of that you have to remember that all because they are military does not mean they're not human. I would be pretty sure a good portion if not half would side with the rebels just as the US Civil war did in the 1800s. However if it was the case of them not siding with its citizens then yes the military would win. But as I said, if anything it would just cause a huge storm across the country. Many soldiers would be forced to choose either the government or the constitution they signed on to fight for in the first place.