[jarz]

I'm on mobile so no quotes; each paragraph is to address each quote in that nonsensical post above mine a little ways.

What are cops supposed to do when black thugs raid shoe stores and true religion outlets with intent to rob them forcefully in masses? Sit idle? I pay taxes for them to protect me.

You don't have a right to resist a lawful order. You're lawfully obligated to obey a police officers commands, unconstitutional or not. You may then sue after the encounter. Provide a link where a person who complies entirely gets shot and ill debunk your zionist-corrupted mind.

You provided nonetheless videos in the OP of a man who is proven to colluded with criminal politicians like the Clinton crime family, a family which publicly supports terror groups such as black lives matter. How am I to take your original arguments seriously.

[Kung Fury]

What are cops supposed to do when black thugs raid shoe stores and true religion outlets with intent to rob them forcefully in masses? Sit idle? I pay taxes for them to protect me.

If we're going to talk about Ferguson specifically, the army has a

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

publicly viewable guide on handling civil disturbances which says what and what not to do, and the Ferguson police did everything wrong.

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://warisboring.com/even-the-armys-crowd-control-rulebook-says-ferguson-police-tactics-are-dumb-541156b710f2#.3nvpoi4c6 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://warisboring.com/even-the-armys-c....3nvpoi4c6 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

This article goes into more detail and analysis. Things only started getting better once the Missouri State Police took over. The commander went out to interact and even hugged protesters, and the state police were marching with them.


It was an approach that worked way better than this:

You don't have a right to resist a lawful order. You're lawfully obligated to obey a police officers commands, unconstitutional or not. You may then sue after the encounter. Provide a link where a person who complies entirely gets shot and ill debunk your zionist-corrupted mind.

A few posts before yours I posted a few cases of police using excessive force, which included a few instances of complying suspects getting shot. Looks like you ignored it.

You provided nonetheless videos in the OP of a man who is proven to colluded with criminal politicians like the Clinton crime family, a family which publicly supports terror groups such as black lives matter. How am I to take your original arguments seriously.

First, I would like to point out that just because you don't like someone, it doesn't make their argument wrong. Second, how am I supposed to be taken seriously? Throughout this thread I've backed my arguments with evidence from reputable sources which you ignored because you saw a man you didn't like. Meanwhile you've been throwing insults and making claims without any evidence whatsoever. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

[jarz]

What are cops supposed to do when black thugs raid shoe stores and true religion outlets with intent to rob them forcefully in masses? Sit idle? I pay taxes for them to protect me.

If we're going to talk about Ferguson specifically, the army has a

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

publicly viewable guide on handling civil disturbances which says what and what not to do, and the Ferguson police did everything wrong.

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://warisboring.com/even-the-armys-crowd-control-rulebook-says-ferguson-police-tactics-are-dumb-541156b710f2#.3nvpoi4c6 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://warisboring.com/even-the-armys-c....3nvpoi4c6 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

This article goes into more detail and analysis. Things only started getting better once the Missouri State Police took over. The commander went out to interact and even hugged protesters, and the state police were marching with them.


It was an approach that worked way better than this:

You don't have a right to resist a lawful order. You're lawfully obligated to obey a police officers commands, unconstitutional or not. You may then sue after the encounter. Provide a link where a person who complies entirely gets shot and ill debunk your zionist-corrupted mind.

A few posts before yours I posted a few cases of police using excessive force, which included a few instances of complying suspects getting shot. Looks like you ignored it.

You provided nonetheless videos in the OP of a man who is proven to colluded with criminal politicians like the Clinton crime family, a family which publicly supports terror groups such as black lives matter. How am I to take your original arguments seriously.

First, I would like to point out that just because you don't like someone, it doesn't make their argument wrong. Second, how am I supposed to be taken seriously? Throughout this thread I've backed my arguments with evidence from reputable sources which you ignored because you saw a man you didn't like. Meanwhile you've been throwing insults and making claims without any evidence whatsoever. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

Arguing with you is not worth my time, I work 2 to 3 jobs, something most people you want to back up cannot even fathom of doing.

I wanted to touch though on your last paragraph that I bolded. It's not that I just don't like him. Hillary Clinton is colluding with John Oliver. You're posting John Oliver videos. How is that going to bring a fair argument when the argument you present is from one of the most biased individuals you coulda chosen from? CNN is almost better for fucks sake.

[Preditor]

What are cops supposed to do when black thugs raid shoe stores and true religion outlets with intent to rob them forcefully in masses? Sit idle? I pay taxes for them to protect me.

If we're going to talk about Ferguson specifically, the army has a

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

publicly viewable guide on handling civil disturbances which says what and what not to do, and the Ferguson police did everything wrong.

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://warisboring.com/even-the-armys-crowd-control-rulebook-says-ferguson-police-tactics-are-dumb-541156b710f2#.3nvpoi4c6 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://warisboring.com/even-the-armys-c....3nvpoi4c6 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

This article goes into more detail and analysis. Things only started getting better once the Missouri State Police took over. The commander went out to interact and even hugged protesters, and the state police were marching with them.


It was an approach that worked way better than this:

I thought this whole thread was about the cops NOT being the military or following their regulations. Why are you now arguing a point that is completely against what you made this thread for and what you've been arguing?!?!

You're saying how the police shouldn't militarize yet here you are stating that they didn't use the proper army technique to dissolve a riot, or following their guide.

You shouldn't contradict yourself man.

[Kung Fury]

I thought this whole thread was about the cops NOT being the military or following their regulations. Why are you now arguing a point that is completely against what you made this thread for and what you've been arguing?!?!

You're saying how the police shouldn't militarize yet here you are stating that they didn't use the proper army technique to dissolve a riot, or following their guide.

You shouldn't contradict yourself man.

Throughout this thread I've been arguing against the use of militaristic force by police on Americans. Some critics of police militarization argue that the term militarization shouldn't be used at all, because even the military has more discipline and restraint than the police. The military practices peacekeeping during civil disturbances, which is something the police should practice as well to minimize damage, but they do not. So when the military, whose job is to kill and destroy, does a better job of handling civil disturbances than the police, whose job is to ensure peace and safety, there is something very wrong.

[Preditor]

I thought this whole thread was about the cops NOT being the military or following their regulations. Why are you now arguing a point that is completely against what you made this thread for and what you've been arguing?!?!

You're saying how the police shouldn't militarize yet here you are stating that they didn't use the proper army technique to dissolve a riot, or following their guide.

You shouldn't contradict yourself man.

Throughout this thread I've been arguing against the use of militaristic force by police on Americans. Some critics of police militarization argue that the term militarization shouldn't be used at all, because even the military has more discipline and restraint than the police. The military practices peacekeeping during civil disturbances, which is something the police should practice as well to minimize damage, but they do not. So when the military, whose job is to kill and destroy, does a better job of handling civil disturbances than the police, whose job is to ensure peace and safety, there is something very wrong.

It's not that the military is better. It's that the military is more disciplined. Which they should be, because like you said they kill people. They're trained to kill people and to blow everything up and so forth. The police are not, and what you're saying is you think it'd be a good idea to train the police like the military which in turn rebounds your whole argument.

And as I've said so many times now, there's goods and bads of everything. EVEN the military. You compare the actions of bad cops to the actions of good soldiers. Instead you should be comparing the actions of bad cops to the actions of bad soldiers, which if I may say generally bad soldiers who commit warcrimes may do things much worse than cops.

How about instead you compare your average police force that the world seems to forget about every day? You know, the ones that don't do anything wrong and then compare them to your argument.

[jarz]

I thought this whole thread was about the cops NOT being the military or following their regulations. Why are you now arguing a point that is completely against what you made this thread for and what you've been arguing?!?!

You're saying how the police shouldn't militarize yet here you are stating that they didn't use the proper army technique to dissolve a riot, or following their guide.

You shouldn't contradict yourself man.

Throughout this thread I've been arguing against the use of militaristic force by police on Americans. Some critics of police militarization argue that the term militarization shouldn't be used at all, because even the military has more discipline and restraint than the police. The military practices peacekeeping during civil disturbances, which is something the police should practice as well to minimize damage, but they do not. So when the military, whose job is to kill and destroy, does a better job of handling civil disturbances than the police, whose job is to ensure peace and safety, there is something very wrong.

I quickly retort, why should the thugs be allowed to riot and shoot each other in the first place? These officers put their lives on the line to shut down criminal idiotic rioting and you judge them because they use tear gas and guns that are black.

Also, the OP said the MRAP serves no purpose to protect the citizens.

Vehicles such as the MRAP were used during San Bernadino, you know, the place where that terror attack happened? The police placed citizens in the armored vehicle so they would be safe.

Vehicles such as the MRAP were used during Hurricane Matthew to drive on torn roads to help remove rubble.

I reference the following from PoliceOne.

February 16, 2006: The Dallas SWAT team was attempting to serve a federal warrant on a suspect when he shot four officers. Tactical team members maneuvered the BearCat to allow for the safe rescue from the deadly environment and treatment of the wounded officers. 

March 31, 2009: In the woods of central Wisconsin, a suspect sniped at police from his home, which he had turned into an armored fortress. In the days that followed, the sniper continually tried to kill officers by firing countless rounds and throwing homemade firebombs from his up-armored domicile. 
At the climax of this event, officers — protected by multiple BearCats — took the suspect into custody after hitting him with less-lethal munitions as the armed suspect was escaping down a ladder to the rear of his burning home. No officers were injured.

February 2, 2011: The Aurora (Colo.) area was inundated with 20 inches of snow. Wind gusts formed drifts of up to ten feet deep, making roads impassable. During this crisis, motorists found themselves trapped by the Artic conditions — with hope for rescue dropping as fast as the temperature. 
When all seemed lost, the trapped motorists heard the roar of an engine and saw a black mass of metal cutting a swath through the white landscape. Police officers in a BearCat were able to rescue 108 stranded motorists. The cold hard metal on wheels provided the two things these people were praying for: warmth and a ride home.

March 31 2011: The San Juan County Sheriff’s Office SWAT team deployed in Farmington (N.M.) in response to a barricaded gunman. During the event, the suspect leaned across the team’s BearCat and pointed a semi-automatic rifle at three officers inside the vehicle. Rather than shoot the suspect, officers fired a TASER through the gun port of the vehicle and took the man into custody. This less-than-lethal option was feasible only because of the tactical flexibility afforded by the BearCat.

August 7, 2011: Green Bay (Wis.) officers located a man who had been firing a gun throughout a residential neighborhood. The suspect opened fire on the officers, but the officers were able to negotiate with him from the cover afforded by their BearCat. 
After a seven-hour stand-off, the shooter was subdued with less-lethal munitions.

September 20, 2011: In Hockington (Wash.), Clark County Sheriff’s Deputies arrived on scene to deal with a man who had been shooting at a house as he sat in a tree. Negotiators were transported close enough to speak with the man via the agency’s BearCat. After three hours of successful negotiations, the troubled man climbed down from his perch and surrendered.

March 6, 2012: In Harrisonburg (Penn.), the York County Quick Response Team and the Dauphin County Sheriff’s Office deployed at the scene of a barricaded gunman. The BearCat was moved into a position where officers were able to push in two windows. 
The man was taken into custody after he was shot with less-lethal munitions.

April 14, 2013: The Rutheford County (Tenn.) Sheriff’s SWAT team were able to evacuate a neighborhood in Smyrna after a barricaded suspect opened fire, endangering all. One disabled resident was safely removed from the kill zone. Officers then saved the suspect from his own death by subduing him with less-lethal munitions. 

December 9, 2013: A suspect opened fire in a neighborhood with a 50 caliber rifle — endangering citizens far and wide. Fond Du Lac (Wis.) officers were able to use a BearCat to evacuate innocents from the kill zone and set up for negotiations. Negotiators convinced the suspects to surrender without loss of life.

March 14, 2014: A suspect opened fire throughout a neighborhood and specifically at officers inside their BearCat. Officers of the Bakersfield PD SWAT team were able to rescue and evacuate 60 citizens in the line of fire.

January 31, 2014: In Laingsburg (Mich.), a gunman shot wildly into a neighborhood. When the Michigan SP Emergency Support Team arrived, the suspect deliberately shot four rounds from a Russian-made Nagant — a 7.62X54 rifle — striking an occupied BearCat. No officers were injured.

June 2, 2014: In Williston (Fla.), the Marion County SWAT team responded to an armed and violent man. They were protected by their BearCat as the suspect fired 20 rounds from an SKS rifle at the vehicle. 

August 21, 2014: In Dickinson (N.D.), the Southwest Tactical Unit was attempting to apprehend a fugitive wanted by the FBI. Members of the unit along with a negotiator pulled into a driveway. The spectacle of the BearCat inspired the suspect’s surrender within one minute of its arrival.

It should also be pointed out that these Military vehicles are surplus from the armed forces for a very cheap price. It's not like the Tax Payers are paying millions of dollars for only a couple of these things, not to mention that Tax Payers usually don't pay for them anyways, that is, if the police department doesn't get them FOR FREE.

[Kung Fury]

Ok, I am willing to concede that armored vehicles can have their uses in a small subset of cases however I do think that if police departments are going to have these kinds of things there needs to be some very tight restrictions that allow them to be used only as a last resort. One big problem right now is that departments get all this stuff and they can either wait until they actually need it, or they can use it to generate revenue through civil asset forfeitures and federal grants for drug policing, and the latter is usually what happens. To be frank I do not trust police departments to generally act responsibly and in an accountable manner towards citizens. There have been many cases of police misconduct and acting in excessive manners. Some say that those are isolated incidents, but I don't buy that one bit. Here is screenshot of 

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.cato.org/raidmap Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.cato.org/raidmap Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

a map of botched police raids in the United States.




It should be pointed out that the map is somewhat incomplete and doesn't seem to be maintained much anymore, as I know of a few instances that should be on the map but aren't, so there are at least this many botched police raids and most likely many more. Still this map paints a terrifying picture. Even one botched raid is a cause for concern, but to have this many is truly terrifying. Literally anyone can be a victim of a wrong door raid.

Also, here is a screenshot of a map of general police misconduct just within 2009 and 2010. The actual map can be found

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.policemisconduct.net/maps/searchable-map-2009-2010-misconduct-incidents/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.policemisconduct.net/maps/se...incidents/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

here.



Are these all isolated incidents? I don't think so. It's also worth pointing out that even with many fatalities at the hands of police officers, very few are charged. One report found that only 54 police officers have been charged with murder or manslaughter since 2005. 

Here are a couple of videos by a guy named Radley Balko, who is a journalist who has been covering the topic of police militarization for a long time. I think he explains the problem better than I can. Both videos are around the 40 minute mark but I think they're well worth the time.

[jarz]

Is violent riots involving people shooting each other in a world where police officers are assassinated by the handful in coordinated attacks not a 'last resort'?

And there you are linking liberal zionist journalists to support a claim in an argument. Instead of a journalists opinions, give me some facts on how the police can't have guns that require two hands to operate, and how things like the second amendment somehow don't apply to law enforcement officers.

[jarz]

>"In a small subset of cases."
>Implies armored vehicles are used only for waging war on citizens.

It's disgusting how you argue our law enforcement don't deserve vehicles that stop bullets when there are thugs with high velocity ammunition bought off the streets (in gun free zones probably) shooting at them.

[francysol3c]

i think either 2nd amendment supporters like @Kung Fury accept police militarization or accept gun control for police demilitarization
@Wesley Lawrence even if jokingly, pointed that out perfectly

[Doctor Internet]

So @"King Fury" ,I would quite like to hear your reply to this.

Why should Police decrease their protection, when there are more guns in the US than people?

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...then-some/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

Source

There is a very real risk to their lives, every day that they go out. Sure, they can't stop all harm toward them, but why should they give up the protection in those circumstances that they can control?