Posted on 08/19/2014 5:28:07 AM PDT by Biggirl
The images of police in riot gear armed with heavy weaponry and tanks has at times become the alarming backdrop for the Ferguson story, with pictures that television can’t resist.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
So, no matter what they say they need, you will agree to it?
Yet you still can’t cite a single thing I said that isn’t true. Why can’t you?
That is true.
If the equipment is “free” from Uncle Sucker, state and elected officials typically do not oppose their respective law enforcement agencies obtaining it - even though the taxpayers are then stuck with the O&M costs.
The money and the equipment isn't coming from local governments. Police can partly fund themselves now through civil asset forfeiture. And the fedgov is passing out equipment to local law enforcement without the consent of local government.
_________________________________________________
Let me ask you. Both of you. Do you favor asset forfeitures? There's no doubt that it happens. Happens every day. Even iffenegan must admit that.
I suspect he is taking issue at the fact it happens. Why he appears to deny it... who knows?
Are you saying the rioters in Ferguson knew in advance that a white police officer was going to kill a black teenager?
Is an overt lie.
~snort~
Oooh. A technicality!
You win. See Sharp is a liar.
l0l
Ah, but there is the rub eh? They haven't been using this hardware to stop the looters. The only thing that has been a deterrent are those small business owners who have armed themselves . The police, have been driving by the looting. You see, it would be dangerous for them to get involved, and "officer safety" is paramount. They'd rather shake down motorists for having a tail light out, as there is little to no personal danger in that.
And I haven't even touched the question of due process.
Propagandists use facts and half or distorted truths.
They also overtly lie.
You perhaps are one of them or purposely play dumb.
But police can do nothing local government does not allow them to do.
I will call out propagandists who try to inject their twisted psychopathology in to serious issues and cause fear, paranoia and hatred.
These are the lowest of the low who use serious issues in this way to further their own dark and sordid, greedy agendas.
These are on par with the cynics of the Obama regime or other leftist groups such as are at work now using the Ferguson events.
These may try to slap a coat of right wing or conservative paint on it to fool people, but it is the same spirit and comes from the same place as the anarchists, Communists, racialists, and other anti-God groups and philosophies.
Even when they can fund themselves? Even when they are getting legal cover and encouragement from the feds? Even when their leadership have their own independent constituencies?
Importantly, while liberals and conservatives are now both opposing paramilitarized police, they are doing so for very different reasons.
Liberals want the police to stop arresting criminals, even violent ones. Liberals do not want them arrested or put in prison, especially if they are black.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want law and order, but do not want paramilitary police to do so, because the interest there is not law and order, but using violence to politically control the public.
Importantly, those columnists and commentators coming out to defend the idea of paramilitarized police neglect the obvious: if we need or want paramilitarized police, then why not get rid of the police altogether, and replace them with soldiers?
If we don’t need the US Army acting as police 99.9999% of the time, we don’t need a paramilitary police doing so, either.
yes, she is at least 42 and probably 43.
She is a seasoned moonbat that sometimes has brief episodes of sanity. One such episode involved a revelation that her insurance had been cancelled. Since she was really unemployed, she is more or less a free lancer, she was forced to endure the agony of signing up for Obamacare. At 42 she was in trouble without insurance. She vociferously voiced her disgust with Obama.
That was October or November . By the first of the year or so she apparently got a job with USA Today. I guessed but don’t know for certain, such a job came with insurance unlike the Daily Beast that did not
There is ONE, and only one SWAT team per state, trained, funded, and equipped by the State Police in that state.
There would be FIVE, and only 5, Federal SWAT teams.
Definition of SWAT: any unit that uses any military style gear and/or uses Title 2 Firearms.
Everyone else is disarmed of Title 2 weapons (but can retain Title 1 firearms (pistols, revolvers, semi-auto ONLY shotguns and rifles) under 18 USC)).
The five (5) federal SWAT teams would be the following, and never exceeding 100 members each:
1) DOJ USSS-Presidential Protection Units
2) DOJ USMS-Fugitive Recovery Task Force
3) DOJ FBI HRT
4) DOS DSS-Diplomatic protection 5) a) DOE NNSA OST-Protection of Nuclear Materials b) DOE NEST-Counter assault unit to recapture/disarm nuclear weapons.
Yes you read it correctly...no more MP5s or M4s, flashbangs, SBSs/SBRs, suppressors for ATF, DEA, DOJ, EPA, IRS, USPS, BLS, BIA, Capitol Police, CBP, DHS, etc. All Title 2 firearms are Form 4'd to FFLs for distribution to the public (that is until I can get NFA/GCA/FOPA repealed).
Title 2 firearms should be owned by CITIZENS, and a very limited number of Federal agencies.
Oh yeah, and repeal 18 USC 922(o)...or heck...Chapter 4 of GCA for starters.
The Ferguson incidents have served not to shed light on the issue but to conflate individual crimes with broad civil unrest. Should National Guard personnel ride APCs into a riot scene? Yes, I believe they should. Should SWAT teams armed with automatic weapons show up to intimidate a rancher whose cattle have gone astray? No, I do not believe they should. There's a rather wide spectrum there, and an honest discussion should recognize that approval of the one end does not constitute approval of the other.
>> police in riot gear
Camo riot gear, CIA surplus?
>> CC: Rather than taking the issue up with the people who approve it in state county and local governments they throw meaningless tantrums at police themselves.
Correct
>> SS: The money and the equipment isn’t coming from local governments. Police can partly fund themselves now through civil asset forfeiture.
Correct, but state and local policy should limit.
It shouldn’t be a surprise if the LEOs secretly enjoyed utilizing their new militarized tools. That said, it doesn’t make sense to point fingers at the individual officer. It’s all about policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.