Posted on 08/18/2014 4:45:30 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
One of the fascinating layers of the Ferguson riot story is how this tragedy has exposed what is a rapidly changing attitudinal climate towards law enforcement officers (LEOs). What was for years a stable predicate -- conservatives being reflexively ‘law and order’ and inherently giving cops the benefit of the doubt -- while liberals with the built in ACLU type disdain for cops tending to always assume the worst of those in power – is now a vortex of confusion, cross currents,and contradictions.
It’s not a total flip-flop of the convention, but it’s moving in that direction. After all, we’ve seen Rand Paul and Eric Holder agree on this in the past week. Did I mention confusing and contradictory?
Consider: many young liberals have of course discovered a love for big government, and take to Twitter and Facebook to support cops harassing Tea Party types and Nevada ranchers just as they cheer the IRS and Lois Lerner persecuting conservative business people and political groups. Meanwhile, liberal voters in Boston cheered their ‘Boston Strong’ reaction to the Marathon bombers, which to me looked a lot like an entire city cowering from a wounded young teen -- while LEOs with Seal Team Six fantasies trampled on every liberty they could for 48 hours -- brandishing Kevlar, automatic weapons, neo-Nazi style helmets and riding around neighborhoods in hummers and kicking down doors.
The media, long willing to challenge the cops and take the victim's point of view, have been silent, or even dismissive, of recent fears by the right of militarized police departments and massive ammo buys by the Feds. Worship of Obama and support for public sector unions has trumped their former concerns apparently.
The old model of “neighborhood cops” -- who walk a beat in their blues ....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good grief, what do you want anarchy!?
I will leave you after this post but was curious .
Why do you feel you need to insult posters in your last lines if they do not agree with you, and would you do that to their face or is it just over the internet?
Tattle tale, does your wife , stay at the children’s table etc etc
You refute nothing I’ve stated. Cop haters state as fact that modern policing is an evil that has never been felt before by the citizenry. I live in a reality where I remember history & fact. Even to the point of having known old school cops & hearing their stories & reading history on the development of policing in the US. Liberaltarians have some warped view that police pre-1979 were all cookie cutter versions of a Norman Rockwell painting. If you’re a cop hater & believe that then you’re living in a sad delusion.
“”The one thing the progressive left & liberaltarians have in common is painting with a very wide brush, and totally ignoring history.”””
Coming from a poster who sees cop haters when cops are criticized, that’s rich.
“Criticized”?
You mean automatically blamed, labeled, & summarily judged. Every. Single. Time.
NO WIN situation,
Well, at least it will stop the looting. Maybe things will have a chance to calm down. If Jesse and the other ghouls go home, things may simmer instead of boil.
I would truly like to see an unbiased survey report on the exact number of “good cops” versus “bad cops.
Before any such survey is taken, CAREFULLY define the difference between good and bad.
IMO, I firmly believe the good ones far out number the bad.
Rand Paul is an idiot. Now the evidence shows the cops were on the right, and thugs will be thugs as always.
***...why the hell does an accountant at the post office need to be armed?***
In case one of their own “goes postal”. Remember Edmond OK?
What does that have to do with the article?
I second that emotion. Big Time!
Ferguson is certainly not the event in which to raise the question of a overly militarized police force trend. It can't be separated from the event itself.
Cops are the new lawyers.
Everybody hates them.......until they need one.
Amazing how the Founding Fathers were able to run a country without swarms of cops...
You obviously are doing a drive by rant and didn’t read the piece at hand. That’s your right, and a lot of folks do that here and on other message boards. But you have not refuted a single syllable of the points in the article, and have made some absurd ASSumptions on where the article is going.
And by your own admission, you are the one living in the past. What you are not smart enough to figure out is that you and I agree on the past, we agree on the hard core libertarian anti cop movement, and we agree on the racial issue about Ferguson per se.
One of us is smart enough to figure that out. You are obviously not.
You probably have no problem that cannot be made worse by calling the police.
I agree Rand is an idiot - but I submit you are conflating several issues and ignoring a few more. Where he was an idiot was on the issue of race. Where he was an idiot was an assumption that Ferguson cops were racist and in the wrong.
He was right to have concerns about the rapidly increasingly militarization of police departments everywhere.
It does appear that the initial action by the Ferguson cops will be exonerated. But the invading army look post facto is disconcerting.
This story is deeply textured and with many cross currents. Those trying to pigeon hole it into neat little boxes are missing most of it.
That's an interesting question, but it's the wrong one. The better question is why you feel the need to invent distortions about those you are debating to make your own point look better? You need to answer that.
Oh, in a related story: I really do loathe that particular type of liberal straw type arguments - and I do react angrily at it. It's so infantile and intellectually vapid.
As for the "to your face" point, I think you miss your irony that destroys your cred. One of us hides behind a screen name……...
Rand could have kept his mouth shut until more facts came in.
In case one of their own “goes postal”. Remember Edmond OK?
For which, there are armed "Postal Police Officers" on most sites. That said, again the question begs, why the hell would a previously unarmed accountant, one which had been unarmed for years, if not decades, now be required to armed as an adjunct to his/her duties?
the infowarrior
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.