Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

militarization of cifvilian police

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • vantec08
    Veteran Member
    • Sep 2009
    • 3795

    militarization of cifvilian police

    A decade of billions in spending in the name of homeland security has armed local police departments with military-style equipment and a new commando mentality. But has it gone too far? Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz of the Center for Investigative Reporting report.
  • #2
    CDFingers
    Banned
    • Mar 2008
    • 1852

    It should bother California gun owners that the police are better armed than the civilians.

    CDFingers

    Comment

    • #3
      Dutch3
      I need a LIFE!!
      • Oct 2010
      • 14181

      Originally posted by CDFingers
      It should bother California gun owners that the police are better armed than the civilians.
      Especially since the police are civilians. They should not be armed as a military or paramilitary force.
      Just taking up space in (what is no longer) the second-worst small town in California.

      Comment

      • #4
        themandylion
        Member
        • Nov 2010
        • 161

        In another era, in another land, Bratton would have fit perfectly - absolutely perfectly - into a Gestapo or Cheka/NKVD uniform.

        Exercising one's God-given, Second Amendment-secured rights = "gun crazy."

        Comment

        • #5
          zhyla
          Banned
          • Aug 2009
          • 2017

          Helmets, AR-15's, and an armored truck? Why is your knee jerking like that?

          Comment

          • #6
            Bobby Hated
            Senior Member
            • Oct 2010
            • 1616

            please do not fall for this pathetic attempt to drive a wedge between LEO's and gun owners.

            california anti-gun lobby's new strategy: trying to turn non-LEO gun owners against LEO's by making them covetous of the privileges of working as a LEO. we shouldnt be taking LEO's rights away, we should be giving rights back to the rest of the state.

            however the "gun-crazy" comment was offensive.
            USPSA Master TY-71084

            Comment

            • #7
              guns4life
              Veteran Member
              • Aug 2010
              • 4916

              Originally posted by Bobby Hated
              please do not fall for this pathetic attempt to drive a wedge between LEO's and gun owners.

              california anti-gun lobby's new strategy: trying to turn non-LEO gun owners against LEO's by making them covetous of the privileges of working as a LEO. we shouldnt be taking LEO's rights away, we should be giving rights back to the rest of the state.

              however the "gun-crazy" comment was offensive.

              I don't want that the police have, I want the police to have what I have. I don't need an APC,or a spy drone...they don't need them either.
              sigpic

              Comment

              • #8
                yellowfin
                Calguns Addict
                • Nov 2007
                • 8371

                Originally posted by Bobby Hated
                However the "gun-crazy" comment was offensive.
                Purposefully offensive: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4k...JlYWU1YTYyNWY2
                "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
                Originally posted by indiandave
                In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
                Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.

                Comment

                • #9
                  vantec08
                  Veteran Member
                  • Sep 2009
                  • 3795

                  Originally posted by Bobby Hated
                  please do not fall for this pathetic attempt to drive a wedge between LEO's and gun owners.

                  california anti-gun lobby's new strategy: trying to turn non-LEO gun owners against LEO's by making them covetous of the privileges of working as a LEO. we shouldnt be taking LEO's rights away, we should be giving rights back to the rest of the state.

                  however the "gun-crazy" comment was offensive.

                  Pathetic attempt? do you not realize that equipment is to protect THEM - - not US??

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Bobby Hated
                    Senior Member
                    • Oct 2010
                    • 1616

                    see thats the problem. you're thinking in terms of taking their rights away, instead of thinking of giving us our rights back. its not them against us, they are us.
                    USPSA Master TY-71084

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      db42
                      Senior Member
                      • Jun 2011
                      • 1574

                      Originally posted by Bobby Hated
                      please do not fall for this pathetic attempt to drive a wedge between LEO's and gun owners.

                      california anti-gun lobby's new strategy: trying to turn non-LEO gun owners against LEO's by making them covetous of the privileges of working as a LEO. we shouldnt be taking LEO's rights away, we should be giving rights back to the rest of the state.

                      however the "gun-crazy" comment was offensive.
                      ^Voice of Reason^

                      Do they need an armored truck - obviously not, but who cares? Police like fun stuff as much as we do, and if they got an APC for $350K, they got a deal.

                      As for the rest of it (the helmets and ARs), I have no problem with police departments arming their patrol officers with effective weapons and defenses. I'd love to see every officer wearing body armor, and (during an emergency) a ballistic helmet would be appropriate.

                      AR-15s have been standard equipment for over a decade (since the North Hollywood shootout I believe); and the author's terror at the use of "multi-pocket vests" somewhat betrays his fear peddling.

                      As for the use of unmanned drones - again, who cares? Drones do surveillance without putting living persons in harm's way. If you want to follow a suspect without needing to physically follow him, a drone is a great way to do that. These would be a great help in fighting the cartels.
                      I use to be an anarchist but I quit that; there's too many rules.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        leadstorm
                        Senior Member
                        • Aug 2008
                        • 1191

                        if it's not frivolous spending and it helps them fight real crime more efficiently. The problem (to me) is departmental doctrine, training, and culture - are they using the stuff to go after real crime and criminals, or are they painting the general public as comprised entirely of potential enemies? In the case of LA, the answer is clear (and wrong)...

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Dreaded Claymore
                          Veteran Member
                          • May 2010
                          • 3231

                          Originally posted by leadstorm
                          if it's not frivolous spending and it helps them fight real crime more efficiently. The problem (to me) is departmental doctrine, training, and culture - are they using the stuff to go after real crime and criminals, or are they painting the general public as comprised entirely of potential enemies? In the case of LA, the answer is clear (and wrong)...
                          A good enough post to read twice.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            1911su16b870
                            CGN/CGSSA Contributor
                            CGN Contributor
                            • Dec 2006
                            • 7654

                            Originally posted by CDFingers
                            It should bother California gun owners that the police are better armed than the civilians.

                            CDFingers
                            Your generalization is false. You are lumping all police against all civilians. I bet the average calgunner is better armed than the average police.

                            It should bother you that the military is better armed than the civilians.
                            "Bruen, the Bruen opinion, I believe, discarded the intermediate scrutiny test that I also thought was not very useful; and has, instead, replaced it with a text history and tradition test." Judge Benitez 12-12-2022

                            NRA Endowment Life Member, CRPA Life Member
                            GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), Colt AR15/M16/M4, Sig P320, Sig P365, Beretta 90 series, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
                            Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger, Hudson H9 Armorer, just for fun!
                            I instruct it if you shoot it.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Bhobbs
                              I need a LIFE!!
                              • Feb 2009
                              • 11848

                              Originally posted by 1911su16b870
                              Your generalization is false. You are lumping all police against all civilians. I bet the average calgunner is better armed than the average police.

                              It should bother you that the military is better armed than the civilians.
                              No, because the military isn't roaming the streets of our country.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1