The "Militarization" argument explained.......

[xsniper 1]

normiss

It comes across as though 'you' are terrified of your own job.
It looks like all out war against the citizens of this country.

What if it really isn't that the police officer is "terrified of his own job" but really wants to be able to do his job properly for the betterment of the society he serves. What if he wants to make sure he has the necessary equipment so he can save those he is sworn to protect or maybe even deter those who intend harm. What if he knows and teaches his upcoming officers that you are not a complete police officer unless you can offer up as much compassion as needed violence. What if the "sheepdog mentality" was really a way of showing invested caring and loyalty. You know, that dog loves each of his sheep, but has his eyes open for the potential wolf.

I gotta get over to Deland and met ya sometime. I bet it would be a blast. Take good care.

[billvon 3,110]

>What if it really isn't that the police officer is "terrified of his own job" but really
>wants to be able to do his job properly for the betterment of the society he
>serves. What if he wants to make sure he has the necessary equipment so he
>can save those he is sworn to protect or maybe even deter those who intend
>harm.

That's great.

But to use a skydiving analogy, if a new AFF instructor shows up with several guns to "protect his student in freefall and keep them safe" rather than several suits to match their fallrate, they might not be a great fit for a US skydiving school. They may be well-intentioned, but their choice of equipment indicates that they may not be good at understanding and trading off the real risks to their students.

Likewise, if a police officer is more concerned about the armament he carries than about his skill at de-escalating incidents, he may be not be good at understanding and trading off the real risks to the general populace. (Indeed, with a concentration on firepower and military tactics, he may even create the situations he is trying to avoid.)

Fortunately, most US cops that I have met prefer to rely on their good judgment rather than their hardware.

[xsniper 1]

billvon

>What if it really isn't that the police officer is "terrified of his own job" but really
>wants to be able to do his job properly for the betterment of the society he
>serves. What if he wants to make sure he has the necessary equipment so he
>can save those he is sworn to protect or maybe even deter those who intend
>harm.

That's great.

But to use a skydiving analogy, if a new AFF instructor shows up with several guns to "protect his student in freefall and keep them safe" rather than several suits to match their fallrate, they might not be a great fit for a US skydiving school. They may be well-intentioned, but their choice of equipment indicates that they may not be good at understanding and trading off the real risks to their students.

Likewise, if a police officer is more concerned about the armament he carries than about his skill at de-escalating incidents, he may be not be good at understanding and trading off the real risks to the general populace. (Indeed, with a concentration on firepower and military tactics, he may even create the situations he is trying to avoid.)

Fortunately, most US cops that I have met prefer to rely on their good judgment rather than their hardware.

I do understand your angle and your point. A balance is necessary and the equipment should supplement the skill and the knowledge. I am not trying to prolong my point, but I certainly learned that there are no "do-overs" and unlike a video game you do not have five lives to learn the correct process.

[skycop 0]

Quote

But to use a skydiving analogy, if a new AFF instructor shows up with several guns to "protect his student in freefall and keep them safe" rather than several suits to match their fallrate, they might not be a great fit for a US skydiving school. They may be well-intentioned, but their choice of equipment indicates that they may not be good at understanding and trading off the real risks to their students.

That may be the worst analogy I've ever heard, even for a smart guy like you.....

Quote

Likewise, if a police officer is more concerned about the armament he carries than about his skill at de-escalating incidents, he may be not be good at understanding and trading off the real risks to the general populace. (Indeed, with a concentration on firepower and military tactics, he may even create the situations he is trying to avoid.)

I explained ad-nauseam in several threads that the "military tactics" only apply to a very few specific situations, situations that do not have a de-escalation component.

Yet the critics here accused me of being a coward among other things, because their arguments weren't factual or valid in regards to the specific situation(s).

Quote

Fortunately, most US cops that I have met prefer to rely on their good judgment rather than their hardware.

That's what I've been saying all along, but if I put the term military and tactic in the same paragraph the detractors have a stroke. Regardless of the content or facts in the post(s).
Police departments are para-military organizations by definition, although the missions usually differ greatly. Again mission creep is a concern, but that is a local leadership and training issue.

Having an MRAP sitting in a garage as an insurance policy (the one in our area was used for it's intended purpose), or a HMMWV pulling cars out of the ditch in a snowstorm are not military tactics. Nor is having patrol rifles, even if they are military surplus. The rifles would have been bought anyway, it's an efficient use of tax dollars.

What I find most bothersome are the right-leaning critics, they are particularly disingenuous. They are the first to scream about the acquisition surplus military equipment. But in the event of an incident, they are also the first to scream about not being prepared for the incident, or the response to the incident. They are also the first to complain about spending tax dollars, our capabilities expand the use of those tax dollars for pennies on the dollar.

When I take our HMMWV to an event, they are the ones walking by looking and talking to their friends with their hands over their mouths.
They never come over and ask questions or look in any detail, they also assume the vehicle is armored, it's not against anything bigger than a .22. (17 grain)

I've had numerous people who doubted the need, but they come over and ask legitimate questions. Once I explain what it's used for and the capabilities vs. cost they leave nodding in agreement the vast, vast majority of the time.

The hard-left (and right for that matter) just don't like that cops, and I'm good with that, it comes with the territory.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[kallend 2,146]

On the whole, this is the kind of article about cops that I like to read:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-applause-for-cops-who-save-man-at-midway-airport-20150327-story.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Boomerdog 0]

Another URL offered:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/second-amendment-2/guy-gets-pulled-over-for-speeding-reveals-hes-carrying-then-the-cop-does-this

This does not take way the glaring facts that there exists a small percentage of the "long blue line" making the rest of you look bad. Yes cops are human and make mistakes like the rest of us. Let's not forget that some of those "mistakes" end up on a slab in the morgue for subsequent burial or cremation.

I don't think it's a stretch to require cops to think through a situation when given the chance. When confronted with violence, there's no choice. Ferguson (IMHO) is a sad story but officer action justified. New York? no one will ever get the stink off that one but neither did that justify the random assassination of two NYPD either.

And then there's the Albuquerque PD. There's enough scandal going on there to keep a multitude of investigators busy for several lifetimes.

I think you're a good cop skycap and I think you want to do the right thing. I too would like to see cops do their job properly and go home at night. I just want every badge to remember that their job holds them to higher standards.

[skycop 0]

Quote

Another URL offered:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...en-the-cop-does-this


It's funny, that is the way the vast majority of cops feel. When I stop a CCDW holder sometimes they are scared shitless. When they tell me they are carrying, I just tell them not to grab it and point it at me and we're good, but if they do grab it, it would be bad.............

In my state you can carry a loaded gun in the glove box, so it's not uncommon for people to carry in their cars.

I agree about Albuquerque to a degree, I've never said there weren't agencies that didn't have issues.

Quote

New York? no one will ever get the stink off that one but neither did that justify the random assassination of two NYPD either.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, there is no pretty way to fight or take someone in custody that doesn't want to go. Political issues led to the "listed" cause of death. The man was morbidly obese and decided to engage in a fight his body could not support. If a taser would have been used the same result was highly likely, an excited delirium state can result when the body is that overtaxed.

Unfortunately I've seen this happen first hand, a 340 lb mentally ill guy decided to fight, after the fight his body/heart gave out. Proper techniques were used and the fight only lasted a couple minutes, this was pre-taser days. And it wasn't just cops, he fought two cops and two paramedics. Sometimes things are just a shit sandwich and everyone has to take a bite.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[masterblaster72 0]

skycop

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, there is no pretty way to fight or take someone in custody that doesn't want to go. Political issues led to the "listed" cause of death. The man was morbidly obese and decided to engage in a fight his body could not support. If a taser would have been used the same result was highly likely, an excited delirium state can result when the body is that overtaxed.

Really? I just watched the video again. I saw him giving a lot of lip, but I didn't see him take a swing at any officers before he was put in a choke hold.

The last thing I heard him say is "I can't breathe" when he was completely immobilized on the ground. Seems that you either missed that from previous videos or conveniently forgot it.

Or maybe you actually did see the full video and still decided it was entirely Mr. Garner's fault for deciding to "engage in a fight." If so, could you explain further, with a better argument than "he had it coming for having a big mouth and a big belly?"

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[skycop 0]

Quote

Or maybe you actually did see the full video and still decided it was entirely Mr. Garner's fault for deciding to "engage in a fight." If so, could you explain further, with a better argument than "he had it coming for having a big mouth and a big belly?"

Mr. Garner could have avoided all this by simply complying with being arrested, he chose not to. I'm not saying there would not be civil issues with improper techniques or policy violations.
There is no nice way to take a 300+ plus guy into custody if he doesn't want to go. When someone resists, it is a fight if you are the one trying to overcome the resistance.

If someone is saying over and over they can't breathe, wouldn't they be breathing? Secondly, his physical condition and resistance play a large part in his shortness of breath.

It was ugly I agree, would I have done it that way, probably not. But you or I weren't there, and we don't know what transpired before the video started. Just because something is ugly doesn't mean it's wrong.
The timing could'nt have been worse, but Mr. Garner played a large part in his demise, a sad unpleasant fact.

A Grand Jury felt the same way, and it's hard to get 12 or more people to agree on anything.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[normiss 892]

I still find it hard to justify an arrest for a ticket-able offense.

[masterblaster72 0]

skycop

If someone is saying over and over they can't breathe, wouldn't they be breathing?

Well, when one speaks, one exhales. Just like the prey of a python can only exhale when it is slowly being asphyxiated to death. I suppose you can call that "breathing."

So according your quote above, I suppose that in addition to "playing a large part in his own demise," Mr. Garner lacked honesty in uttering in his last words "I can't breathe." Very nice.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[kallend 2,146]

masterblaster72

***

If someone is saying over and over they can't breathe, wouldn't they be breathing?

Well, when one speaks, one exhales. Just like the prey of a python can only exhale when it is slowly being asphyxiated to death. I suppose you can call that "breathing."

So according your quote above, I suppose that in addition to "playing a large part in his own demise," Mr. Garner lacked honesty in uttering in his last words "I can't breathe." Very nice.

I understand that some people have been heard to make vocalizations while being hanged. But not for long.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skycop 0]

Hard realities are just that, hard.

A grand jury looked at the totality of the facts and made the appropriate decision IMHO.

I also said this does not relieve the officer(s) of potential civil liability.

Quote

it was only a ticketable offense

That is true, Mr. Garner decided to take it to the next level.

Quote

So according your quote above, I suppose that in addition to "playing a large part in his own demise," Mr. Garner lacked honesty in uttering in his last words "I can't breathe." Very nice.

Not at all, his physical condition contributed as much, or more to his demise.

Even a simple arrest can turn sour quickly if the person decides to resist. I hesitated once making a "simple arrest" and spent six weeks with my mouth wired shut.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[turtlespeed 226]

skycop

Hard realities are just that, hard.


Even a simple arrest can turn sour quickly if the person decides to resist. I hesitated once making a "simple arrest" and spent six weeks with my mouth wired shut.

That is perfectly acceptable for the anti cop crowd. They are of the mindset that you should be reprimanded for hurting the guys hand with your face.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

A grand jury looked at the totality of the facts

Uhmm no.

The grand jury looks at only what the prosecutor allows them to see. It is led by the prosecutor, no judge is present and the defendant has no right to present his/her case.

Stating that a grand jury looks at the totality of facts and therefor made an appropriate decision indicates a total lack of understanding.

[skycop 0]

Yes,
You are right, I have a total misunderstanding of Grand Jury proceedings.

A grand jury can and often does look at the totality of the facts, conducts their own investigation, and does make a decision on those facts.

You conveniently left out the fact that a Grand Juror can ask questions directly of a witness, that doesn't happen in a trial.

I've found them to be very inquisitive and very focused, but then again I know you are an expert and have testified hundreds of times infront of one.........

But you watch CNN, so it's all good.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

A grand jury can and often does look at the totality of the facts, conducts their own investigation, and does make a decision on those facts.

This includes "evidence" illegally obtained. The grand jury is set up to be one sided and under direction of the prosecutor.

Quote

You conveniently left out the fact that a Grand Juror can ask questions directly of a witness, that doesn't happen in a trial

And you are conveniently leaving out the "defendant" has absolutely no right to present his side of the case.

Quote

I've found them to be very inquisitive and very focused, but then again I know you are an expert and have testified hundreds of times infront of one.........

You haven't found that it is highly unusual for the prosecutor not to get what he wants from a Grand Jury?

And since the proceedings are secret and the records are sealed, you can only be speaking for those cases you have been involved with as a police officer. Since it is most likely that you and the prosecutor were on the "same team" during those proceedings and the prosecutor most likely got what he wanted, your opinion is likely biased.

[kallend 2,146]

skycop

Yes,
You are right, I have a total misunderstanding of Grand Jury proceedings.

A grand jury can and often does look at the totality of the facts, conducts their own investigation, and does make a decision on those facts.

You conveniently left out the fact that a Grand Juror can ask questions directly of a witness, that doesn't happen in a trial.

I've found them to be very inquisitive and very focused, but then again I know you are an expert and have testified hundreds of times infront of one.........

But you watch CNN, so it's all good.

Maybe Justice Scalia knows something about Grand Juries:

“It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire upon what foundation the charge may be denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.” United States vs Williams, 1992

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skycop 0]

Quote

You haven't found that it is highly unusual for the prosecutor not to get what he wants from a Grand Jury?

Yes I have seen no true bills on numerous occasions.

Quote

And you are conveniently leaving out the "defendant" has absolutely no right to present his side of the case.

So the cop you want to hang should have the right to defend himself infront of the Grand Jury right?
Oh wait he didn't, just like everyone else, and if he did, the jurors would have a chance to ask him questions.
Hmm............can't have it both ways........


No process is perfect, but a Grand Jury acts as somewhat of a filter and can conduct it's own investigations.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

Quote

Maybe Justice Scalia knows something about Grand Juries:

Politics make strange bedfellows, you quoting Scalia, that's a surprise.............

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So the cop you want to hang should have the right to defend himself infront of the Grand Jury right?
Oh wait he didn't, just like everyone else, and if he did, the jurors would have a chance to ask him questions.
Hmm............can't have it both ways........

nice strawman.

I am not discussing how Grand Juries should or should not be conducted, if at all. I was countering your argument that a Grand Jury would have looked at all the relevant facts before reaching their conclusion.

First, that isn't the job of the Grand Jury as the Supreme Court has already established. Second, the way grand juries are conducted are a clear indication your assertion isn't true. Third, there is no way for you to know this since the proceedings are secret and the records sealed.

I am sure you agree with the findings. But trying to give your opinion additional validity because the Grand Jury must have looked at all relevant facts is asinine.

[skycop 0]

Quote

I am sure you agree with the findings. But trying to give your opinion additional validity because the Grand Jury must have looked at all relevant facts

The facts are there for all to see, emotion and legal definitions are two different things.

Quote

is asinine

Well if your argument has no weight, resort to that...........

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[billvon 3,110]

>The facts are there for all to see, emotion and legal definitions are two different things.

There is a reason that we require that legal representation be provided to people who are in front of a court on a criminal charge - because we accept that, without an advocate for one position, a trial is inherently unfair.

There are no advocates for the accused in a grand jury. It is inherently unfair. It does not look at all the relevant facts, because no one is there to advocate for one side of the argument. It does not render an impartial or fair judgment about the crime - nor is that its intent. Its intent is merely to determine whether or not to bring charges against someone.

It does not ask the question "did they do it?" It merely asks the question "is there enough evidence that they MIGHT have done it?" The fairness comes in at the next level - the trial itself.

[grue 1]

billvon

>The facts are there for all to see, emotion and legal definitions are two different things.

There is a reason that we require that legal representation be provided to people who are in front of a court on a criminal charge - because we accept that, without an advocate for one position, a trial is inherently unfair.

There are no advocates for the accused in a grand jury. It is inherently unfair. It does not look at all the relevant facts, because no one is there to advocate for one side of the argument. It does not render an impartial or fair judgment about the crime - nor is that its intent. Its intent is merely to determine whether or not to bring charges against someone.

It does not ask the question "did they do it?" It merely asks the question "is there enough evidence that they MIGHT have done it?" The fairness comes in at the next level - the trial itself.

and worse yet, if anything does go to a trial, be it a traffic ticket or a murder case, a cop's word is assumed to be more credible than a non-cop's word, which REALLY drives me up the wall.

cavete terrae.