skycop

Because someone who shoots their girlfriend to pieces with a shotgun in front of their daughter, because he was drunk and she wouldn't let him go fishing..........then have no remorse. Or the guy who shoots his wife, then lures his daughter and her boyfriend back to the house, then shoots her in the face and him in the head. Yep, they deserve to live the rest of their lives on the taxpayers dime. Believe it or not, I'm not a huge death penalty proponent, but in many cases it is justly deserved. I was involved in both the above cases, there was absolutely no question in the guilt of both these guys. They were both cold heartless killers, period. There were several others, but these two stand out as poster children for the death penalty. In the first case the guy only got 35yrs, in the other a life sentence. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

The facts are there for all to see, emotion and legal definitions are two different things. Well if your argument has no weight, resort to that........... "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Politics make strange bedfellows, you quoting Scalia, that's a surprise............. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Yes I have seen no true bills on numerous occasions. 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!"

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!"

That made my head hurt.... "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

My wife works in retail, I do the cop thing, holidays for us are just another day most of the time. We both chose our careers, so we deal with it, so do our kids. Sometimes it's an advantage in dealing with extended family politics. It's nice to just shrug my shoulders and say "I have to work"................ "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

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

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!"

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. 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!"

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

And it appears................. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

My dad can beat up your dad............. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

My mindset? Take a look at my earlier posts, they are factual and reasonable. Perhaps you should try it. I wouldn't call what your doing resisting, continue pounding away.............. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Someone who won't listen to facts and reason (sometimes). Absolutely.......... "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

The difference is I live it, you pound a keyboard. I grasp both sides of the issue, you have moments, then back to pounding. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Military stance, that's quite a jump, but leaps are common here. Police work is all about relationship building and networking, those who think that doesn't go on constantly are sadly mistaken. "The police are the people, people are the police" is a great statement at the end of the video. I've tried to give factual information and the best many can give back are platitudes and regurgitated talking points promoted by a disingenuous media. I've said over and over there are concerns, cops make mistakes, and there is are distinct differences between the military and the police. With that said there is the specific threat of military style weapons being used by criminals, two cops were killed yesterday by them. The police have a duty to the public they serve to be prepared and train to respond to these threats. Again, if it's your kid or you needing the assistance, you'd want the cops to have every tool available. You said I appear to terrified to do my job......... Unless you've ever been somewhere where a guy killed his whole family, and you know he is armed with several AK-47's and at least one SKS. And all you have is a 9mm and a shotgun, and you willingly respond and engage that person (among numerous other things). You are not qualified to make that assertion, and the comment shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of the subject............ "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

The reality is you won't be. The reality is if there is an active shooter near you when you get pulled over, a better armed and trained patrol officer will intervene in a timely manner. You won't have to wait for a black van to pull up, with guys yelling "hut, hut, hut" as they exit...... Active shooters armed with semi-auto rifles and having tactical plans called for an evolution in response. It's that simple. It's not cops acting like soldiers, it's cops responding to a specific threat. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

By definition I'm sure it is, but truth and reality are a biatch sometimes. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Depends on the situation, but in most cases a tactical response prevents escalation. If you are stating that I want an advantage to win a potential fight, then you are absolutely correct. LE has been getting and using surplus equipment since at least the 50's. The M113's were available and some were acquired by agencies, they were not well suited for the mission. Tracked vehicles are not sustainable without the maintenance infrastructure to support them, among other things. You chose not to listen to the story, it's a shift in tactics, and as I've posted before this shift adapts military tactics to LE. By that I mean not isolating and containing an active shooter, but more of an assault to end the situation as soon as possible, by the initial responding units. These tactics were not considered pre-Columbine, they have become the norm dealing with active shooters. To use these tactics patrol rifles are needed, the 1033 program is the fastest and most inexpensive means to do so. As long as the threat exists, LE has a duty to prepare and train for it, with the best equipment available. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

You are exactly right, the command staff at Columbine subscribed to the "isolate and contain" strategy of the previous decades and paid dearly for it. First the patrol, then tactical response asked permission to enter on numerous occasions. They were denied by command staff. There were numerous IED's planted as primary and secondary devices, most failed to go off. The "old" way for the cops to deal with this situation was to isolate and contain, that tactic failed miserably and many lives were lost needlessly. Many militarization critics harken back to the "old" days. Fast forward to Sandy Hook, the length of the incident from the first call to the scene being secured was 14 minutes. The "old" way (tactic) was time was on your side, the reality of an active shooter is time is not on your side. I challenge you to listen to the radio tapes of Sandy Hook, the theater shooting in Aurora, and other recent active shooter events. Tactics are evolutional, tactics have evolved to deal with the harsh realities. Those realities are unpleasant and uncomfortable for all involved, but the need dictates the reality. The Columbine shooting is a textbook example of the need for an armored vehicle. However, critics seem to ignore that and other situations. If it's your kid or you needing the assistance, I can guarantee you'd want the cops to have every tool available. I agree, mission creep is major concern. Tactical operations go on every day in this country, you never read about, or see just a small blurb on 99% of them. Those tactical operations prevent things from escalating, I've been on dozens of them. After Ferguson, the hype caught traction, even though in Ferguson the hype was incorrect. But I have yet to see a major contraction of the inaccuracies reported. Another example of a "militarized" armored vehicle. http://www.ocala.com/article/20140603/ARTICLES/140609916?p=1&tc=pg "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=350995231770404&fref=nf Worth 5 minutes of your time. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

A small town has some type of major event described above, they need an aerial platform for any number of reasons. The support has to be requested and approved by the guard. It doesn't happen much, where I worked previously we had an annual event that attracted 250,000 people. Our 45 man department couldn't handle that alone. Our city manager declared an emergency and guard help was requested. They usually sent about 100 MP's or a mix of MP's and regular guardsmen, they manned entry posts and directed traffic mainly. This freed us up to do the enforcement side, this has gone on for over 30 years with no problems. And for such a large event there were very few problems. Enter the internet keyboard warriors over the last 8yrs or so, who think they know about Posse Comitatus, they don't. A few of them (from out of town) run around occasionally and scream about Constitutional violations. There is no reasoning with these people. The OH-58 was very well suited for the counter drug mission, it wasn't well suited for other missions. The states with the most marijuana grows kept the OH-58's, the were built in the late 60's early 70's and needed replacement. The guard now has the UH-72 Lakota, it's a multi-mission aircraft and much cheaper to operate than a Blackhawk, especially in the search and rescue area. These aircraft are not strictly used for counter-drug. It's simply a support function and good training for the aircrews, which enhances mission readiness. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Well forgive me, the spirit of your post implied Posse comitatus applied to the national guard mission, it doesn't. I just am of the opinion that they shouldn't be. *** Your town has a large event, drawing hundreds of thousands of people, your local PD does not have the manpower or equipment to deal with the situation. They ask the state for help and the governor decides to use guard resources to help. That is what they are there for, that is the guard mission. Same goes for disasters, critical incidents, and in some cases tactical situations. Rude, no Grumpy, yes..............I just went to nights, and at my age that ain't easy........... "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

It's been that way long before the internet-sensationalized "militarization" argument started. Federal troops cannot support LE, unless directed by the CINC and authorized by congress. Think of the 101st Airborne at the University of Alabama in the 60's. In that case they (the feds) didn't trust the guard, so they federalized them (Title 10 activation) and brought in federal troops to oversee. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"