Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

No wonder the government and their security apparatus beats the people every time: they're succinct and directed in their planning.

Moreover, a majority of people will not tolerate anarchy. Most Americans (and Canadians) manage to live their entire lives without running afoul of the criminal justice system, and resent the perps who won't get with the program. That's why we watch Cops for entertainment.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 596
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's what I was thinking of when I answered the question, actually. If there were a significant backlash then we'd see policies change, because that's generally how it works. Canada's PM just aches to be loved, don't you know. :P

Using the Occupy movements as an example of the backlash against injustices on the whole in order to change policy, it was met with the full force of the militarized police.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But beyond such symbolic and formal similarities, American law and tradition have tried to draw a clear line between police and military forces. To cast the roles of the two too closely, those in and out of law enforcement say, is to mistake the mission of each. Soldiers, after all, go to war to destroy, and kill the enemy. The police, who are supposed to maintain the peace, β€œare the citizens, and the citizens are the police,” according to Chief Walter A. McNeil of Quincy, Fla., the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, citing the words of Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern-day policing.

Yet lately images from Occupy protests streamed on the Internet β€” often in real time β€” show just how readily police officers can adopt military-style tactics and equipment, and come off more like soldiers as they face down citizens. Some say this adds up to the emergence of a new, more militaristic breed of civilian police officer. Others disagree.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I was thinking of when I answered the question, actually. If there were a significant backlash then we'd see policies change, because that's generally how it works. Canada's PM just aches to be loved, don't you know. :P

America's larger cities began implementing tougher policing back in the late 80's and early 90's based on the idea of zero tolerance for minor crimes that ultimately lead to an environment for more serious felonies. New York City was "cleaned up" using such a policy. This lead to complaints about "police profiling" and discrimination.

Crime rates are down for a number of reasons, including more aggressive police work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the Occupy movements as an example of the backlash against injustices on the whole in order to change policy, it was met with the full force of the militarized police.

Oh, please. The term 'full force' is seriously lacking in context here. I can't take the conversation seriously without it, and maybe that's why the public can't either. Do you yourself indulge in protests ? If so, how often do you do so and under what criteria ? How do you find the behavior of the police ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, but I don't know if that was what Scotty was talking about in the OP. And how would you determine whether the government really has contempt for us ?

Oh i dont know... I guess you could look at the things they do and say. Like Vic Toews trying to sneak C-30 through then calling Canadians pedophile supporters when they didnt like it. Or the mass round up of people at G20, so that the government could have their lavish little party without inconvenience.

Or the police masquerading as protesting citizens, and then blatantly misbehaving so that the film could be used to discredit protesters, and to justify arrests.

I dont see how these things could happen if the government didnt have at least a certain ammount of contempt/disrespect for us.

Edited by dre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, please. The term 'full force' is seriously lacking in context here. I can't take the conversation seriously without it, and maybe that's why the public can't either. Do you yourself indulge in protests ? If so, how often do you do so and under what criteria ? How do you find the behavior of the police ?

Krikey.....those wimps never would have survived a protest in the 1960's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

The Ludlow Massacre was an attack by the Colorado National Guard and Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado on April 20, 1914.

In 1914, when workers at Colorado mine went on strike, company guards fired machine guns and killed several men. More battling followed, during which 2 women and 11 children were killed and John D. Rockefeller Jr., the chief mine owner, was pilloried for what had happened.

The massacre resulted in the violent deaths of between 19 and 25 people; sources vary but include two women and eleven children, asphyxiated and burned to death under a single tent. The deaths occurred after a daylong fight between militia and camp guards against striking workers. Ludlow was the deadliest single incident in the southern Colorado Coal Strike, lasting from September 1913 through December 1914. The strike was organized by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) against coal mining companies in Colorado. The three largest companies involved were the Rockefeller family-owned Colorado Fuel & Iron Company (CF&I), the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company (RMF), and the Victor-American Fuel Company (VAF).

Has anybody here ever heard of JD Rockefeller ? Maybe the Rockefeller centre ? How about the show 30 Rock ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh i dont know... I guess you could look at the things they do and say. Like Vic Toews trying to sneak C-30 through then calling Canadians pedophile supporters when they didnt like it. Or the mass round up of people at G20, so that the government could have their lavish little party without inconvenience.

Or the police masquerading as protesting citizens, and then blatantly misbehaving so that the film could be used to discredit protesters, and to justify arrests.

I dont see how these things could happen if the government didnt have at least a certain ammount of contempt/disrespect for us.

Good points, but - no - I don't think it adds up to the government being against us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, please.

Oh please yourself. Since you seem quite ignorant of these things we are talking about. Askig what does 'militarization of the police' really means, tells me you are simply not aware of things going on around you.

The term 'full force' is seriously lacking in context here. I can't take the conversation seriously without it, and maybe that's why the public can't either.

Do you want to wait untill the full force is being used before you stand up against it?

Do you yourself indulge in protests ? If so, how often do you do so and under what criteria ? How do you find the behavior of the police ?

It does not matter if I go to protests or not. There is ample video evidence out there that shows exactly what we are talking about.

Are you playing ignorant or really are ignorant on this subject?

Here is a DRILL, played out in the streets of LA for all to see. Get used to watching the 'show'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK3LH_vVB_Q

Edited by GostHacked
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, but - no - I don't think it adds up to the government being against us.

Not "against" us. They might just look at us like stupid children. I have kids whos welfare Im responsible for... theyre 10 years old. I dont honor their privacy, I boss them around, I sieze their property when I feel like it, etc etc. I doesnt mean Im "against" them. I just think its beyond their capacity to understand the ways in which I know whats best for them.

Actually I think Iv hit the nail on the head perfectly with that analogy.

This is the straussian view. The people are ultimately unfit to be trusted with the truth and deserve to live in some kind of engineered stupor for what the government of the day believes to be for their own good.

And heres the beauty of it... if the government sees themselves this way, then they will see their own existance in their current form as being "for peoples own good", and abusing the citizens themselves (political persecution, etc) also becomes "forthe peoples own good", as does any other violation of their rights. I rather doubt the politicians that sent the tanks into Tieneman Square pictured themselves as being "against" the chinese people.

If fact, I would wager that this mindset is behind almost all historical abuse of citizenry by government.

This isnt a new concept, but my idea of western civilization was that we were going to try something different... thats why theres so many rules government is supposed to follow. We are regressing though. People do and accept really dumb things when national security is being constantly evoked.

Edited by dre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please yourself. Since you seem quite ignorant of these things we are talking about. Askig what does 'militarization of the police' really means, tells me you are simply not aware of things going on around you.

Do you want to wait untill the full force is being used before you stand up against it?

I'm sorry but it's all hyperbole. I hear 'militarization' and I have to ask what you mean. I hear 'full force' and I have to ask what you mean.

And now, you're expecting me to be shocked by a drill ?

It does not matter if I go to protests or not. There is ample video evidence out there that shows exactly what we are talking about.

Well, YOU are the one asking me if I'm going to 'stand up against it'. Why can't I ask you, then, what your position is ? If you haven't got up and protested anything then why do you even care about this ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not "against" us. They might just look at us like stupid children.

Well, I don't doubt that many of them thing that.

Actually I think Iv hit the nail on the head perfectly with that analogy.

Yes, me too...

If fact, I would wager that this mindset is behind almost all historical abuse of citizenry by government.

Sure, but they are all like that - that's probably a function of dealing with the public, or of anybody dealing with their sponsors on any level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphic content.

And in many cases all these actions are claimed to be within the extent of the law. Or we get the line that 'the police acted in full compliance of their duties'. Or some other bull.

At 10 minutes there is an example of CCTV cameras interfering with the police. Good thing those CCTV cameras did not have a dog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSt0UBTHCmc

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but it's all hyperbole. I hear 'militarization' and I have to ask what you mean. I hear 'full force' and I have to ask what you mean.

And now, you're expecting me to be shocked by a drill ?

Actually I expected you to NOT be shocked by holding terror drills in the streets of LA. Think of it as 'conditioning' for the masses. Get them used to seeing this kind of thing on the streets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of this acceptable police behaviour? Can you defend the actions of the police in these videos?

You need to be specific. If this thread is about individual incidents, then so be it but I'm not saying anything here or there about that. This is the problem with discussing individual cases - now you're asking me to pass judgement on allegations of police brutality...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to be specific. If this thread is about individual incidents, then so be it but I'm not saying anything here or there about that.

I'll agree with Kimmy when she says that this is just another in a very long disturbing string of incidents. So if you want to narrow the view to one incident we can, but that won't lend a view to what this bigger picture.

Why participate then? If you don't have an opinion one way or the other, why participate? Asking me if I have ever been to a protest while not being able to have a position yourself seems counter productive to the whole conversation.

This is the problem with discussing individual cases - now you're asking me to pass judgement on allegations of police brutality...

So because there is a rise in underage drinking, the cops feel the need to arrest a woman who bought water because they thought it was beer? I mean upon closer inspection, these are loafers (Simpsons reference). OH sorry ma'am we thought it was beer but obviously it is water, please accept our apologies by spending a night at the station with us so we can talk about it.

If the woman is underage, then they should have gone after the store owner who sold her the alcohol. Kind of like busting the person who bought a could Gs instead of going after the dealers.

If the woman is of age, then why would they arrest her on the pretext of underage drinking when clearly she was carrying water? Fine let's say it IS a case of beer AND she is of age.

Still think it's justified?

Now let's talk about another incident.

Kelley Thomas

Good thing that these cops were convicted, which is quite rare. Usually it's suspension with pay.

A man is beaten to death while the people recording were interfering with the police actions. It's really sad the video exists for many reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas

Full 33 minute video if you care to watch.

So bigger picture here :

The way I see it, is that C.O.P.S. was a great social experiment. Show police brutality on people who 'deserve' it to desensitize people to cops beating up on people when they did NOT deserve it. Also a nice conditioning in a sense to laugh at it when you see it for real and not from the TV. So yes the show could very well have been and may continue to be part of the problem.

The other problem that is frustrating is the culture within the police force that will protect the fellow police officer. Being an officer of the law does not mean you have the ability to break it and invoke a few

I think many of us here clearly understand what would be considered excessive force in various situations when you look at the videos.

Like shooting of a person in the back when they are on the ground in cuffs. And these are just transit cops.

And when you decide to protest police brutality, you are met with more police brutality.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree with Kimmy when she says that this is just another in a very long disturbing string of incidents. So if you want to narrow the view to one incident we can, but that won't lend a view to what this bigger picture.

I am interested in the bigger picture but the news often prioritizes shock value and individual points of outrage over real trends.

Asking me if I have ever been to a protest

I only did that because you asked me what I was prepared to do, first.

Still think it's justified?

I didn't say I thought it was justified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelley Thomas

Good thing that these cops were convicted, which is quite rare. Usually it's suspension with pay.

Actually usually its nothing at all. Even with cellphone cameras etc, only a tiny percentage of these cases every sees the light of day, never mind prosecution of any kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no cite - there were two news articles talking about an incident. There's nothing in there indicating that this happened due to militarization of the police, or ... anything. It's just a one-off. The_Squid was gracious enough to define what 'militarization of the police' is, though, above.

Thanks, The_Squid.

There was an article about police militarization in the post you responded to but made no comment on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you did in fact bail out the OP with facts.

What facts have you introduced thus far? Nothing. Just endless complaints. No contribution whatsoever.

I've posted several articles which you evidently have been too busy to read or comment on in your zeal to protest that no one is satisfying your earnest desire for information.

What are you even doing on this topic given you have nothing to say about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With everybody pitching in, we're inching towards having an argument on this thread. Ok, Military equipment and tactics. Got it. ( I hope that you guys are all around next time Scotty starts a thread, btw. )

Is there concern by those of you helping Scotty out with his thread here, that these new tactics and equipment are not needed or wanted by the police forces that get them ?

I suppose this is what's called trolling right? Trying to provoke me into calling you names now so you can then whine about it to the moderator? I'll just put you on my ignore list instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already answered....a majority of Americans value security over perceived privacy (because that's all it would be anyway).

The security is only perceived, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...