Dictator-In-Chief thinks police should not be militarized

[momeNt]

OP is a partisan hack who can't see what the real play is here by Obama.

By demilitarizing both the police and the citizens, there is nothing to stand in the way of complete federal government takeover. By 2020 I expect Obama to still be in office, and the final state to have fallen, likely Texas, will be at least a year under complete federal domination.

 

[momeNt]

That is very disingenuous of you to post that video from 1997.......that does not justify every city having military weapons and Police decked out better than our own troops......

There will always be the occasional Bundy ranch scenario.....In cases like that the Police or feds can go borrow what they need to enter the compound....

What about executing a no-knock warrant within 2 hours of judge approval for unpaid parking tickets? How are they going to kill the family dog? Do you even think before you post?

 

[bradly1101]

That is very disingenuous of you to post that video from 1997.......that does not justify every city having military weapons and Police decked out better than our own troops......

There will always be the occasional Bundy ranch scenario.....In cases like that the Police or feds can go borrow what they need to enter the compound....

No, they react as if the worst possible thing may happen. 'Protect and serve' is what cops do for other cops.

 

[Victorian Gray]

OP is a partisan hack who can't see what the real play is here by Obama.

By demilitarizing both the police and the citizens, there is nothing to stand in the way of complete federal government takeover. By 2020 I expect Obama to still be in office, and the final state to have fallen, likely Texas, will be at least a year under complete federal domination.

Oooh, can I have some of those drugs you've been taking.

 

[sportage]

The op using the term Dictator-In-Chief would seem they are not what you could call a fan of our Dictator-In-Chief.
So, if the police were militarized to the hilt, how do you expect to overthrow the US government with only handguns?
Seems supporting not to militarize would make more sense.
At least then, maybe Joe the revolutionary would stand a chance when up against Mr policeman.

 

[positivedoppler]

Even worse than that, he thinks this notion will receive bi-partisan support. D:

Link

There are plenty of people in the Tea Party who supports trimming down the Brazillian like para military police force
Would you still feel the same way if your local task force kicked down your door, dropped a flash bomb, and you waking up 3am in the morning with a rifle to your face because somebody tipped them off you might be stashing pot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When you have no facts, resort to hyperbole?

Fail.

Well this is P&N after all. If it weren't for irrational thinking this place would be closed due to lack of participation.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

OP is a partisan hack who can't see what the real play is here by Obama.

By demilitarizing both the police and the citizens, there is nothing to stand in the way of complete federal government takeover. By 2020 I expect Obama to still be in office, and the final state to have fallen, likely Texas, will be at least a year under complete federal domination.

The real play is less insidious than you claim. The problem of increasing force has been going on for some time, and doors have been knocked down where they would have been knocked on for some time now. Obama came to this great revelation because he needed to find something political to use related to the Brown situation.

Personally I think there's no widespread need to view most people or situations as if they were ISIS.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If you read this and aren't upset beyond reason, if you don't demand that such horrors be stopped, then you just aren't human. I read this and am enraged.

"A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son"

You need to know what is happening in your country.

All in a days work, but no need to fear the police, if you're innocent then you'll be fine

 

[Jhhnn]

OP is a partisan hack who can't see what the real play is here by Obama.

By demilitarizing both the police and the citizens, there is nothing to stand in the way of complete federal government takeover. By 2020 I expect Obama to still be in office, and the final state to have fallen, likely Texas, will be at least a year under complete federal domination.

So, uhh, buy more guns, right? And stock up on ammo, obviously. Get some body armor, too. Maybe they'll market it in children's sizes soon. Maybe a backyard bunker, concealed under a scale replica of the Alamo.

Expensive as they are, a psychiatrist might be cheaper.

 

[fleshconsumed]

On this, I agree with him.

BTW: There are conservatives who also want the police demilitarized so there may be some bipartisan support.

Fern

I also agreed with him when he said we need to put limits on lobbying in Washington and I also agreed with him when he said we need stronger protection for citizens privacy. However, neither of those two above happened. I expect this one is going to be just another lip service just like his other two promises.

P.S. this is not to say republicans are any better on lobbyism/privacy issues, I'm just saying I do not expect anything meaningful to happen until we start voting both parties out of the office.

 

[JEDIYoda]

What about executing a no-knock warrant within 2 hours of judge approval for unpaid parking tickets? How are they going to kill the family dog? Do you even think before you post?

obviously more than you think....

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I also agreed with him when he said we need to put limits on lobbying in Washington and I also agreed with him when he said we need stronger protection for citizens privacy. However, neither of those two above happened. I expect this one is going to be just another lip service just like his other two promises.

P.S. this is not to say republicans are any better on lobbyism/privacy issues, I'm just saying I do not expect anything meaningful to happen until we start voting both parties out of the office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4e28da-aeb6-11e3-96dc-d6ea14c099f9_story.html

Obama implemented a lot of anti-lobbying policies within his power (and has taken a lot of heat for it). That he couldn't push something through the most obstructionist congress in history is not something that can be entirely blamed on him I think. It's ok to not like either party, but this constant false-equivalence that both are equally as bad on issues with zero thought put behind it should really stop.

 

[momeNt]

obviously more than you think....

What would you rather have? Amazon drones dropping off warrants and notices to appear for criminal trials? Give non-violent suspects an opportunity to appear peacefully for a hearing without a dynamic entry arrest and the killing of the family animals? Are you literally out of your mind right now?

 

[JEDIYoda]

What about executing a no-knock warrant within 2 hours of judge approval for unpaid parking tickets? How are they going to kill the family dog? Do you even think before you post?

Why are the police using military equipped policeman to issue those no knock warrants for parking tickets? That is just absurd! The Police should not be militarized period....

By demilitarizing both the police and the citizens, there is nothing to stand in the way of complete federal government takeover. By 2020 I expect Obama to still be in office, and the final state to have fallen, likely Texas, will be at least a year under complete federal domination.

You are a total idiot and very paranoid....
As it is the Police are using their new found military toys to go after law abiding citizens...so what exactly is your point? Other than your very paranoid...lol

 

[squarecut1]

Police are slowly becoming more militaristic because they realize at some point, if sh*t hits the fan and society as a whole goes down the crapper, that a lot of us have guns and would use them if we had to.

It's obviously not for peaceful protests or even for people throwing rocks and Molotov's. They have teargas for stuff like that. It's meant to squash full out rebellions.

They have NFL and Reality TV to nip any rebellion in the bud. Military equipment not needed

 

[Victorian Gray]

If you read this and aren't upset beyond reason, if you don't demand that such horrors be stopped, then you just aren't human. I read this and am enraged.

"A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son"

You need to know what is happening in your country.

And they're on the hook for all the medical expenses as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/county-wont-pay-toddler-grenade_n_5695271.html

 

[werepossum]

Riots are something else entirely when discussing police use of heavy equipment and military tactics. They are allowed to restore and keep the peace with force. They are failing to keep peace when they use SWAT to conduct raids on otherwise normal police business.

Special circumstances should not be confused for how police should deal with all circumstances. They need to be toned down, and the innocent Americans they harm or jeopardize need to be minimized. Currently they are out of line and are beyond what I find acceptable policy.

When the President speaks on this subject, I applaud him for doing right by the American people. I only wish he would do more, that we ALL would do more to restore a civil society. It is unbecoming of Americans when we throw flash bangs into baby cribs for no good reason.

We need to do better.

Well said.

I should think by now that we'd all recognize that power given WILL be power abused. The War on Drugs had some justification, but it's morphed (probably inevitably) to the point that throwing a flash-bang into a home in the hopes of nabbing someone an informant claimed sold $50 of drugs is "following standard procedure". The methods used are rapidly losing any semblance of proportionality between the actual risk posed by the suspect/drugs and the risk posed by the methods used to apprehend him. Same for military gear supplied to police; we'd mostly agree that it's a good thing for cops to have for the occasional riot or AK-armed shooter, yet increasingly it will be used to serve that bench warrant or raid a crack dealer's house. The War of Terror is quickly going the same way, as the NSA seems to be spending a lot more effort spying on everyone than in actually apprehending actual terrorist, and those they do apprehend seem to be suspiciously often talked into actually taking action in stings. We may just have to conclude that we're at the stage where giving additional power is more likely to hurt us than to help us.

 

[fleshconsumed]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4e28da-aeb6-11e3-96dc-d6ea14c099f9_story.html

Obama implemented a lot of anti-lobbying policies within his power (and has taken a lot of heat for it). That he couldn't push something through the most obstructionist congress in history is not something that can be entirely blamed on him I think. It's ok to not like either party, but this constant false-equivalence that both are equally as bad on issues with zero thought put behind it should really stop.

How about former cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler being appointed as new FCC chief?

And I do not see Obama doing anything against NSA overreach either.

Instead I see Eric Holder (another Obama Appointee) arguing that constitution does not actually guarantee a judicial process and that executive review is the same as due process.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/secret-memo-making-case-kill-us-citizen-released

"The portion of the memo dealing with potential Fifth Amendment objections to targeting al-Awlaki remains heavily redacted, though the portion dealing with the Fourth Amendment is largely readable. Attorney General Eric Holder has argued publicly that ”The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process,” an argument later mocked by comedian Stephen Colbert, who deadpanned in response, “due process just means there’s a process that you do.”"

I'm sorry, but there is only so much one can blame on obstructionist republican congress. Healthcare reform being gutted by republicans? Yes, I'll give you that. That happened. Everything else like the 3 points I mentioned above are squarely on Obama.

 

[BoberFett]

How about former cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler being appointed as new FCC chief?

And I do not see Obama doing anything against NSA overreach either.

Instead I see Eric Holder (another Obama Appointee) arguing that constitution does not actually guarantee a judicial process and that executive review is the same as due process.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/secret-memo-making-case-kill-us-citizen-released

"The portion of the memo dealing with potential Fifth Amendment objections to targeting al-Awlaki remains heavily redacted, though the portion dealing with the Fourth Amendment is largely readable. Attorney General Eric Holder has argued publicly that ”The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process,” an argument later mocked by comedian Stephen Colbert, who deadpanned in response, “due process just means there’s a process that you do.”"

I'm sorry, but there is only so much one can blame on obstructionist republican congress. Healthcare reform being gutted by republicans? Yes, I'll give you that. That happened. Everything else like the 3 points I mentioned above are squarely on Obama.

The Faithful Will Never Be Swayed

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

How about former cable lobbyist Tom Wheeler being appointed as new FCC chief?

And I do not see Obama doing anything against NSA overreach either.

Instead I see Eric Holder (another Obama Appointee) arguing that constitution does not actually guarantee a judicial process and that executive review is the same as due process.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/secret-memo-making-case-kill-us-citizen-released

"The portion of the memo dealing with potential Fifth Amendment objections to targeting al-Awlaki remains heavily redacted, though the portion dealing with the Fourth Amendment is largely readable. Attorney General Eric Holder has argued publicly that ”The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process,” an argument later mocked by comedian Stephen Colbert, who deadpanned in response, “due process just means there’s a process that you do.”"

I'm sorry, but there is only so much one can blame on obstructionist republican congress. Healthcare reform being gutted by republicans? Yes, I'll give you that. That happened. Everything else like the 3 points I mentioned above are squarely on Obama.

Yes, it wasn't a zero tolerance policy; there was ways to get waivers for it. That's still a far cry from being just as bad as the right.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Yes, it wasn't a zero tolerance policy; there was ways to get waivers for it. That's still a far cry from being just as bad as the right.

What's worse than tramping constitution? I don't think there is much. Sure, the right is in medieval ages when it comes to social issues and religion. I would also argue that democratic approach to economic policies and healthcare is somewhat better than republicans. However, on everything else they're pretty much the same. Both want warrantless NSA spying, both work for donations/lobbysts instead of people, both support huge military, etc, etc, etc...

The problem with the democrats (or republicans, depending on one's allegiance) are not as bad as the other side line of thinking is that they both will have to "work just hard enough not to get fired". That is you will only receive slightly marginally better service than from the other side on the issues that matter to you most.

Sure, you can keep faithfully voting for democrats, or republicans, while they use divide and conquere to stay in office, but nothing is ever going to change until our elected officials will start getting voted out of office. Hit them where it hurts - their pockets, or in this case, their offices.

 

[dank69]

What's worse than tramping constitution? ...

Trampling the Constitution even more.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Trampling the Constitution even more.

Hypothetical example. One guy says I'm going to punch you 5 times in the stomach if you elect me. The second guy says I'm only going to punch you 4 times in the stomach if you elect me instead of that other first guy.

The way to fix this situation is not to vote for guy 2, but to vote against both of them. How is that so hard to understand?

 

[BoberFett]

Hypothetical example. One guy says I'm going to punch you 5 times in the stomach if you elect me. The second guy says I'm only going to punch you 4 times in the stomach if you elect me instead of that other first guy.

The way to fix this situation is not to vote for guy 2, but to vote against both of them. How is that so hard to understand?

You can't let the 5 punch guy win! Why do you hate America?