Dictator-In-Chief thinks police should not be militarized

[dank69]

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

Link

 

[Texashiker]

Dictator-In-Chief thinks police should not be militarized.

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

Please explain why the police need military equipment.

Maybe for this?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

If people would stand against the War on Drugs the militarization would be unnecessary. Now, go look at who actively lobbies against the legalization of marijuana and then tell me the actual reason the War on Drugs is never ending. Now apply this new realization to the War on Terror and think about what it means for this country, long term.

 

[z1ggy]

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.

 

[glenn1]

Please explain why the police need military equipment.

Maybe for this?

That was the People's Liberation Army, not the police. Unless what you're implying is that Obama doesn't want federal army tanks to compete with local police tanks when the decision is made to crack down hard on protesters.

 

[Texashiker]

That was the People's Liberation Army, not the police.

What difference does it make?

Regardless of who is operating the equipment, it is military equipment being used on civilians.

 

[Genx87]

Makes sense. Since this is mostly a pentagon program. Cant he sign an executive order eliminating the program??

 

[Texashiker]

If people would stand against the War on Drugs the militarization would be unnecessary.

Bull carp.

Did you see the recent looting? What does that have to do with drugs?

The key to stopping violent protest is putting people to work. If you have a job and responsibilities, chances are you are not going to be looting and rioting.

 

[glenn1]

What difference does it make?

Regardless of who is operating the equipment, it is military equipment being used on civilians.

Because in Tiananmen Square the crackdown was ordered by the central government, the local police chief can't order in the 82nd Airborne Division. There's a big difference in both quantity and quality between a few neighborhood cops with military equipment and a large unit of professional soldiers with the same equipment.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Makes sense. Since this is mostly a pentagon program. Cant he sign an executive order eliminating the program??

You know it's a wonderful thing that he thought of this just now. I mean it's not like anyone else ever did

 

[Newell Steamer]

Criminal organizations are decapitating people. Terrorists are strapping on body armor and firing off heavy arms while charging into city hall with explosives. Bombs are being made out of house hold items. The bad guys aren't playing by any rules - but, do have a goal of causing as much damage and death as possible.

And, people expect the police to trot around in segways and glocks?

The police should have access to military grade gear - for their own protection, since they live longer to protect us - when faced with threat noted in the 1st paragraph. If it means they have to wear heavy armor from the get go,.. so be it.

I live in a city of millions of people. And, I rarely see the NYPD decked out in military gear. I am not sure how a few pictures, from extreme situations, suddenly mean police are bearing down on us all.

 

[Texashiker]

Because in Tiananmen Square the crackdown was ordered by the central government, the local police chief can't order in the 82nd Airborne Division. There's a big difference in both quantity and quality between a few neighborhood cops with military equipment and a large unit of professional soldiers with the same equipment.

None of that matters.

One of the founding principles of this nation was that the people can defend themselves from an overzealous government. That is why we have the 2nd.

Obama himself said weapons of war have no place on our streets. That goes for the police as well.

 

[Texashiker]

Criminal organizations are decapitating people. Terrorists are strapping on body armor and firing off heavy arms while charging into city hall with explosives.

This is happening where?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Criminal organizations are decapitating people. Terrorists are strapping on body armor and firing off heavy arms while charging into city hall with explosives.

Wait...that is happening in America? If not, then why is it in a discussion about AMERICAN police?

What would militarization of police matter in either circumstance? Are militarized cops hanging around decapitation locations in bearcats just in case there are highly armored decapitators to shoot and/or grenade? Are militarized cops on high alert at all 20,000 city halls across America waiting for the inevitable explosive terrorist? Could a militarized cop even react quickly enough to prevent the terrorist from doing his thing? Is this even a real concern? If not then you're just trying to fire off a bunch of scary sounding scenarios that might possibly someday happen but probably not, in order to scare people into thinking we need heavily militarized police. Sounds like cop logic to me.

 

[dank69]

None of that matters.

One of the founding principles of this nation was that the people can defend themselves from an overzealous government. That is why we have the 2nd.

Obama himself said weapons of war have no place on our streets. That goes for the police as well.

Exactly. He is a terrible dictator just like he is terrible at everything else.

 

[Newell Steamer]

This is happening where?

Criminal organizations are decapitating people - NSFW https://www.google.com/search?q=mex...l5.5468j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 NSFW

Terrorists are strapping on body armor and firing off heavy arms while charging into city hall with explosives - http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/justice/georgia-courthouse-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Bombs are being made out of house hold items - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings

 

[SlowSpyder]

Bull carp.

Did you see the recent looting? What does that have to do with drugs?

The key to stopping violent protest is putting people to work. If you have a job and responsibilities, chances are you are not going to be looting and rioting.

I don't think it is just the war on drugs, but that is indeed part of it in the big picture. Maybe not the situation in Ferguson, MO but definitely part of it. At this point the war on drugs is an excuse to seize property and keep people employed. It doesn't really accomplish anything it was supposed to, though.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Wait...that is happening in America? If not, then why is it in a discussion about AMERICAN police?

What would militarization of police matter in either circumstance? Are militarized cops hanging around decapitation locations in bearcats just in case there are highly armored decapitators to shoot and/or grenade? Are militarized cops on high alert at all 20,000 city halls across America waiting for the inevitable explosive terrorist? Could a militarized cop even react quickly enough to prevent the terrorist from doing his thing? Is this even a real concern? If not then you're just trying to fire off a bunch of scary sounding scenarios that might possibly someday happen but probably not, in order to scare people into thinking we need heavily militarized police. Sounds like cop logic to me.

Here you go,..

Criminal organizations are decapitating people - NSFW https://www.google.com/search?q=mexi...sm=93&ie=UTF-8 NSFW

Terrorists are strapping on body armor and firing off heavy arms while charging into city hall with explosives - http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

Bombs are being made out of house hold items - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings

And, I am not advocating anything you cooked up. I am all for being prepared and ready for when something terrible will happen,.. like in the above links.

 

[BoberFett]

Makes sense. Since this is mostly a pentagon program. Cant he sign an executive order eliminating the program??

I'm relatively confident the Commander-in-Chief can do something about what the military does with its old equipment.

This is not a new problem, Obama is only against it now because it's receiving negative press.

He was for it before he was against it.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm relatively confident the Commander-in-Chief can do something about what the military does with its old equipment.

This is not a new problem, Obama is only against it now because it's receiving negative press.

He was for it before he was against it.

He might be able to, he might not. (I genuinely don't know) It all depends on how the legislation is written. If the law says the Pentagon can distribute it if/when it sees fit then yes he's probably got a lot of authority. If there are specific appropriations/requirements of distributing unused equipment written into bills, maybe less so.

 

[dank69]

I'm relatively confident the Commander-in-Chief can do something about what the military does with its old equipment.

This is not a new problem, Obama is only against it now because it's receiving negative press.

He was for it before he was against it.

Putin wouldn't bow to popular opinion. Only a weakling would align his priorities with the people he represents. Maybe Obama could use some taxpayer money to pay for a private tutoring session with Putin to learn how to lead effectively.

 

[Knowing]

It wasn't a problem in Boston or for the last 6 years, why is it a problem now?

Fairweather friends, please tell me why this just became an issue for you.

 

[dank69]

It wasn't a problem in Boston or for the last 6 years, why is it a problem now?

Fairweather friends, please tell me why this just became an issue for you.

What happened in Boston six years ago?

 

[fskimospy]

It wasn't a problem in Boston or for the last 6 years, why is it a problem now?

Fairweather friends, please tell me why this just became an issue for you.

People have been against the militarization of the police for a very long time now. It's one of the primary complaints against the war on drugs.

 

[michal1980]

Criminal organizations are decapitating people. Terrorists are strapping on body armor and firing off heavy arms while charging into city hall with explosives. Bombs are being made out of house hold items. The bad guys aren't playing by any rules - but, do have a goal of causing as much damage and death as possible.

And, people expect the police to trot around in segways and glocks?

The police should have access to military grade gear - for their own protection, since they live longer to protect us - when faced with threat noted in the 1st paragraph. If it means they have to wear heavy armor from the get go,.. so be it.

I live in a city of millions of people. And, I rarely see the NYPD decked out in military gear. I am not sure how a few pictures, from extreme situations, suddenly mean police are bearing down on us all.

sounds like you suffer from what you claim conservatives do.